Breast Cancer ICYMI

The first official U.S. case of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) associated with COVID-19 has been reported by neurologists from Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh, further supporting a link between the virus and neurologic complications, including GBS.

Physicians in China reported the first case of COVID-19 that initially presented as acute GBS. The patient was a 61-year-old woman returning home from Wuhan during the pandemic.

Subsequently, physicians in Italy reported five cases of GBS in association with COVID-19.

The first U.S. case is described in the June issue of the Journal of Clinical Neuromuscular Disease.

Like cases from China and Italy, the U.S. patient’s symptoms of GBS reportedly occurred within days of being infected with SARS-CoV-2. “This onset is similar to a case report of acute Zika virus infection with concurrent GBS suggesting a parainfectious complication,” first author Sandeep Rana, MD, and colleagues noted.

The 54-year-old man was transferred to Allegheny General Hospital after developing ascending limb weakness and numbness that followed symptoms of a respiratory infection. Two weeks earlier, he initially developed rhinorrhea, odynophagia, fevers, chills, and night sweats. The man reported that his wife had tested positive for COVID-19 and that his symptoms started soon after her illness. The man also tested positive for COVID-19.

His deficits were characterized by quadriparesis and areflexia, burning dysesthesias, mild ophthalmoparesis, and dysautonomia. He did not have the loss of smell and taste documented in other COVID-19 patients. He briefly required mechanical ventilation and was successfully weaned after receiving a course of intravenous immunoglobulin.

Compared with other cases reported in the literature, the unique clinical features in the U.S. case are urinary retention secondary to dysautonomia and ocular symptoms of diplopia. These highlight the variability in the clinical presentation of GBS associated with COVID-19, the researchers noted.

They added that, with the Pittsburgh patient, electrophysiological findings were typical of demyelinating polyneuropathy seen in patients with GBS. The case series from Italy suggests that axonal variants could be as common in COVID-19–associated GBS.

“Although the number of documented cases internationally is notably small to date, it’s not completely surprising that a COVID-19 diagnosis may lead to a patient developing GBS. The increase of inflammation and inflammatory cells caused by the infection may trigger an irregular immune response that leads to the hallmark symptoms of this neurological disorder,” Dr. Rana said in a news release.

“Since GBS can significantly affect the respiratory system and other vital organs being pushed into overdrive during a COVID-19 immune response, it will be critically important to further investigate and understand this potential connection,” he added.

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

The first official U.S. case of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) associated with COVID-19 has been reported by neurologists from Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh, further supporting a link between the virus and neurologic complications, including GBS.

Physicians in China reported the first case of COVID-19 that initially presented as acute GBS. The patient was a 61-year-old woman returning home from Wuhan during the pandemic.

Subsequently, physicians in Italy reported five cases of GBS in association with COVID-19.

The first U.S. case is described in the June issue of the Journal of Clinical Neuromuscular Disease.

Like cases from China and Italy, the U.S. patient’s symptoms of GBS reportedly occurred within days of being infected with SARS-CoV-2. “This onset is similar to a case report of acute Zika virus infection with concurrent GBS suggesting a parainfectious complication,” first author Sandeep Rana, MD, and colleagues noted.

The 54-year-old man was transferred to Allegheny General Hospital after developing ascending limb weakness and numbness that followed symptoms of a respiratory infection. Two weeks earlier, he initially developed rhinorrhea, odynophagia, fevers, chills, and night sweats. The man reported that his wife had tested positive for COVID-19 and that his symptoms started soon after her illness. The man also tested positive for COVID-19.

His deficits were characterized by quadriparesis and areflexia, burning dysesthesias, mild ophthalmoparesis, and dysautonomia. He did not have the loss of smell and taste documented in other COVID-19 patients. He briefly required mechanical ventilation and was successfully weaned after receiving a course of intravenous immunoglobulin.

Compared with other cases reported in the literature, the unique clinical features in the U.S. case are urinary retention secondary to dysautonomia and ocular symptoms of diplopia. These highlight the variability in the clinical presentation of GBS associated with COVID-19, the researchers noted.

They added that, with the Pittsburgh patient, electrophysiological findings were typical of demyelinating polyneuropathy seen in patients with GBS. The case series from Italy suggests that axonal variants could be as common in COVID-19–associated GBS.

“Although the number of documented cases internationally is notably small to date, it’s not completely surprising that a COVID-19 diagnosis may lead to a patient developing GBS. The increase of inflammation and inflammatory cells caused by the infection may trigger an irregular immune response that leads to the hallmark symptoms of this neurological disorder,” Dr. Rana said in a news release.

“Since GBS can significantly affect the respiratory system and other vital organs being pushed into overdrive during a COVID-19 immune response, it will be critically important to further investigate and understand this potential connection,” he added.

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

The first official U.S. case of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) associated with COVID-19 has been reported by neurologists from Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh, further supporting a link between the virus and neurologic complications, including GBS.

Physicians in China reported the first case of COVID-19 that initially presented as acute GBS. The patient was a 61-year-old woman returning home from Wuhan during the pandemic.

Subsequently, physicians in Italy reported five cases of GBS in association with COVID-19.

The first U.S. case is described in the June issue of the Journal of Clinical Neuromuscular Disease.

Like cases from China and Italy, the U.S. patient’s symptoms of GBS reportedly occurred within days of being infected with SARS-CoV-2. “This onset is similar to a case report of acute Zika virus infection with concurrent GBS suggesting a parainfectious complication,” first author Sandeep Rana, MD, and colleagues noted.

The 54-year-old man was transferred to Allegheny General Hospital after developing ascending limb weakness and numbness that followed symptoms of a respiratory infection. Two weeks earlier, he initially developed rhinorrhea, odynophagia, fevers, chills, and night sweats. The man reported that his wife had tested positive for COVID-19 and that his symptoms started soon after her illness. The man also tested positive for COVID-19.

His deficits were characterized by quadriparesis and areflexia, burning dysesthesias, mild ophthalmoparesis, and dysautonomia. He did not have the loss of smell and taste documented in other COVID-19 patients. He briefly required mechanical ventilation and was successfully weaned after receiving a course of intravenous immunoglobulin.

Compared with other cases reported in the literature, the unique clinical features in the U.S. case are urinary retention secondary to dysautonomia and ocular symptoms of diplopia. These highlight the variability in the clinical presentation of GBS associated with COVID-19, the researchers noted.

They added that, with the Pittsburgh patient, electrophysiological findings were typical of demyelinating polyneuropathy seen in patients with GBS. The case series from Italy suggests that axonal variants could be as common in COVID-19–associated GBS.

“Although the number of documented cases internationally is notably small to date, it’s not completely surprising that a COVID-19 diagnosis may lead to a patient developing GBS. The increase of inflammation and inflammatory cells caused by the infection may trigger an irregular immune response that leads to the hallmark symptoms of this neurological disorder,” Dr. Rana said in a news release.

“Since GBS can significantly affect the respiratory system and other vital organs being pushed into overdrive during a COVID-19 immune response, it will be critically important to further investigate and understand this potential connection,” he added.

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

Combining four of five healthy lifestyle choices has been linked to up to a 60% reduced risk for Alzheimer’s dementia in new research that strengthens ties between healthy behaviors and lower dementia risk. “I hope this study will motivate people to engage in a healthy lifestyle by not smoking, being physically and cognitively active, and having a high-quality diet,” lead investigator Klodian Dhana, MD, PhD, department of internal medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

The study was published online June 17 in Neurology.
 

Risk-modifying behaviors

To help quantify the impact of a healthy life on risk for Alzheimer’s dementia, Dr. Dhana and colleagues reviewed data from two longitudinal study populations: the Chicago Health and Aging Project (CHAP), with 1,845 participants, and the Memory and Aging Project (MAP), with 920 participants.

They defined a healthy lifestyle score on the basis of the following factors: not smoking; engaging in 150 min/wk or more of physical exercise of moderate to vigorous intensity; light to moderate alcohol consumption (between 1 and less than 15 g/day for women and between 1 and less than 30 g/day for men); consuming a high-quality Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet (upper 40%); and engaging in late-life cognitive activities (upper 40%). The overall score ranged from 0 to 5.

At baseline, the mean age of participants was 73.2 years in the CHAP study and 81.1 years in the MAP study; 62.4% of the CHAP participants and 75.2% of the MAP participants were women.

During a median follow-up of 5.8 years in CHAP and 6.0 years in MAP, a total of 379 and 229 participants, respectively, developed Alzheimer’s dementia. Rates of dementia decreased with an increasing number of healthy lifestyle behaviors.

In multivariable-adjusted models across the two cohorts, the risk for Alzheimer’s dementia was 27% lower with each additional healthy lifestyle factor (pooled hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.80).

Compared with individuals with a healthy lifestyle score of 0-1, the risk was 37% lower (pooled HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.84) for those with two or three healthy lifestyle factors and 60% lower (pooled HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.56) for those with four or five healthy lifestyle factors.

“From these findings and the fact that the lifestyle factors we studied are modifiable and in direct control of the individual, it is imperative to promote them concurrently among older adults as a strategy to delay or prevent Alzheimer’s dementia,” Dr. Dhana and colleagues concluded.

In a statement, Dallas Anderson, PhD, program director, division of neuroscience, National Institute on Aging, said the findings help “paint the picture of how multiple factors are likely playing parts in Alzheimer’s disease risk.”

“It’s not a clear cause-and-effect result, but a strong finding because of the dual data sets and combination of modifiable lifestyle factors that appear to lead to risk reduction,” Dr. Anderson added.

Essential questions remain

Commenting on the new study, Luca Giliberto, MD, PhD, neurologist with the Litwin-Zucker Research Center for Alzheimer’s Disease and Memory Disorders at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y., said this analysis is “further demonstration that a healthy lifestyle is essential to overcome or curb” the risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

“What needs to be determined is how early should we start ‘behaving.’ We should all aim to score four to five factors across our entire lifespan, but this is not always feasible. So, when is the time to behave? Also, what is the relative weight of each of these factors?” said Dr. Giliberto.

Of note, he added, although addressing vascular risk factors such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes “may require an extensive mindful and logistic effort, a healthy diet is effortlessly achieved in some countries, where both the DASH and MIND diets do not need to be ‘prescribed’ but are rather culturally engraved in the population.

“This is, in part, related to the wide availability of high-quality food in these countries, which is not the same in the U.S. This work is one more demonstration of the need to revisit our take on quality of food in the U.S.,” said Dr. Giliberto.

Numerous clinical trials testing lifestyle interventions for dementia prevention are currently underway. The MIND Diet Intervention to Prevent Alzheimer’s Disease, for example, is an interventional clinical trial comparing parallel groups with two different diets. MIND has enrolled more than 600 participants and is ongoing. The anticipated completion date is 2021. Another is the U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk (U.S. POINTER), a multisite randomized clinical trial evaluating whether lifestyle interventions – including exercise, cognitively stimulating activities, and the MIND diet – may protect cognitive function in older adults who are at increased risk for cognitive decline.

Funding for the current study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Dhana and Dr. Giliberto have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Combining four of five healthy lifestyle choices has been linked to up to a 60% reduced risk for Alzheimer’s dementia in new research that strengthens ties between healthy behaviors and lower dementia risk. “I hope this study will motivate people to engage in a healthy lifestyle by not smoking, being physically and cognitively active, and having a high-quality diet,” lead investigator Klodian Dhana, MD, PhD, department of internal medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

The study was published online June 17 in Neurology.
 

Risk-modifying behaviors

To help quantify the impact of a healthy life on risk for Alzheimer’s dementia, Dr. Dhana and colleagues reviewed data from two longitudinal study populations: the Chicago Health and Aging Project (CHAP), with 1,845 participants, and the Memory and Aging Project (MAP), with 920 participants.

They defined a healthy lifestyle score on the basis of the following factors: not smoking; engaging in 150 min/wk or more of physical exercise of moderate to vigorous intensity; light to moderate alcohol consumption (between 1 and less than 15 g/day for women and between 1 and less than 30 g/day for men); consuming a high-quality Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet (upper 40%); and engaging in late-life cognitive activities (upper 40%). The overall score ranged from 0 to 5.

At baseline, the mean age of participants was 73.2 years in the CHAP study and 81.1 years in the MAP study; 62.4% of the CHAP participants and 75.2% of the MAP participants were women.

During a median follow-up of 5.8 years in CHAP and 6.0 years in MAP, a total of 379 and 229 participants, respectively, developed Alzheimer’s dementia. Rates of dementia decreased with an increasing number of healthy lifestyle behaviors.

In multivariable-adjusted models across the two cohorts, the risk for Alzheimer’s dementia was 27% lower with each additional healthy lifestyle factor (pooled hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.80).

Compared with individuals with a healthy lifestyle score of 0-1, the risk was 37% lower (pooled HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.84) for those with two or three healthy lifestyle factors and 60% lower (pooled HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.56) for those with four or five healthy lifestyle factors.

“From these findings and the fact that the lifestyle factors we studied are modifiable and in direct control of the individual, it is imperative to promote them concurrently among older adults as a strategy to delay or prevent Alzheimer’s dementia,” Dr. Dhana and colleagues concluded.

In a statement, Dallas Anderson, PhD, program director, division of neuroscience, National Institute on Aging, said the findings help “paint the picture of how multiple factors are likely playing parts in Alzheimer’s disease risk.”

“It’s not a clear cause-and-effect result, but a strong finding because of the dual data sets and combination of modifiable lifestyle factors that appear to lead to risk reduction,” Dr. Anderson added.

Essential questions remain

Commenting on the new study, Luca Giliberto, MD, PhD, neurologist with the Litwin-Zucker Research Center for Alzheimer’s Disease and Memory Disorders at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y., said this analysis is “further demonstration that a healthy lifestyle is essential to overcome or curb” the risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

“What needs to be determined is how early should we start ‘behaving.’ We should all aim to score four to five factors across our entire lifespan, but this is not always feasible. So, when is the time to behave? Also, what is the relative weight of each of these factors?” said Dr. Giliberto.

Of note, he added, although addressing vascular risk factors such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes “may require an extensive mindful and logistic effort, a healthy diet is effortlessly achieved in some countries, where both the DASH and MIND diets do not need to be ‘prescribed’ but are rather culturally engraved in the population.

“This is, in part, related to the wide availability of high-quality food in these countries, which is not the same in the U.S. This work is one more demonstration of the need to revisit our take on quality of food in the U.S.,” said Dr. Giliberto.

Numerous clinical trials testing lifestyle interventions for dementia prevention are currently underway. The MIND Diet Intervention to Prevent Alzheimer’s Disease, for example, is an interventional clinical trial comparing parallel groups with two different diets. MIND has enrolled more than 600 participants and is ongoing. The anticipated completion date is 2021. Another is the U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk (U.S. POINTER), a multisite randomized clinical trial evaluating whether lifestyle interventions – including exercise, cognitively stimulating activities, and the MIND diet – may protect cognitive function in older adults who are at increased risk for cognitive decline.

Funding for the current study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Dhana and Dr. Giliberto have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Combining four of five healthy lifestyle choices has been linked to up to a 60% reduced risk for Alzheimer’s dementia in new research that strengthens ties between healthy behaviors and lower dementia risk. “I hope this study will motivate people to engage in a healthy lifestyle by not smoking, being physically and cognitively active, and having a high-quality diet,” lead investigator Klodian Dhana, MD, PhD, department of internal medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

The study was published online June 17 in Neurology.
 

Risk-modifying behaviors

To help quantify the impact of a healthy life on risk for Alzheimer’s dementia, Dr. Dhana and colleagues reviewed data from two longitudinal study populations: the Chicago Health and Aging Project (CHAP), with 1,845 participants, and the Memory and Aging Project (MAP), with 920 participants.

They defined a healthy lifestyle score on the basis of the following factors: not smoking; engaging in 150 min/wk or more of physical exercise of moderate to vigorous intensity; light to moderate alcohol consumption (between 1 and less than 15 g/day for women and between 1 and less than 30 g/day for men); consuming a high-quality Mediterranean-DASH Diet Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet (upper 40%); and engaging in late-life cognitive activities (upper 40%). The overall score ranged from 0 to 5.

At baseline, the mean age of participants was 73.2 years in the CHAP study and 81.1 years in the MAP study; 62.4% of the CHAP participants and 75.2% of the MAP participants were women.

During a median follow-up of 5.8 years in CHAP and 6.0 years in MAP, a total of 379 and 229 participants, respectively, developed Alzheimer’s dementia. Rates of dementia decreased with an increasing number of healthy lifestyle behaviors.

In multivariable-adjusted models across the two cohorts, the risk for Alzheimer’s dementia was 27% lower with each additional healthy lifestyle factor (pooled hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.80).

Compared with individuals with a healthy lifestyle score of 0-1, the risk was 37% lower (pooled HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.84) for those with two or three healthy lifestyle factors and 60% lower (pooled HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.56) for those with four or five healthy lifestyle factors.

“From these findings and the fact that the lifestyle factors we studied are modifiable and in direct control of the individual, it is imperative to promote them concurrently among older adults as a strategy to delay or prevent Alzheimer’s dementia,” Dr. Dhana and colleagues concluded.

In a statement, Dallas Anderson, PhD, program director, division of neuroscience, National Institute on Aging, said the findings help “paint the picture of how multiple factors are likely playing parts in Alzheimer’s disease risk.”

“It’s not a clear cause-and-effect result, but a strong finding because of the dual data sets and combination of modifiable lifestyle factors that appear to lead to risk reduction,” Dr. Anderson added.

Essential questions remain

Commenting on the new study, Luca Giliberto, MD, PhD, neurologist with the Litwin-Zucker Research Center for Alzheimer’s Disease and Memory Disorders at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y., said this analysis is “further demonstration that a healthy lifestyle is essential to overcome or curb” the risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

“What needs to be determined is how early should we start ‘behaving.’ We should all aim to score four to five factors across our entire lifespan, but this is not always feasible. So, when is the time to behave? Also, what is the relative weight of each of these factors?” said Dr. Giliberto.

Of note, he added, although addressing vascular risk factors such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes “may require an extensive mindful and logistic effort, a healthy diet is effortlessly achieved in some countries, where both the DASH and MIND diets do not need to be ‘prescribed’ but are rather culturally engraved in the population.

“This is, in part, related to the wide availability of high-quality food in these countries, which is not the same in the U.S. This work is one more demonstration of the need to revisit our take on quality of food in the U.S.,” said Dr. Giliberto.

Numerous clinical trials testing lifestyle interventions for dementia prevention are currently underway. The MIND Diet Intervention to Prevent Alzheimer’s Disease, for example, is an interventional clinical trial comparing parallel groups with two different diets. MIND has enrolled more than 600 participants and is ongoing. The anticipated completion date is 2021. Another is the U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk (U.S. POINTER), a multisite randomized clinical trial evaluating whether lifestyle interventions – including exercise, cognitively stimulating activities, and the MIND diet – may protect cognitive function in older adults who are at increased risk for cognitive decline.

Funding for the current study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Dhana and Dr. Giliberto have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Abnormalities in circadian rhythm may represent an important feature in the very early stages of Parkinson’s disease before symptoms develop, a new study suggests. “We found that men with abnormal circadian rhythms had three times the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease over an 11-year follow-up period,” lead author, Yue Leng, MD, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

“If confirmed to be a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease, then circadian rhythmicity could be a promising intervention target and will open new opportunities for the prevention and management of Parkinson’s disease,” the researchers concluded.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology on June 15.

Circadian disruption is very common in neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, but there isn’t much information on how it may predict the disease, Dr. Leng explained. “We wanted to see whether circadian abnormalities may predict Parkinson’s disease,” she said. “Parkinson’s disease has a long prodromal phase where brain changes have started to occur but no clinical symptoms have become evident. It would be useful to be able to identify these patients, and maybe changes in circadian rhythms may help us to do that,” she added.

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from 2,930 community-dwelling men aged 65 years or older (mean age, 76 years) who participated in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study, in which they underwent comprehensive sleep and rest-activity rhythms assessment. “Patterns of rest and activity were measured with an actigraph device, which is worn on the wrist like a watch and captures movements which are translated into a rest-activity rhythm model – one of the most commonly used and evidence-based measures of circadian rhythm,” Dr. Leng said. Men were asked to wear the actigraphs continuously for a minimum of three 24-hour periods.

Results showed that 78 men (2.7%) developed Parkinson’s disease during the 11-year follow-up. After accounting for all covariates, the risk of Parkinson’s disease increased with decreasing circadian amplitude (strength of the rhythm) with an odds ratio of 1.77 per each decrease by one standard deviation; mesor (mean level of activity) with an odds ratio of 1.64; or robustness (how closely activity follows a 24-hour pattern) with an odds ratio of 1.54.

Those in the lowest quartile of amplitude, mesor, or robustness had approximately three times the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease compared with those in the highest quartile of amplitude. The association remained after further adjustment for nighttime sleep disturbances.

“It has previously been shown that daytime napping has been linked to risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. Now we have shown that abnormalities in the overall 24-hour circadian rest activity rhythm are also present in the prodromal phase of Parkinson’s disease, and this association was independent of several confounders, including nighttime sleep disturbances,” Dr. Leng said.

“This raises awareness of the importance of circadian rhythm in older individuals and changes in their 24-hour pattern of behavior could be an early signal of Parkinson’s disease,” she said.

“This study does not tell us whether these circadian changes are causal for Parkinson’s or not,” Dr. Leng noted.

Future studies are needed to explore underlying mechanisms and to determine whether circadian disruption itself might contribute to the development of Parkinson’s disease, the researchers said.

“If there is a causal link, then using techniques to improve circadian rhythm could help to prevent or slow the onset of Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Leng suggested. There are many established therapies that act on circadian rhythm including bright light therapy, melatonin, and chronotherapy, she added.

Support for this study was provided by the National Institute on Aging (NIA); the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the Weill Pilot Award. Dr. Leng reported grants from the NIA and the University of California, San Francisco, Weill Institute for Neurosciences during the conduct of the study; and grants from Global Brain Health Institute, the Alzheimer’s Association, and the Alzheimer’s Society outside the submitted work.

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

Abnormalities in circadian rhythm may represent an important feature in the very early stages of Parkinson’s disease before symptoms develop, a new study suggests. “We found that men with abnormal circadian rhythms had three times the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease over an 11-year follow-up period,” lead author, Yue Leng, MD, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

“If confirmed to be a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease, then circadian rhythmicity could be a promising intervention target and will open new opportunities for the prevention and management of Parkinson’s disease,” the researchers concluded.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology on June 15.

Circadian disruption is very common in neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, but there isn’t much information on how it may predict the disease, Dr. Leng explained. “We wanted to see whether circadian abnormalities may predict Parkinson’s disease,” she said. “Parkinson’s disease has a long prodromal phase where brain changes have started to occur but no clinical symptoms have become evident. It would be useful to be able to identify these patients, and maybe changes in circadian rhythms may help us to do that,” she added.

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from 2,930 community-dwelling men aged 65 years or older (mean age, 76 years) who participated in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study, in which they underwent comprehensive sleep and rest-activity rhythms assessment. “Patterns of rest and activity were measured with an actigraph device, which is worn on the wrist like a watch and captures movements which are translated into a rest-activity rhythm model – one of the most commonly used and evidence-based measures of circadian rhythm,” Dr. Leng said. Men were asked to wear the actigraphs continuously for a minimum of three 24-hour periods.

Results showed that 78 men (2.7%) developed Parkinson’s disease during the 11-year follow-up. After accounting for all covariates, the risk of Parkinson’s disease increased with decreasing circadian amplitude (strength of the rhythm) with an odds ratio of 1.77 per each decrease by one standard deviation; mesor (mean level of activity) with an odds ratio of 1.64; or robustness (how closely activity follows a 24-hour pattern) with an odds ratio of 1.54.

Those in the lowest quartile of amplitude, mesor, or robustness had approximately three times the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease compared with those in the highest quartile of amplitude. The association remained after further adjustment for nighttime sleep disturbances.

“It has previously been shown that daytime napping has been linked to risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. Now we have shown that abnormalities in the overall 24-hour circadian rest activity rhythm are also present in the prodromal phase of Parkinson’s disease, and this association was independent of several confounders, including nighttime sleep disturbances,” Dr. Leng said.

“This raises awareness of the importance of circadian rhythm in older individuals and changes in their 24-hour pattern of behavior could be an early signal of Parkinson’s disease,” she said.

“This study does not tell us whether these circadian changes are causal for Parkinson’s or not,” Dr. Leng noted.

Future studies are needed to explore underlying mechanisms and to determine whether circadian disruption itself might contribute to the development of Parkinson’s disease, the researchers said.

“If there is a causal link, then using techniques to improve circadian rhythm could help to prevent or slow the onset of Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Leng suggested. There are many established therapies that act on circadian rhythm including bright light therapy, melatonin, and chronotherapy, she added.

Support for this study was provided by the National Institute on Aging (NIA); the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the Weill Pilot Award. Dr. Leng reported grants from the NIA and the University of California, San Francisco, Weill Institute for Neurosciences during the conduct of the study; and grants from Global Brain Health Institute, the Alzheimer’s Association, and the Alzheimer’s Society outside the submitted work.

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

Abnormalities in circadian rhythm may represent an important feature in the very early stages of Parkinson’s disease before symptoms develop, a new study suggests. “We found that men with abnormal circadian rhythms had three times the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease over an 11-year follow-up period,” lead author, Yue Leng, MD, University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

“If confirmed to be a risk factor for Parkinson’s disease, then circadian rhythmicity could be a promising intervention target and will open new opportunities for the prevention and management of Parkinson’s disease,” the researchers concluded.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology on June 15.

Circadian disruption is very common in neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, but there isn’t much information on how it may predict the disease, Dr. Leng explained. “We wanted to see whether circadian abnormalities may predict Parkinson’s disease,” she said. “Parkinson’s disease has a long prodromal phase where brain changes have started to occur but no clinical symptoms have become evident. It would be useful to be able to identify these patients, and maybe changes in circadian rhythms may help us to do that,” she added.

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from 2,930 community-dwelling men aged 65 years or older (mean age, 76 years) who participated in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study, in which they underwent comprehensive sleep and rest-activity rhythms assessment. “Patterns of rest and activity were measured with an actigraph device, which is worn on the wrist like a watch and captures movements which are translated into a rest-activity rhythm model – one of the most commonly used and evidence-based measures of circadian rhythm,” Dr. Leng said. Men were asked to wear the actigraphs continuously for a minimum of three 24-hour periods.

Results showed that 78 men (2.7%) developed Parkinson’s disease during the 11-year follow-up. After accounting for all covariates, the risk of Parkinson’s disease increased with decreasing circadian amplitude (strength of the rhythm) with an odds ratio of 1.77 per each decrease by one standard deviation; mesor (mean level of activity) with an odds ratio of 1.64; or robustness (how closely activity follows a 24-hour pattern) with an odds ratio of 1.54.

Those in the lowest quartile of amplitude, mesor, or robustness had approximately three times the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease compared with those in the highest quartile of amplitude. The association remained after further adjustment for nighttime sleep disturbances.

“It has previously been shown that daytime napping has been linked to risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. Now we have shown that abnormalities in the overall 24-hour circadian rest activity rhythm are also present in the prodromal phase of Parkinson’s disease, and this association was independent of several confounders, including nighttime sleep disturbances,” Dr. Leng said.

“This raises awareness of the importance of circadian rhythm in older individuals and changes in their 24-hour pattern of behavior could be an early signal of Parkinson’s disease,” she said.

“This study does not tell us whether these circadian changes are causal for Parkinson’s or not,” Dr. Leng noted.

Future studies are needed to explore underlying mechanisms and to determine whether circadian disruption itself might contribute to the development of Parkinson’s disease, the researchers said.

“If there is a causal link, then using techniques to improve circadian rhythm could help to prevent or slow the onset of Parkinson’s disease,” Dr. Leng suggested. There are many established therapies that act on circadian rhythm including bright light therapy, melatonin, and chronotherapy, she added.

Support for this study was provided by the National Institute on Aging (NIA); the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the Weill Pilot Award. Dr. Leng reported grants from the NIA and the University of California, San Francisco, Weill Institute for Neurosciences during the conduct of the study; and grants from Global Brain Health Institute, the Alzheimer’s Association, and the Alzheimer’s Society outside the submitted work.

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

Key findings in metastatic breast cancer, presented at the ASCO 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting, ranged across all tumor subtypes.

Arguably, the top news in breast cancer was a plenary presentation addressing the role of locoregional therapy in advanced disease. Dr. Harold Burstein, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, comments that this study indicates systemic therapy as the mainstay treatment for woman with newly diagnosed advanced disease and a tumor in the breast.

In triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Burstein highlights two studies. The KEYNOTE-355 study validates the addition of a checkpoint inhibitor in first-line therapy in women whose tumors are PD-L1 positive. The intriguing results of the SWOG S1416 trial, Dr. Burstein comments, suggest the use of PARP inhibition may extend beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancers.

In HER2-positive breast cancer, an update of the HER2CLIMB study indicates that the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine continues to benefit women with HER2-positive disease. Dr. Burstein expects this combination will be a new standard of care, particularly in women with brain metastases.

As for ER-positive breast cancer, Dr. Burstein reviews the BYLieve trial. Results of this study suggest alpelisib has activity in women with a PIK3CA mutation who have already received a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Harold J. Burstein, Md, PhD

Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Key findings in metastatic breast cancer, presented at the ASCO 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting, ranged across all tumor subtypes.

Arguably, the top news in breast cancer was a plenary presentation addressing the role of locoregional therapy in advanced disease. Dr. Harold Burstein, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, comments that this study indicates systemic therapy as the mainstay treatment for woman with newly diagnosed advanced disease and a tumor in the breast.

In triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Burstein highlights two studies. The KEYNOTE-355 study validates the addition of a checkpoint inhibitor in first-line therapy in women whose tumors are PD-L1 positive. The intriguing results of the SWOG S1416 trial, Dr. Burstein comments, suggest the use of PARP inhibition may extend beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancers.

In HER2-positive breast cancer, an update of the HER2CLIMB study indicates that the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine continues to benefit women with HER2-positive disease. Dr. Burstein expects this combination will be a new standard of care, particularly in women with brain metastases.

As for ER-positive breast cancer, Dr. Burstein reviews the BYLieve trial. Results of this study suggest alpelisib has activity in women with a PIK3CA mutation who have already received a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Harold J. Burstein, Md, PhD

Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Key findings in metastatic breast cancer, presented at the ASCO 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting, ranged across all tumor subtypes.

Arguably, the top news in breast cancer was a plenary presentation addressing the role of locoregional therapy in advanced disease. Dr. Harold Burstein, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, comments that this study indicates systemic therapy as the mainstay treatment for woman with newly diagnosed advanced disease and a tumor in the breast.

In triple-negative breast cancer, Dr. Burstein highlights two studies. The KEYNOTE-355 study validates the addition of a checkpoint inhibitor in first-line therapy in women whose tumors are PD-L1 positive. The intriguing results of the SWOG S1416 trial, Dr. Burstein comments, suggest the use of PARP inhibition may extend beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancers.

In HER2-positive breast cancer, an update of the HER2CLIMB study indicates that the combination of tucatinib, trastuzumab, and capecitabine continues to benefit women with HER2-positive disease. Dr. Burstein expects this combination will be a new standard of care, particularly in women with brain metastases.

As for ER-positive breast cancer, Dr. Burstein reviews the BYLieve trial. Results of this study suggest alpelisib has activity in women with a PIK3CA mutation who have already received a CDK4/6 inhibitor.

Harold J. Burstein, Md, PhD

Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Institute Physician, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Specialty care from a cardiologist may confer clinical benefits for women with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with trastuzumab, a new study suggests.

Over 48 months of follow-up, results showed cardiology involvement prior to starting trastuzumab was associated with a higher rate of guideline-recommended cardiovascular (CV) monitoring and better systolic blood pressure (BP) control.

Trastuzumab is commonly used to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, which accounts for 20% of all breast cancers. But it carries a boxed warning for decreased left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure (HF), and interval monitoring with echocardiography is recommended for all patients receiving the monoclonal antibody.

For the study, investigators analyzed electronic health records from 1,047 patients (mean age, 54 years) who received trastuzumab between January 2009 and July 2018 in the University of Pennsylvania health system, Philadelphia. Anthracyclines were used as part of treatment in 15% of patients.

Guideline-adherent cardiovascular monitoring was defined as echocardiography assessment in the 4 months before the initiation of trastuzumab and at least every 4 months during therapy.

Overall, 28% of patients visited a cardiology or cardio-oncology provider beginning 3 months before the baseline visit until the last contact date, the authors reported in JACC: CardioOncology.

Pre-existing HF, atrial fibrillation, and anthracycline treatment were independently associated with a cardiology visit either at baseline or during follow-up.

Patients who interacted with cardiologists, compared with those who did not, had more guideline-adherent cardiac monitoring (76.4% vs 60.1%; P = .007) and cardiac biomarker testing with troponin or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (27.8% vs 13.8%; P = .001).

The use of guideline-adherent cardiac monitoring was 36% to 46% in previous studies of patients with breast cancer treated with adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy, the authors note.

Among the 5,815 echocardiographic procedures for which data on provider specialty were documented, most of the orders were authorized by oncologists (approximately 84% in those with no cardiology involvement and approximately 79% in those with cardiology involvement before trastuzumab initiation).
 

CV risk parameters

Cardiology involvement was associated with an average 1.5 mm Hg lower systolic BP, independent of baseline systolic BP and antihypertensive medication use (95% confidence interval, –2.9 to –0.1; P = .035).

The effect size was greater in patients with baseline hypertension, who had an average 2.7 mm Hg drop in systolic BP (95% CI, –4.6 to –0.7; P = .007) and were more likely to attain a target systolic BP below 140 mm Hg (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.74; P = .016).

Body mass index (BMI) did not budge significantly in the overall population when cardiologists were involved, but it dropped 0.5 kg/m2 in women who were overweight or obese at baseline.

“I think the results are encouraging,” senior author Bonnie Ky, MD, MSCE, University of Pennsylvania, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “These are modest changes but they are significant.”

These types of changes have been associated with significant reductions in cardiovascular disease risk over time in larger clinical trials, she noted. For example, a 2 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP has been linked to a 10% reduction in stroke mortality and a 7% reduction in ischemic heart disease mortality in middle-aged adults.

“We do think they are important and speak to more aggressive risk factor modification under the care of a specialist,” said Ky, who is also editor-in-chief of JACC: CardioOncology.

This broader role for cardiologists is particularly important given the burden of pre-existing CVD and CVD risk factors in patients with cancer and survivors. In the study, the baseline prevalence of hypertension was 40.6%, dyslipidemia 23.1%, HF 3.2%, atrial fibrillation 1.7%, and diabetes 5.9%.

“Ideally, collaboration between cardiology and oncology can improve the ability to cure a patient’s cancer while minimizing the risk of adverse cardiovascular occurrences,” Erica L. Mayer, MD, MPH, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “Optimization of all cardiovascular parameters, including blood pressure, lipids, and weight, may allow a patient to protect her heart health while becoming a healthy cancer survivor.”

When asked about the 28% cardiology involvement at a U.S. cancer center with one of the most well-developed cardio-oncology programs, she said “the linkage with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions, as well as the likelihood of low incidence of cardiovascular disease, in the study population may have led to what appears to be a lower percentage of patients interacting with cardiology at baseline.”

In an accompanying editorial, Mayer says a case can be made from the findings that patients with pre-existing CV disease or at high risk for adverse CV events with cancer therapy should receive multidisciplinary care that involves a cardiologist. “However, for young, otherwise healthy patients with breast cancer with few or no cardiovascular risk factors, the benefits of [additional] subspecialty care may be less clear.”

Further, the rationale supporting the recommended frequency of cardiac monitoring may not be as “compelling” in this group, given the very low incidence of baseline cardiac dysfunction or cardiac events, particularly when treated with nonanthracycline regimens, she writes.

The findings are a call for further study and more personalized medicine, agreed Ky.

“I think there’s a need absolutely for established guidelines and/or expert consensus statements about who should be referred so patients can be referred more systematically,” she said. “Referral to cardiologists, however, is certainly a function of risk factors. Part of the challenge is identifying who will derive the most benefit from cardiovascular care.

“There are some obvious cases: Patients with heart failure and patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease should be under the regular care of a cardiologist,” Ky added. “But there’s certainly a gray zone, especially as it relates, for example, to patients with hypertension and cardiovascular risk factors. It’s not a ‘one size fits all,’ and I believe it is a matter of defining who is at increased CV risk and who would derive the greatest clinical benefit.”

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have developed a clinical risk–prediction algorithm and are investigating both clinical- and biomarker-guided strategies to identify and treat patients at greatest risk of developing left ventricular declines and cardiac dysfunction with exposure to cancer therapies. “These studies are one step forward, but they will all need to be externally validated,” Ky said.

Ky and Mayer reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Specialty care from a cardiologist may confer clinical benefits for women with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with trastuzumab, a new study suggests.

Over 48 months of follow-up, results showed cardiology involvement prior to starting trastuzumab was associated with a higher rate of guideline-recommended cardiovascular (CV) monitoring and better systolic blood pressure (BP) control.

Trastuzumab is commonly used to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, which accounts for 20% of all breast cancers. But it carries a boxed warning for decreased left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure (HF), and interval monitoring with echocardiography is recommended for all patients receiving the monoclonal antibody.

For the study, investigators analyzed electronic health records from 1,047 patients (mean age, 54 years) who received trastuzumab between January 2009 and July 2018 in the University of Pennsylvania health system, Philadelphia. Anthracyclines were used as part of treatment in 15% of patients.

Guideline-adherent cardiovascular monitoring was defined as echocardiography assessment in the 4 months before the initiation of trastuzumab and at least every 4 months during therapy.

Overall, 28% of patients visited a cardiology or cardio-oncology provider beginning 3 months before the baseline visit until the last contact date, the authors reported in JACC: CardioOncology.

Pre-existing HF, atrial fibrillation, and anthracycline treatment were independently associated with a cardiology visit either at baseline or during follow-up.

Patients who interacted with cardiologists, compared with those who did not, had more guideline-adherent cardiac monitoring (76.4% vs 60.1%; P = .007) and cardiac biomarker testing with troponin or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (27.8% vs 13.8%; P = .001).

The use of guideline-adherent cardiac monitoring was 36% to 46% in previous studies of patients with breast cancer treated with adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy, the authors note.

Among the 5,815 echocardiographic procedures for which data on provider specialty were documented, most of the orders were authorized by oncologists (approximately 84% in those with no cardiology involvement and approximately 79% in those with cardiology involvement before trastuzumab initiation).
 

CV risk parameters

Cardiology involvement was associated with an average 1.5 mm Hg lower systolic BP, independent of baseline systolic BP and antihypertensive medication use (95% confidence interval, –2.9 to –0.1; P = .035).

The effect size was greater in patients with baseline hypertension, who had an average 2.7 mm Hg drop in systolic BP (95% CI, –4.6 to –0.7; P = .007) and were more likely to attain a target systolic BP below 140 mm Hg (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.74; P = .016).

Body mass index (BMI) did not budge significantly in the overall population when cardiologists were involved, but it dropped 0.5 kg/m2 in women who were overweight or obese at baseline.

“I think the results are encouraging,” senior author Bonnie Ky, MD, MSCE, University of Pennsylvania, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “These are modest changes but they are significant.”

These types of changes have been associated with significant reductions in cardiovascular disease risk over time in larger clinical trials, she noted. For example, a 2 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP has been linked to a 10% reduction in stroke mortality and a 7% reduction in ischemic heart disease mortality in middle-aged adults.

“We do think they are important and speak to more aggressive risk factor modification under the care of a specialist,” said Ky, who is also editor-in-chief of JACC: CardioOncology.

This broader role for cardiologists is particularly important given the burden of pre-existing CVD and CVD risk factors in patients with cancer and survivors. In the study, the baseline prevalence of hypertension was 40.6%, dyslipidemia 23.1%, HF 3.2%, atrial fibrillation 1.7%, and diabetes 5.9%.

“Ideally, collaboration between cardiology and oncology can improve the ability to cure a patient’s cancer while minimizing the risk of adverse cardiovascular occurrences,” Erica L. Mayer, MD, MPH, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “Optimization of all cardiovascular parameters, including blood pressure, lipids, and weight, may allow a patient to protect her heart health while becoming a healthy cancer survivor.”

When asked about the 28% cardiology involvement at a U.S. cancer center with one of the most well-developed cardio-oncology programs, she said “the linkage with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions, as well as the likelihood of low incidence of cardiovascular disease, in the study population may have led to what appears to be a lower percentage of patients interacting with cardiology at baseline.”

In an accompanying editorial, Mayer says a case can be made from the findings that patients with pre-existing CV disease or at high risk for adverse CV events with cancer therapy should receive multidisciplinary care that involves a cardiologist. “However, for young, otherwise healthy patients with breast cancer with few or no cardiovascular risk factors, the benefits of [additional] subspecialty care may be less clear.”

Further, the rationale supporting the recommended frequency of cardiac monitoring may not be as “compelling” in this group, given the very low incidence of baseline cardiac dysfunction or cardiac events, particularly when treated with nonanthracycline regimens, she writes.

The findings are a call for further study and more personalized medicine, agreed Ky.

“I think there’s a need absolutely for established guidelines and/or expert consensus statements about who should be referred so patients can be referred more systematically,” she said. “Referral to cardiologists, however, is certainly a function of risk factors. Part of the challenge is identifying who will derive the most benefit from cardiovascular care.

“There are some obvious cases: Patients with heart failure and patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease should be under the regular care of a cardiologist,” Ky added. “But there’s certainly a gray zone, especially as it relates, for example, to patients with hypertension and cardiovascular risk factors. It’s not a ‘one size fits all,’ and I believe it is a matter of defining who is at increased CV risk and who would derive the greatest clinical benefit.”

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have developed a clinical risk–prediction algorithm and are investigating both clinical- and biomarker-guided strategies to identify and treat patients at greatest risk of developing left ventricular declines and cardiac dysfunction with exposure to cancer therapies. “These studies are one step forward, but they will all need to be externally validated,” Ky said.

Ky and Mayer reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Specialty care from a cardiologist may confer clinical benefits for women with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with trastuzumab, a new study suggests.

Over 48 months of follow-up, results showed cardiology involvement prior to starting trastuzumab was associated with a higher rate of guideline-recommended cardiovascular (CV) monitoring and better systolic blood pressure (BP) control.

Trastuzumab is commonly used to treat HER2-positive breast cancer, which accounts for 20% of all breast cancers. But it carries a boxed warning for decreased left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure (HF), and interval monitoring with echocardiography is recommended for all patients receiving the monoclonal antibody.

For the study, investigators analyzed electronic health records from 1,047 patients (mean age, 54 years) who received trastuzumab between January 2009 and July 2018 in the University of Pennsylvania health system, Philadelphia. Anthracyclines were used as part of treatment in 15% of patients.

Guideline-adherent cardiovascular monitoring was defined as echocardiography assessment in the 4 months before the initiation of trastuzumab and at least every 4 months during therapy.

Overall, 28% of patients visited a cardiology or cardio-oncology provider beginning 3 months before the baseline visit until the last contact date, the authors reported in JACC: CardioOncology.

Pre-existing HF, atrial fibrillation, and anthracycline treatment were independently associated with a cardiology visit either at baseline or during follow-up.

Patients who interacted with cardiologists, compared with those who did not, had more guideline-adherent cardiac monitoring (76.4% vs 60.1%; P = .007) and cardiac biomarker testing with troponin or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (27.8% vs 13.8%; P = .001).

The use of guideline-adherent cardiac monitoring was 36% to 46% in previous studies of patients with breast cancer treated with adjuvant trastuzumab-based therapy, the authors note.

Among the 5,815 echocardiographic procedures for which data on provider specialty were documented, most of the orders were authorized by oncologists (approximately 84% in those with no cardiology involvement and approximately 79% in those with cardiology involvement before trastuzumab initiation).
 

CV risk parameters

Cardiology involvement was associated with an average 1.5 mm Hg lower systolic BP, independent of baseline systolic BP and antihypertensive medication use (95% confidence interval, –2.9 to –0.1; P = .035).

The effect size was greater in patients with baseline hypertension, who had an average 2.7 mm Hg drop in systolic BP (95% CI, –4.6 to –0.7; P = .007) and were more likely to attain a target systolic BP below 140 mm Hg (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.74; P = .016).

Body mass index (BMI) did not budge significantly in the overall population when cardiologists were involved, but it dropped 0.5 kg/m2 in women who were overweight or obese at baseline.

“I think the results are encouraging,” senior author Bonnie Ky, MD, MSCE, University of Pennsylvania, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “These are modest changes but they are significant.”

These types of changes have been associated with significant reductions in cardiovascular disease risk over time in larger clinical trials, she noted. For example, a 2 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP has been linked to a 10% reduction in stroke mortality and a 7% reduction in ischemic heart disease mortality in middle-aged adults.

“We do think they are important and speak to more aggressive risk factor modification under the care of a specialist,” said Ky, who is also editor-in-chief of JACC: CardioOncology.

This broader role for cardiologists is particularly important given the burden of pre-existing CVD and CVD risk factors in patients with cancer and survivors. In the study, the baseline prevalence of hypertension was 40.6%, dyslipidemia 23.1%, HF 3.2%, atrial fibrillation 1.7%, and diabetes 5.9%.

“Ideally, collaboration between cardiology and oncology can improve the ability to cure a patient’s cancer while minimizing the risk of adverse cardiovascular occurrences,” Erica L. Mayer, MD, MPH, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology. “Optimization of all cardiovascular parameters, including blood pressure, lipids, and weight, may allow a patient to protect her heart health while becoming a healthy cancer survivor.”

When asked about the 28% cardiology involvement at a U.S. cancer center with one of the most well-developed cardio-oncology programs, she said “the linkage with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions, as well as the likelihood of low incidence of cardiovascular disease, in the study population may have led to what appears to be a lower percentage of patients interacting with cardiology at baseline.”

In an accompanying editorial, Mayer says a case can be made from the findings that patients with pre-existing CV disease or at high risk for adverse CV events with cancer therapy should receive multidisciplinary care that involves a cardiologist. “However, for young, otherwise healthy patients with breast cancer with few or no cardiovascular risk factors, the benefits of [additional] subspecialty care may be less clear.”

Further, the rationale supporting the recommended frequency of cardiac monitoring may not be as “compelling” in this group, given the very low incidence of baseline cardiac dysfunction or cardiac events, particularly when treated with nonanthracycline regimens, she writes.

The findings are a call for further study and more personalized medicine, agreed Ky.

“I think there’s a need absolutely for established guidelines and/or expert consensus statements about who should be referred so patients can be referred more systematically,” she said. “Referral to cardiologists, however, is certainly a function of risk factors. Part of the challenge is identifying who will derive the most benefit from cardiovascular care.

“There are some obvious cases: Patients with heart failure and patients with pre-existing cardiovascular disease should be under the regular care of a cardiologist,” Ky added. “But there’s certainly a gray zone, especially as it relates, for example, to patients with hypertension and cardiovascular risk factors. It’s not a ‘one size fits all,’ and I believe it is a matter of defining who is at increased CV risk and who would derive the greatest clinical benefit.”

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have developed a clinical risk–prediction algorithm and are investigating both clinical- and biomarker-guided strategies to identify and treat patients at greatest risk of developing left ventricular declines and cardiac dysfunction with exposure to cancer therapies. “These studies are one step forward, but they will all need to be externally validated,” Ky said.

Ky and Mayer reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most disability accumulation in relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) is not associated with overt relapses, challenging the current clinical distinction of relapsing and progressive forms of the disease, a new analysis shows. “We have to abandon the distinction between relapsing and progressive MS being different populations,” said lead author Ludwig Kappos, MD, University of Basel (Switzerland). “The disease appears to be more of a continuum of disability progression, which is sometimes also accompanied by relapses.”

The analysis was published online June 8 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Assessing disability progression

Noting that there are mounting data to suggest patients with relapsing MS frequently experience worsening disability over time – even when relapse activity appears well controlled – the researchers aimed to investigate the relative contributions of progression independent of relapse activity and relapse-associated worsening to overall accumulating disability in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. To do this, they analyzed data from two identical randomized clinical trials (OPERA I and OPERA II) conducted between 2011 and 2015, which compared treatment with the new B-cell–depleting therapy ocrelizumab with interferon beta-1a in 1,656 patients with relapsing MS.

Confirmed disability accumulation was defined by an increase in 1 or more of 3 measures (Expanded Disability Status Scale, timed 25-ft walk, or 9-hole peg test), confirmed after 3 or 6 months, and was classified as being related to a clinical relapse or occurring in the absence of a relapse.

Results showed that after 96 weeks (1.8 years) of treatment, 12-week composite confirmed disability accumulation had occurred in 29.6% of patients receiving interferon beta-1a and 21.1% of those given ocrelizumab; 24-week composite confirmed disability accumulation occurred in 22.7% of interferon beta-1a patients and 16.2% of the ocrelizumab group.

In both treatment groups, the vast majority of events contributing to disability accumulation occurred independently of relapse activity. In the interferon group, 78% of events contributing to 12-week confirmed disability accumulation and 80.6% of events contributing to 24-week confirmed disability accumulation occurred in the absence of clinical relapses, with the corresponding figures in the ocrelizumab group being 88.0% (12 weeks) and 89.1% (24 weeks).

Only a minority of patients (about 17% in both groups) had confirmed disability accumulation accompanied by clinical relapses. Very few patients with confirmed disability accumulation (4% to 5%) experienced disability worsening both associated and independent of relapses. Ocrelizumab was associated with a reduced risk of both relapse-associated and relapse-independent confirmed disability accumulation, compared with interferon beta-1a.

“We found that there was progression of disability in both groups, and the really astonishing finding was that although all patients were classified as having relapsing remitting MS, actually most of the disability progression occurred without preceding relapses,” Dr. Kappos commented. He noted that there have been two previous observational studies that have shown a high rate of disability progressions without temporal association to relapses in relapsing remitting patients, but this is the first time that this progression of disability independent of relapses has been shown in the controlled setting of two prospective, randomized clinical trials over a 2-year period.

“While we expected to see some disability progression independent of relapses, we were surprised to see that the disability progression occurring in both studies was almost exclusively happening without temporal relation to relapses. That was certainly an unexpected finding,” Dr. Kappos said. “These observations make it difficult to keep the current definitions of ‘relapsing remitting’ and ‘secondary progressive’ MS, [ones] that suggest a clear-cut distinction marked by the presence or absence of relapses. This can no longer be justified,” he stressed.

“We are not saying that relapses do not contribute to disability progression. There are a lot of data to support the fact that they do. But I think what we might be seeing is that the drug therapy is quite effective in reducing disability due to relapses but only partially effective in reducing progression independent of relapses,” Dr. Kappos explained.

Although there have been many advances in reducing relapses with drug therapy, focus now needs to shift to the other more continuous process of disability progression independent of relapses, Dr. Kappos said. “There is still a lot of room for improvement here.”

“If continuous progression independent of relapses is already present in the early phases of MS, it is reasonable to study the effects of intervention on steady progression already in this early phase,” he noted. “This might help to capture patients at earlier stages who better respond to treatment aimed at halting progression.”

Dr. Kappos also called for more subtle measurements of disability than the EDSS alone, including measures such as the 9-hole peg test and the 25-ft walk as they did in this analysis. But other measures could also be added that would characterize continuous disease activity and progression, such as laboratory values (e.g., neurofilament light chain) and advanced, more tissue-specific quantitative MRI techniques and digital biomarkers to detect subtle changes in neurologic function.
 

An artificial distinction?

Commenting on the study, Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of the experimental therapeutics program at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research, Cleveland Clinic, said he too sees very little distinction between relapsing remitting and progressive forms of the disease.

“This study confirms what has been suspected for quite a few years –that if one looks sufficiently and carefully, there is gradual worsening of some aspects of the disease in many patients from the earliest stages,” Dr. Cohen said. “Conversely, some patients with progressive MS have superimposed relapses or MRI lesion activity.

“Thus, the distinction between relapsing-remitting and progressive MS subtypes appears artificial,” he concluded.

This study was sponsored by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Kappos has received research support from the company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most disability accumulation in relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) is not associated with overt relapses, challenging the current clinical distinction of relapsing and progressive forms of the disease, a new analysis shows. “We have to abandon the distinction between relapsing and progressive MS being different populations,” said lead author Ludwig Kappos, MD, University of Basel (Switzerland). “The disease appears to be more of a continuum of disability progression, which is sometimes also accompanied by relapses.”

The analysis was published online June 8 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Assessing disability progression

Noting that there are mounting data to suggest patients with relapsing MS frequently experience worsening disability over time – even when relapse activity appears well controlled – the researchers aimed to investigate the relative contributions of progression independent of relapse activity and relapse-associated worsening to overall accumulating disability in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. To do this, they analyzed data from two identical randomized clinical trials (OPERA I and OPERA II) conducted between 2011 and 2015, which compared treatment with the new B-cell–depleting therapy ocrelizumab with interferon beta-1a in 1,656 patients with relapsing MS.

Confirmed disability accumulation was defined by an increase in 1 or more of 3 measures (Expanded Disability Status Scale, timed 25-ft walk, or 9-hole peg test), confirmed after 3 or 6 months, and was classified as being related to a clinical relapse or occurring in the absence of a relapse.

Results showed that after 96 weeks (1.8 years) of treatment, 12-week composite confirmed disability accumulation had occurred in 29.6% of patients receiving interferon beta-1a and 21.1% of those given ocrelizumab; 24-week composite confirmed disability accumulation occurred in 22.7% of interferon beta-1a patients and 16.2% of the ocrelizumab group.

In both treatment groups, the vast majority of events contributing to disability accumulation occurred independently of relapse activity. In the interferon group, 78% of events contributing to 12-week confirmed disability accumulation and 80.6% of events contributing to 24-week confirmed disability accumulation occurred in the absence of clinical relapses, with the corresponding figures in the ocrelizumab group being 88.0% (12 weeks) and 89.1% (24 weeks).

Only a minority of patients (about 17% in both groups) had confirmed disability accumulation accompanied by clinical relapses. Very few patients with confirmed disability accumulation (4% to 5%) experienced disability worsening both associated and independent of relapses. Ocrelizumab was associated with a reduced risk of both relapse-associated and relapse-independent confirmed disability accumulation, compared with interferon beta-1a.

“We found that there was progression of disability in both groups, and the really astonishing finding was that although all patients were classified as having relapsing remitting MS, actually most of the disability progression occurred without preceding relapses,” Dr. Kappos commented. He noted that there have been two previous observational studies that have shown a high rate of disability progressions without temporal association to relapses in relapsing remitting patients, but this is the first time that this progression of disability independent of relapses has been shown in the controlled setting of two prospective, randomized clinical trials over a 2-year period.

“While we expected to see some disability progression independent of relapses, we were surprised to see that the disability progression occurring in both studies was almost exclusively happening without temporal relation to relapses. That was certainly an unexpected finding,” Dr. Kappos said. “These observations make it difficult to keep the current definitions of ‘relapsing remitting’ and ‘secondary progressive’ MS, [ones] that suggest a clear-cut distinction marked by the presence or absence of relapses. This can no longer be justified,” he stressed.

“We are not saying that relapses do not contribute to disability progression. There are a lot of data to support the fact that they do. But I think what we might be seeing is that the drug therapy is quite effective in reducing disability due to relapses but only partially effective in reducing progression independent of relapses,” Dr. Kappos explained.

Although there have been many advances in reducing relapses with drug therapy, focus now needs to shift to the other more continuous process of disability progression independent of relapses, Dr. Kappos said. “There is still a lot of room for improvement here.”

“If continuous progression independent of relapses is already present in the early phases of MS, it is reasonable to study the effects of intervention on steady progression already in this early phase,” he noted. “This might help to capture patients at earlier stages who better respond to treatment aimed at halting progression.”

Dr. Kappos also called for more subtle measurements of disability than the EDSS alone, including measures such as the 9-hole peg test and the 25-ft walk as they did in this analysis. But other measures could also be added that would characterize continuous disease activity and progression, such as laboratory values (e.g., neurofilament light chain) and advanced, more tissue-specific quantitative MRI techniques and digital biomarkers to detect subtle changes in neurologic function.
 

An artificial distinction?

Commenting on the study, Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of the experimental therapeutics program at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research, Cleveland Clinic, said he too sees very little distinction between relapsing remitting and progressive forms of the disease.

“This study confirms what has been suspected for quite a few years –that if one looks sufficiently and carefully, there is gradual worsening of some aspects of the disease in many patients from the earliest stages,” Dr. Cohen said. “Conversely, some patients with progressive MS have superimposed relapses or MRI lesion activity.

“Thus, the distinction between relapsing-remitting and progressive MS subtypes appears artificial,” he concluded.

This study was sponsored by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Kappos has received research support from the company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Most disability accumulation in relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) is not associated with overt relapses, challenging the current clinical distinction of relapsing and progressive forms of the disease, a new analysis shows. “We have to abandon the distinction between relapsing and progressive MS being different populations,” said lead author Ludwig Kappos, MD, University of Basel (Switzerland). “The disease appears to be more of a continuum of disability progression, which is sometimes also accompanied by relapses.”

The analysis was published online June 8 in JAMA Neurology.
 

Assessing disability progression

Noting that there are mounting data to suggest patients with relapsing MS frequently experience worsening disability over time – even when relapse activity appears well controlled – the researchers aimed to investigate the relative contributions of progression independent of relapse activity and relapse-associated worsening to overall accumulating disability in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. To do this, they analyzed data from two identical randomized clinical trials (OPERA I and OPERA II) conducted between 2011 and 2015, which compared treatment with the new B-cell–depleting therapy ocrelizumab with interferon beta-1a in 1,656 patients with relapsing MS.

Confirmed disability accumulation was defined by an increase in 1 or more of 3 measures (Expanded Disability Status Scale, timed 25-ft walk, or 9-hole peg test), confirmed after 3 or 6 months, and was classified as being related to a clinical relapse or occurring in the absence of a relapse.

Results showed that after 96 weeks (1.8 years) of treatment, 12-week composite confirmed disability accumulation had occurred in 29.6% of patients receiving interferon beta-1a and 21.1% of those given ocrelizumab; 24-week composite confirmed disability accumulation occurred in 22.7% of interferon beta-1a patients and 16.2% of the ocrelizumab group.

In both treatment groups, the vast majority of events contributing to disability accumulation occurred independently of relapse activity. In the interferon group, 78% of events contributing to 12-week confirmed disability accumulation and 80.6% of events contributing to 24-week confirmed disability accumulation occurred in the absence of clinical relapses, with the corresponding figures in the ocrelizumab group being 88.0% (12 weeks) and 89.1% (24 weeks).

Only a minority of patients (about 17% in both groups) had confirmed disability accumulation accompanied by clinical relapses. Very few patients with confirmed disability accumulation (4% to 5%) experienced disability worsening both associated and independent of relapses. Ocrelizumab was associated with a reduced risk of both relapse-associated and relapse-independent confirmed disability accumulation, compared with interferon beta-1a.

“We found that there was progression of disability in both groups, and the really astonishing finding was that although all patients were classified as having relapsing remitting MS, actually most of the disability progression occurred without preceding relapses,” Dr. Kappos commented. He noted that there have been two previous observational studies that have shown a high rate of disability progressions without temporal association to relapses in relapsing remitting patients, but this is the first time that this progression of disability independent of relapses has been shown in the controlled setting of two prospective, randomized clinical trials over a 2-year period.

“While we expected to see some disability progression independent of relapses, we were surprised to see that the disability progression occurring in both studies was almost exclusively happening without temporal relation to relapses. That was certainly an unexpected finding,” Dr. Kappos said. “These observations make it difficult to keep the current definitions of ‘relapsing remitting’ and ‘secondary progressive’ MS, [ones] that suggest a clear-cut distinction marked by the presence or absence of relapses. This can no longer be justified,” he stressed.

“We are not saying that relapses do not contribute to disability progression. There are a lot of data to support the fact that they do. But I think what we might be seeing is that the drug therapy is quite effective in reducing disability due to relapses but only partially effective in reducing progression independent of relapses,” Dr. Kappos explained.

Although there have been many advances in reducing relapses with drug therapy, focus now needs to shift to the other more continuous process of disability progression independent of relapses, Dr. Kappos said. “There is still a lot of room for improvement here.”

“If continuous progression independent of relapses is already present in the early phases of MS, it is reasonable to study the effects of intervention on steady progression already in this early phase,” he noted. “This might help to capture patients at earlier stages who better respond to treatment aimed at halting progression.”

Dr. Kappos also called for more subtle measurements of disability than the EDSS alone, including measures such as the 9-hole peg test and the 25-ft walk as they did in this analysis. But other measures could also be added that would characterize continuous disease activity and progression, such as laboratory values (e.g., neurofilament light chain) and advanced, more tissue-specific quantitative MRI techniques and digital biomarkers to detect subtle changes in neurologic function.
 

An artificial distinction?

Commenting on the study, Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of the experimental therapeutics program at the Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research, Cleveland Clinic, said he too sees very little distinction between relapsing remitting and progressive forms of the disease.

“This study confirms what has been suspected for quite a few years –that if one looks sufficiently and carefully, there is gradual worsening of some aspects of the disease in many patients from the earliest stages,” Dr. Cohen said. “Conversely, some patients with progressive MS have superimposed relapses or MRI lesion activity.

“Thus, the distinction between relapsing-remitting and progressive MS subtypes appears artificial,” he concluded.

This study was sponsored by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Kappos has received research support from the company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Uplizna (inebilizumab-cdon) for the treatment of adult patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) who are anti-AQP4 antibody positive. Uplizna is the second approved treatment for the disorder.

Approval was based on results from the global, placebo-controlled N-MOmentum trial, which included 213 anti-AQP4 antibody–positive patients and 17 anti-AQP4 antibody–negative patients who received inebilizumab-cdon or placebo. Just under 90% of patients in the positive group remained relapse free 6 months after the initial dosing, compared with 58% of patients taking placebo. People who took inebilizumab also saw a reduction in NMOSD-related hospitalizations. There was no evidence of a benefit in patients who were anti-AQP4 antibody negative.

Inebilizumab-cdon was safe and well tolerated during the trial, with the most common adverse events being urinary tract infection (20%), nasopharyngitis (13%), infusion reaction (12%), arthralgia (11%), and headache (10%). The drug is approved as twice-yearly maintenance after initial dosing. The prescribing information for Uplizna includes a warning for infusion reactions, potential depletion of certain proteins (hypogammaglobulinemia), and potential increased risk of infection—including progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy—and potential reactivation of hepatitis B and tuberculosis.

“NMOSD is an extremely challenging disease to treat. Patients experience unpredictable attacks that can lead to permanent disability from blindness and paralysis. In addition, each subsequent attack may result in a cumulative worsening of disability,” Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, lead investigator for the N-MOmentum trial and professor of clinical neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a press release. “Uplizna is an important new treatment option that provides prescribing physicians and patients living with NMOSD a therapy with proven efficacy, a favorable safety profile and a twice-a-year maintenance dosing schedule.”

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Uplizna (inebilizumab-cdon) for the treatment of adult patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) who are anti-AQP4 antibody positive. Uplizna is the second approved treatment for the disorder.

Approval was based on results from the global, placebo-controlled N-MOmentum trial, which included 213 anti-AQP4 antibody–positive patients and 17 anti-AQP4 antibody–negative patients who received inebilizumab-cdon or placebo. Just under 90% of patients in the positive group remained relapse free 6 months after the initial dosing, compared with 58% of patients taking placebo. People who took inebilizumab also saw a reduction in NMOSD-related hospitalizations. There was no evidence of a benefit in patients who were anti-AQP4 antibody negative.

Inebilizumab-cdon was safe and well tolerated during the trial, with the most common adverse events being urinary tract infection (20%), nasopharyngitis (13%), infusion reaction (12%), arthralgia (11%), and headache (10%). The drug is approved as twice-yearly maintenance after initial dosing. The prescribing information for Uplizna includes a warning for infusion reactions, potential depletion of certain proteins (hypogammaglobulinemia), and potential increased risk of infection—including progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy—and potential reactivation of hepatitis B and tuberculosis.

“NMOSD is an extremely challenging disease to treat. Patients experience unpredictable attacks that can lead to permanent disability from blindness and paralysis. In addition, each subsequent attack may result in a cumulative worsening of disability,” Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, lead investigator for the N-MOmentum trial and professor of clinical neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a press release. “Uplizna is an important new treatment option that provides prescribing physicians and patients living with NMOSD a therapy with proven efficacy, a favorable safety profile and a twice-a-year maintenance dosing schedule.”

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Uplizna (inebilizumab-cdon) for the treatment of adult patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) who are anti-AQP4 antibody positive. Uplizna is the second approved treatment for the disorder.

Approval was based on results from the global, placebo-controlled N-MOmentum trial, which included 213 anti-AQP4 antibody–positive patients and 17 anti-AQP4 antibody–negative patients who received inebilizumab-cdon or placebo. Just under 90% of patients in the positive group remained relapse free 6 months after the initial dosing, compared with 58% of patients taking placebo. People who took inebilizumab also saw a reduction in NMOSD-related hospitalizations. There was no evidence of a benefit in patients who were anti-AQP4 antibody negative.

Inebilizumab-cdon was safe and well tolerated during the trial, with the most common adverse events being urinary tract infection (20%), nasopharyngitis (13%), infusion reaction (12%), arthralgia (11%), and headache (10%). The drug is approved as twice-yearly maintenance after initial dosing. The prescribing information for Uplizna includes a warning for infusion reactions, potential depletion of certain proteins (hypogammaglobulinemia), and potential increased risk of infection—including progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy—and potential reactivation of hepatitis B and tuberculosis.

“NMOSD is an extremely challenging disease to treat. Patients experience unpredictable attacks that can lead to permanent disability from blindness and paralysis. In addition, each subsequent attack may result in a cumulative worsening of disability,” Bruce Cree, MD, PhD, lead investigator for the N-MOmentum trial and professor of clinical neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a press release. “Uplizna is an important new treatment option that provides prescribing physicians and patients living with NMOSD a therapy with proven efficacy, a favorable safety profile and a twice-a-year maintenance dosing schedule.”

[email protected]

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In its updated cancer prevention guidelines, the American Cancer Society now recommends that “it is best not to drink alcohol.”

Previously, ACS suggested that, for those who consume alcoholic beverages, intake should be no more than one drink per day for women or two per day for men. That recommendation is still in place, but is now accompanied by this new, stronger directive.

The revised guidelines also place more emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat and highly processed foods, and on increasing physical activity.

But importantly, there is also a call for action from public, private, and community organizations to work to together to increase access to affordable, nutritious foods and physical activity.

“Making healthy choices can be challenging for many, and there are strategies included in the guidelines that communities can undertake to help reduce barriers to eating well and physical activity,” said Laura Makaroff, DO, American Cancer Society senior vice president. “Individual choice is an important part of a healthy lifestyle, but having the right policies and environmental factors to break down these barriers is also important, and that is something that clinicians can support.”

The guidelines were published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

The link between cancer and lifestyle factors has long been established, and for the past 4 decades, both government and leading nonprofit health organizations, including the ACS and the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR), have released cancer prevention guidelines and recommendations that focus on managing weight, diet, physical activity, and alcohol consumption.

In 2012, the ACS issued guidelines on diet and physical activity, and their current guideline is largely based on the WCRF/AICR systematic reviews and Continuous Update Project reports, which were last updated in 2018. The ACS guidelines also incorporated systematic reviews conducted by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services (USDA/HHS) and other analyses that were published since the WCRF/AICR recommendations were released.
 

Emphasis on three areas

The differences between the old guidelines and the update do not differ dramatically, but Makaroff highlighted a few areas that have increased emphasis.

Time spent being physically active is critical. The recommendation has changed to encourage adults to engage in 150-300 minutes (2.5-5 hours) of moderate-intensity physical activity, or 75-150 minutes (1.25-2.5 hours) of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination, per week. Achieving or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is optimal.

“That is more than what we have recommended in the past, along with the continued message that children and adolescents engage in at least 1 hour of moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity each day,” she told Medscape Medical News.

The ACS has also increased emphasis on reducing the consumption of processed and red meat. “This is part of a healthy eating pattern and making sure that people are eating food that is high in nutrients that help achieve and maintain a healthy body weight,” said Makaroff.

A healthy diet should include a variety of dark green, red, and orange vegetables; fiber-rich legumes; and fruits with a variety of colors and whole grains, according to the guidelines. Sugar-sweetened beverages, highly processed foods, and refined grain products should be limited or avoided.

The revised dietary recommendations reflect a shift from a “reductionist or nutrient-centric” approach to one that is more “holistic” and that focuses on dietary patterns. In contrast to a focus on individual nutrients and bioactive compounds, the new approach is more consistent with what and how people actually eat, ACS points out.

The third area that Makaroff highlighted is alcohol, where the recommendation is to avoid or limit consumption. “The current update says not to drink alcohol, which is in line with the scientific evidence, but for those people who choose to drink alcohol, to limit it to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men.”

Thus, the change here is that the previous guideline only recommended limiting alcohol consumption, while the update suggests that, optimally, it should be avoided completely.

The ACS has also called for community involvement to help implement these goals: “Public, private, and community organizations should work collaboratively at national, state, and local levels to develop, advocate for, and implement policy and environmental changes that increase access to affordable, nutritious foods; provide safe, enjoyable, and accessible opportunities for physical activity; and limit alcohol for all individuals.”
 

No smoking guns

Commenting on the guidelines, Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, associate director of the Center for Advanced Functional Foods Research and Entrepreneurship at the Ohio State University, Columbus, explained that he didn’t view the change in alcohol as that much of an evolution. “It’s been 8 years since they revised their overall guidelines, and during that time frame, there has been an enormous growth in the evidence that has been used by many organizations,” he said.

Clinton noted that the guidelines are consistent with the whole body of current scientific literature. “It’s very easy to go to the document and look for the ‘smoking gun’ – but the smoking gun is really not one thing,” he said. “It’s a pattern, and what dietitians and nutritionists are telling people is that you need to orchestrate a healthy lifestyle and diet, with a diet that has a foundation of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and modest intake of refined grains and meat. You are orchestrating an entire pattern to get the maximum benefit.”

Makaroff is an employee of the ACS. Clinton has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deciding which cancer patients need immediate treatment and who can safely wait is an uncomfortable assessment for cancer clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In early April, as the COVID-19 surge was bearing down on New York City, those treatment decisions were “a juggling act every single day,” Jonathan Yang, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist from New York’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, told Medscape Medical News.

Eventually, a glut of guidelines, recommendations, and expert opinions aimed at helping oncologists emerged. The tools help navigate the complicated risk-benefit analysis of their patient’s risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 and delaying therapy.

Now, a new tool, which appears to be the first of its kind, quantifies that risk-benefit analysis. But its presence immediately raises the question: can it help?
 

Three-Tier Systems Are Not Very Sophisticated

OncCOVID, a free tool that was launched May 26 by the University of Michigan, allows physicians to individualize risk estimates for delaying treatment of up to 25 early- to late-stage cancers. It includes more than 45 patient characteristics, such as age, location, cancer type, cancer stage, treatment plan, underlying medical conditions, and proposed length of delay in care.

Combining these personal details with data from the National Cancer Institute’s SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) registry and the National Cancer Database, the Michigan app then estimates a patient’s 5- or 10-year survival with immediate vs delayed treatment and weighs that against their risk for COVID-19 using data from the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.

“We thought, isn’t it better to at least provide some evidence-based quantification, rather than a back-of-the-envelope three-tier system that is just sort of ‘made up’?“ explained one of the developers, Daniel Spratt, MD, associate professor of radiation oncology at Michigan Medicine.

Spratt explained that almost every organization, professional society, and government has created something like a three-tier system. Tier 1 represents urgent cases and patients who need immediate treatment. For tier 2, treatment can be delayed weeks or a month, and with tier 3, it can be delayed until the pandemic is over or it’s deemed safe.

“[This system] sounds good at first glance, but in cancer, we’re always talking about personalized medicine, and it’s mind-blowing that these tier systems are only based on urgency and prognosis,” he told Medscape Medical News.

Spratt offered an example. Consider a patient with a very aggressive brain tumor ― that patient is in tier 1 and should undergo treatment immediately. But will the treatment actually help? And how helpful would the procedure be if, say, the patient is 80 years old and, if infected, would have a 30% to 50% chance of dying from the coronavirus?

“If the model says this guy has a 5% harm and this one has 30% harm, you can use that to help prioritize,” summarized Spratt.

The app can generate risk estimates for patients living anywhere in the world and has already been accessed by people from 37 countries. However, Spratt cautions that it is primarily “designed and calibrated for the US.

“The estimates are based on very large US registries, and though it’s probably somewhat similar across much of the world, there’s probably certain cancer types that are more region specific ― especially something like stomach cancer or certain types of head and neck cancer in parts of Asia, for example,” he said.

Although the app’s COVID-19 data are specific to the county level in the United States, elsewhere in the world, it is only country specific.

“We’re using the best data we have for coronavirus, but everyone knows we still have large data gaps,” he acknowledged.
 

How Accurate?

Asked to comment on the app, Richard Bleicher, MD, leader of the Breast Cancer Program at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, praised the effort and the goal but had some concerns.

“Several questions arise, most important of which is, How accurate is this, and how has this been validated, if at all ― especially as it is too soon to see the outcomes of patients affected in this pandemic?” he told Medscape Medical News.

“We are imposing delays on a broad scale because of the coronavirus, and we are getting continuously changing data as we test more patients. But both situations are novel and may not be accurately represented by the data being pulled, because the datasets use patients from a few years ago, and confounders in these datasets may not apply to this situation,” Bleicher continued.

Although acknowledging the “value in delineating the risk of dying from cancer vs the risk of dying from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Bleicher urged caution in using the tool to make individual patient decisions.

“We need to remember that the best of modeling ... can be wildly inaccurate and needs to be validated using patients having the circumstances in question. ... This won’t be possible until long after the pandemic is completed, and so the model’s accuracy remains unknown.”

That sentiment was echoed by Giampaolo Bianchini, MD, head of the Breast Cancer Group, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale San Raffaele, in Milan, Italy.

“Arbitrarily postponing and modifying treatment strategies including surgery, radiation therapy, and medical therapy without properly balancing the risk/benefit ratio may lead to significantly worse cancer-related outcomes, which largely exceed the actual risks for COVID,” he wrote in an email.

“The OncCOVID app is a remarkable attempt to fill the gap between perception and estimation,” he said. The app provides side by side the COVID-19 risk estimation and the consequences of arbitrary deviation from the standard of care, observed Bianchini.

However, he pointed out weaknesses, including the fact that the “data generated in literature are not always of high quality and do not take into consideration relevant characteristics of the disease and treatment benefit. It should for sure be used, but then also interpreted with caution.”

Another Italian group responded more positively.

“In our opinion, it could be a useful tool for clinicians,” wrote colleagues Alessio Cortelinni and Giampiero Porzio, both medical oncologists at San Salvatore Hospital and the University of L’Aquila, in Italy. “This Web app might assist clinicians in balancing the risk/benefit ratio of being treated and/or access to the outpatient cancer center for each kind of patient (both early and advanced stages), in order to make a more tailored counseling,” they wrote in an email. “Importantly, the Web app might help those clinicians who work ‘alone,’ in peripheral centers, without resources, colleagues, and multidisciplinary tumor boards on whom they can rely.”

Bleicher, who was involved in the COVID-19 Breast Cancer Consortium’s recommendations for prioritizing breast cancer treatment, summarized that the app “may end up being close or accurate, but we won’t know except in hindsight.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Early signs of neurodegeneration appeared in young adult carriers of the Huntington’s disease gene mutation approximately 24 years before the clinical onset of symptoms, according to a study published in the June Lancet Neurology. The data come from the Huntington’s disease Young Adult Study (HD-YAS) conducted in the United Kingdom.

The genetic cause of Huntington’s disease provides a potential target for biomarker treatment, wrote joint first authors Rachael I. Scahill, PhD, and Paul Zeun, BMBS, of University College London and colleagues.

“A detailed characterization of the premanifest period in Huntington’s disease is crucial for disease staging, informing the optimum time to initiate treatments, and identifying biomarkers for future trials in people with premanifest Huntington’s disease (preHD),” they said.

Identifying biomarkers of pre-Huntington’s disease

For their study, the researchers recruited 64 young adults with presymptomatic Huntington’s disease (preHD) and 67 controls, with an average age of 29 years. Brain imaging was conducted between Aug. 2, 2017, and April 25, 2019. Individuals with preexisting measurable cognitive and psychiatric disorders were excluded.

The researchers found no significant evidence of cognitive or psychiatric impairment in the preHD group at 23.6 years from the predicted onset of symptoms. The preHD group showed smaller putamen volumes, compared with controls, but this difference had no apparent relation to the timing of symptom onset, the researchers said.

Brain imaging revealed elevations in the CSF mutant huntingtin, neurofilament light protein (NfL), YKL-40, and plasma NfL among individuals with preHD, compared with controls. Of these, CSF NfL showed the highest effect size of measures in the study and showed a significant increasing association with estimated years to the onset of clinical symptoms of HD carriers. Overall, 53% of individuals with preHD had CSF NfL values in the normal range, and 47% had elevated values, compared with controls.

“NfL is therefore a potential candidate to provide a measure of disease progression in early preHD and might eventually be used as a marker of response to treatment in future preventive trials,” the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including potential underpowering to detect associations with age and CAG gene segment repeats, the researchers noted.

However, “By identifying a cohort of individuals with preHD and no detectable functional impairment but who begin to exhibit subtle elevations in select biological measures of neurodegeneration, we have highlighted a crucial point early in the disease process,” they concluded.

“Intervening at this stage might offer the prospect of delaying or preventing further neurodegeneration while function is intact, giving gene carriers many more years of life without impairment,” they added.

What is the best window for treatment?

The study is “particularly important since the absence of any subclinical symptoms in preHD individuals far from onset shows that the abnormal developmental aspect of Huntington’s disease has no substantial effect on adults’ clinical pattern,” wrote Anne-Catherine Bachoud-Lévi, MD, of Université Paris Est, Créteil, France, in an accompanying comment.

“The most robust findings of [the study] are the sensitiveness of NfL, compared with mutant huntingtin in CSF of individuals with preHD, and that degenerative rather than developmental disorders are clinically relevant,” she said. However, potential limitations to the study include the exclusion absence of language and calculation as part of the cognitive assessments, she noted. “Ideally, more sensitive cognitive tasks including these domains should be designed for preHD participants.”

In addition, the risks versus benefits of any long-term treatment must be considered, Dr. Bachoud-Lévi noted.

“The best window for treatment should instead target the time when a detectable subclinical slope of cognitive performance allows for predicting disease onset within a few years,” she said. “Turning to machine learning methodology, such as that in oncology, might also permit combining the best window and the best disease-modifying therapy for individuals with preHD,” she added.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust, CHDI Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bachoud-Lévi disclosed grants and personal fees from Roche, and grants from the French Ministry of Health and Direction de la Recherche Clinique.

SOURCES: Scahill RI et al. Lancet Neurol. 2020 June;19:502-12; Bachoud-Lévi A-C. Lancet Neurol. 2020 June;19:473-5.

Early signs of neurodegeneration appeared in young adult carriers of the Huntington’s disease gene mutation approximately 24 years before the clinical onset of symptoms, according to a study published in the June Lancet Neurology. The data come from the Huntington’s disease Young Adult Study (HD-YAS) conducted in the United Kingdom.

The genetic cause of Huntington’s disease provides a potential target for biomarker treatment, wrote joint first authors Rachael I. Scahill, PhD, and Paul Zeun, BMBS, of University College London and colleagues.

“A detailed characterization of the premanifest period in Huntington’s disease is crucial for disease staging, informing the optimum time to initiate treatments, and identifying biomarkers for future trials in people with premanifest Huntington’s disease (preHD),” they said.

Identifying biomarkers of pre-Huntington’s disease

For their study, the researchers recruited 64 young adults with presymptomatic Huntington’s disease (preHD) and 67 controls, with an average age of 29 years. Brain imaging was conducted between Aug. 2, 2017, and April 25, 2019. Individuals with preexisting measurable cognitive and psychiatric disorders were excluded.

The researchers found no significant evidence of cognitive or psychiatric impairment in the preHD group at 23.6 years from the predicted onset of symptoms. The preHD group showed smaller putamen volumes, compared with controls, but this difference had no apparent relation to the timing of symptom onset, the researchers said.

Brain imaging revealed elevations in the CSF mutant huntingtin, neurofilament light protein (NfL), YKL-40, and plasma NfL among individuals with preHD, compared with controls. Of these, CSF NfL showed the highest effect size of measures in the study and showed a significant increasing association with estimated years to the onset of clinical symptoms of HD carriers. Overall, 53% of individuals with preHD had CSF NfL values in the normal range, and 47% had elevated values, compared with controls.

“NfL is therefore a potential candidate to provide a measure of disease progression in early preHD and might eventually be used as a marker of response to treatment in future preventive trials,” the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including potential underpowering to detect associations with age and CAG gene segment repeats, the researchers noted.

However, “By identifying a cohort of individuals with preHD and no detectable functional impairment but who begin to exhibit subtle elevations in select biological measures of neurodegeneration, we have highlighted a crucial point early in the disease process,” they concluded.

“Intervening at this stage might offer the prospect of delaying or preventing further neurodegeneration while function is intact, giving gene carriers many more years of life without impairment,” they added.

What is the best window for treatment?

The study is “particularly important since the absence of any subclinical symptoms in preHD individuals far from onset shows that the abnormal developmental aspect of Huntington’s disease has no substantial effect on adults’ clinical pattern,” wrote Anne-Catherine Bachoud-Lévi, MD, of Université Paris Est, Créteil, France, in an accompanying comment.

“The most robust findings of [the study] are the sensitiveness of NfL, compared with mutant huntingtin in CSF of individuals with preHD, and that degenerative rather than developmental disorders are clinically relevant,” she said. However, potential limitations to the study include the exclusion absence of language and calculation as part of the cognitive assessments, she noted. “Ideally, more sensitive cognitive tasks including these domains should be designed for preHD participants.”

In addition, the risks versus benefits of any long-term treatment must be considered, Dr. Bachoud-Lévi noted.

“The best window for treatment should instead target the time when a detectable subclinical slope of cognitive performance allows for predicting disease onset within a few years,” she said. “Turning to machine learning methodology, such as that in oncology, might also permit combining the best window and the best disease-modifying therapy for individuals with preHD,” she added.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust, CHDI Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bachoud-Lévi disclosed grants and personal fees from Roche, and grants from the French Ministry of Health and Direction de la Recherche Clinique.

SOURCES: Scahill RI et al. Lancet Neurol. 2020 June;19:502-12; Bachoud-Lévi A-C. Lancet Neurol. 2020 June;19:473-5.

Early signs of neurodegeneration appeared in young adult carriers of the Huntington’s disease gene mutation approximately 24 years before the clinical onset of symptoms, according to a study published in the June Lancet Neurology. The data come from the Huntington’s disease Young Adult Study (HD-YAS) conducted in the United Kingdom.

The genetic cause of Huntington’s disease provides a potential target for biomarker treatment, wrote joint first authors Rachael I. Scahill, PhD, and Paul Zeun, BMBS, of University College London and colleagues.

“A detailed characterization of the premanifest period in Huntington’s disease is crucial for disease staging, informing the optimum time to initiate treatments, and identifying biomarkers for future trials in people with premanifest Huntington’s disease (preHD),” they said.

Identifying biomarkers of pre-Huntington’s disease

For their study, the researchers recruited 64 young adults with presymptomatic Huntington’s disease (preHD) and 67 controls, with an average age of 29 years. Brain imaging was conducted between Aug. 2, 2017, and April 25, 2019. Individuals with preexisting measurable cognitive and psychiatric disorders were excluded.

The researchers found no significant evidence of cognitive or psychiatric impairment in the preHD group at 23.6 years from the predicted onset of symptoms. The preHD group showed smaller putamen volumes, compared with controls, but this difference had no apparent relation to the timing of symptom onset, the researchers said.

Brain imaging revealed elevations in the CSF mutant huntingtin, neurofilament light protein (NfL), YKL-40, and plasma NfL among individuals with preHD, compared with controls. Of these, CSF NfL showed the highest effect size of measures in the study and showed a significant increasing association with estimated years to the onset of clinical symptoms of HD carriers. Overall, 53% of individuals with preHD had CSF NfL values in the normal range, and 47% had elevated values, compared with controls.

“NfL is therefore a potential candidate to provide a measure of disease progression in early preHD and might eventually be used as a marker of response to treatment in future preventive trials,” the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including potential underpowering to detect associations with age and CAG gene segment repeats, the researchers noted.

However, “By identifying a cohort of individuals with preHD and no detectable functional impairment but who begin to exhibit subtle elevations in select biological measures of neurodegeneration, we have highlighted a crucial point early in the disease process,” they concluded.

“Intervening at this stage might offer the prospect of delaying or preventing further neurodegeneration while function is intact, giving gene carriers many more years of life without impairment,” they added.

What is the best window for treatment?

The study is “particularly important since the absence of any subclinical symptoms in preHD individuals far from onset shows that the abnormal developmental aspect of Huntington’s disease has no substantial effect on adults’ clinical pattern,” wrote Anne-Catherine Bachoud-Lévi, MD, of Université Paris Est, Créteil, France, in an accompanying comment.

“The most robust findings of [the study] are the sensitiveness of NfL, compared with mutant huntingtin in CSF of individuals with preHD, and that degenerative rather than developmental disorders are clinically relevant,” she said. However, potential limitations to the study include the exclusion absence of language and calculation as part of the cognitive assessments, she noted. “Ideally, more sensitive cognitive tasks including these domains should be designed for preHD participants.”

In addition, the risks versus benefits of any long-term treatment must be considered, Dr. Bachoud-Lévi noted.

“The best window for treatment should instead target the time when a detectable subclinical slope of cognitive performance allows for predicting disease onset within a few years,” she said. “Turning to machine learning methodology, such as that in oncology, might also permit combining the best window and the best disease-modifying therapy for individuals with preHD,” she added.

The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust, CHDI Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Bachoud-Lévi disclosed grants and personal fees from Roche, and grants from the French Ministry of Health and Direction de la Recherche Clinique.

SOURCES: Scahill RI et al. Lancet Neurol. 2020 June;19:502-12; Bachoud-Lévi A-C. Lancet Neurol. 2020 June;19:473-5.