AVAHO

A new strategy proposed by an international team of experts would limit the use of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for screening tor prostate cancer to men who are younger than 70 years and who are at high risk or symptomatic.

This would reduce potential harms from overdiagnosis and overtreatment, the risk for which is high with the on-demand screening that is the current standard of care in most wealthy nations.

In a paper published online in The BMJ, the panel recommends instead a comprehensive nationwide program that would base PSA testing on individual patient risk and direct those with abnormal results to a managed system of imaging, targeted biopsy only if indicated, and subsequent active monitoring or treatment for those with more aggressive disease features.

Alternatively, government health programs could actively discourage widespread PSA testing and implement policies that would effectively limit PSA-based screening only to men with urologic symptoms warranting further exploration, said the authors, led by Andrew Vickers, PhD, a research epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“Although we believe that early detection of prostate cancer should involve shared decision making, the current approach of determining testing by shared decision making has resulted in the worst possible practical outcome of high levels of PSA testing and medical harm, with minimal benefit and inequity,” they wrote.

“To make better use of PSA testing, policy makers should choose between a comprehensive, risk adapted approach that is specifically designed to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or restricting PSA testing to people referred to urologists with symptoms. That choice will need to take into account wider patient and public perspective, as well as health economic concerns,” they continued.
 

Inappropriate testing

Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the first PSA screen in 1986 as a means for monitoring disease progression in patients being treated for prostate cancer, the test has remained controversial, embraced by some for its presumed ability to spot early prostate cancer but scorned by others for its equivocal results in patients with benign prostate pathology and for its potential to lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of low-grade disease in men who would otherwise be likely to die of other causes.

Currently, only Lithuania and Kazakhstan have government-supported population-based screening programs for prostate cancer. In contrast, the United States, United Kingdom, and other high-income countries have opted not to implement nationwide prostate cancer screening but allow so-called “informed choice testing,” in which men can receiving PSA screening after discussion with a primary care physician, urologist, or other specialist.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that for men aged 55-69 years, the decision to undergo PSA testing should be an individual one, based on an understanding of the risks and benefits. For men aged 70 or older, the task force flatly states, “Do not screen for prostate cancer.”

But as Dr. Vickers and colleagues noted, “high income countries that have made PSA testing available to men who request it after shared decision making with their physician now have a high prevalence of PSA testing with an inappropriate age distribution.”

For example, they pointed out that in the United Kingdom, men in their 80s are twice as likely as are men in their 50s to get a PSA test, even though men in the older age group are far less likely to have benefit and far more likely to experience harm from treatment. Similarly, in France, nearly one-third of men over 40 get an annual PSA test, with the highest incidence of PSA testing in men over age 70. There are also high rates of PSA testing in men over 70 in Italy, Germany, and Ireland.

“A key problem is that, in current routine care – and despite guidelines to the contrary – most men with an abnormal PSA result have prostate biopsy, even though only a minority will have aggressive prostate cancer,” Dr. Vickers and colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, most men with biopsy-detected cancers have either surgery or radiotherapy (with or without androgen deprivation therapy) even if they have low-risk tumors that are unlikely to cause cancer related morbidity or mortality.”

In addition, informed-choice PSA testing may lead to health inequities, the team noted, citing data from the United States, Canada, and Switzerland showing an inverse association between income and education and the likelihood of PSA testing. Also, in the United States and Canada, men from ethnic minority groups are less likely to have PSA testing.
 

Comprehensive risk-based program

Dr. Vickers and colleagues proposed that a “comprehensive, risk-based prostate cancer detection program based on best evidence on how to use PSA testing and manage subsequent diagnostic follow-up and treatment could reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

“Such a program would restrict testing to men (and those not identifying as male but who have a prostate) aged 50-70, define testing intervals by PSA levels, stop testing early for those with lower PSA, offer biopsy only to those identified as at high risk of aggressive disease after a secondary test (such as magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or blood markers), and limit treatment to those with high Gleason grade tumors,” they wrote.
 

‘Sound analysis’

Two experts who were not involved with the BMJ paper applaud the suggestions made in comments posted on the U.K. Science Media Centre.

Benjamin W. Lamb, MBBS, MA, PhD, a consultant urologist and surgeon at Barts Health NHS Trust in London, said the analysis conducted by the panel “is sound as there are known benefits from risk-adapted comprehensive screening trials in men aged 50-70, but discordance with current practice, meaning benefits and harms are not those seen in trials.”

However, he also said that the strategies proposed by the authors would be unlikely to prevent older, well-informed men from requesting and getting a PSA test.

“In my view, the emphasis should be on engaging younger and at-risk men rather than restricting access for older men,” he said, noting that the alternative proposal of restricting PSA testing “in my view, is not feasible.”

Nick James, MBBS, PhD, professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and consultant oncologist at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, said, “I agree with the authors and strongly support the implementation of a risk-based approach to PSA testing at a national level.

“There is an urgent need for a more equitable and targeted screening strategy, which could help address existing health disparities,” Dr. James said. “Currently, individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to undergo PSA testing. Men in their 50s or younger, who may stand to benefit more from these tests, are also less likely to receive PSA tests compared to older men who benefit less. Linked to better diagnostic pathways with MRI, already standard in the UK, potential harms from overdiagnosis and overtreatment can be mitigated.”

The analysis was supported in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute with a Cancer Center Support Grant to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and NIH grants to coauthors. Dr. Vickers is a coinventor of the 4Kscore, a commercial test for predicting prostate biopsy outcome. He receives royalties from sales of the test and owns stock options in OPKO, which offers the test. Coauthor James W.F. Catto, PhD, disclosed ties to Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Ferring, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Nucleix, Photocure, QED Therapeutics, and Roche.

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

A new strategy proposed by an international team of experts would limit the use of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for screening tor prostate cancer to men who are younger than 70 years and who are at high risk or symptomatic.

This would reduce potential harms from overdiagnosis and overtreatment, the risk for which is high with the on-demand screening that is the current standard of care in most wealthy nations.

In a paper published online in The BMJ, the panel recommends instead a comprehensive nationwide program that would base PSA testing on individual patient risk and direct those with abnormal results to a managed system of imaging, targeted biopsy only if indicated, and subsequent active monitoring or treatment for those with more aggressive disease features.

Alternatively, government health programs could actively discourage widespread PSA testing and implement policies that would effectively limit PSA-based screening only to men with urologic symptoms warranting further exploration, said the authors, led by Andrew Vickers, PhD, a research epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“Although we believe that early detection of prostate cancer should involve shared decision making, the current approach of determining testing by shared decision making has resulted in the worst possible practical outcome of high levels of PSA testing and medical harm, with minimal benefit and inequity,” they wrote.

“To make better use of PSA testing, policy makers should choose between a comprehensive, risk adapted approach that is specifically designed to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or restricting PSA testing to people referred to urologists with symptoms. That choice will need to take into account wider patient and public perspective, as well as health economic concerns,” they continued.
 

Inappropriate testing

Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the first PSA screen in 1986 as a means for monitoring disease progression in patients being treated for prostate cancer, the test has remained controversial, embraced by some for its presumed ability to spot early prostate cancer but scorned by others for its equivocal results in patients with benign prostate pathology and for its potential to lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of low-grade disease in men who would otherwise be likely to die of other causes.

Currently, only Lithuania and Kazakhstan have government-supported population-based screening programs for prostate cancer. In contrast, the United States, United Kingdom, and other high-income countries have opted not to implement nationwide prostate cancer screening but allow so-called “informed choice testing,” in which men can receiving PSA screening after discussion with a primary care physician, urologist, or other specialist.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that for men aged 55-69 years, the decision to undergo PSA testing should be an individual one, based on an understanding of the risks and benefits. For men aged 70 or older, the task force flatly states, “Do not screen for prostate cancer.”

But as Dr. Vickers and colleagues noted, “high income countries that have made PSA testing available to men who request it after shared decision making with their physician now have a high prevalence of PSA testing with an inappropriate age distribution.”

For example, they pointed out that in the United Kingdom, men in their 80s are twice as likely as are men in their 50s to get a PSA test, even though men in the older age group are far less likely to have benefit and far more likely to experience harm from treatment. Similarly, in France, nearly one-third of men over 40 get an annual PSA test, with the highest incidence of PSA testing in men over age 70. There are also high rates of PSA testing in men over 70 in Italy, Germany, and Ireland.

“A key problem is that, in current routine care – and despite guidelines to the contrary – most men with an abnormal PSA result have prostate biopsy, even though only a minority will have aggressive prostate cancer,” Dr. Vickers and colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, most men with biopsy-detected cancers have either surgery or radiotherapy (with or without androgen deprivation therapy) even if they have low-risk tumors that are unlikely to cause cancer related morbidity or mortality.”

In addition, informed-choice PSA testing may lead to health inequities, the team noted, citing data from the United States, Canada, and Switzerland showing an inverse association between income and education and the likelihood of PSA testing. Also, in the United States and Canada, men from ethnic minority groups are less likely to have PSA testing.
 

Comprehensive risk-based program

Dr. Vickers and colleagues proposed that a “comprehensive, risk-based prostate cancer detection program based on best evidence on how to use PSA testing and manage subsequent diagnostic follow-up and treatment could reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

“Such a program would restrict testing to men (and those not identifying as male but who have a prostate) aged 50-70, define testing intervals by PSA levels, stop testing early for those with lower PSA, offer biopsy only to those identified as at high risk of aggressive disease after a secondary test (such as magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or blood markers), and limit treatment to those with high Gleason grade tumors,” they wrote.
 

‘Sound analysis’

Two experts who were not involved with the BMJ paper applaud the suggestions made in comments posted on the U.K. Science Media Centre.

Benjamin W. Lamb, MBBS, MA, PhD, a consultant urologist and surgeon at Barts Health NHS Trust in London, said the analysis conducted by the panel “is sound as there are known benefits from risk-adapted comprehensive screening trials in men aged 50-70, but discordance with current practice, meaning benefits and harms are not those seen in trials.”

However, he also said that the strategies proposed by the authors would be unlikely to prevent older, well-informed men from requesting and getting a PSA test.

“In my view, the emphasis should be on engaging younger and at-risk men rather than restricting access for older men,” he said, noting that the alternative proposal of restricting PSA testing “in my view, is not feasible.”

Nick James, MBBS, PhD, professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and consultant oncologist at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, said, “I agree with the authors and strongly support the implementation of a risk-based approach to PSA testing at a national level.

“There is an urgent need for a more equitable and targeted screening strategy, which could help address existing health disparities,” Dr. James said. “Currently, individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to undergo PSA testing. Men in their 50s or younger, who may stand to benefit more from these tests, are also less likely to receive PSA tests compared to older men who benefit less. Linked to better diagnostic pathways with MRI, already standard in the UK, potential harms from overdiagnosis and overtreatment can be mitigated.”

The analysis was supported in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute with a Cancer Center Support Grant to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and NIH grants to coauthors. Dr. Vickers is a coinventor of the 4Kscore, a commercial test for predicting prostate biopsy outcome. He receives royalties from sales of the test and owns stock options in OPKO, which offers the test. Coauthor James W.F. Catto, PhD, disclosed ties to Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Ferring, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Nucleix, Photocure, QED Therapeutics, and Roche.

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

A new strategy proposed by an international team of experts would limit the use of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for screening tor prostate cancer to men who are younger than 70 years and who are at high risk or symptomatic.

This would reduce potential harms from overdiagnosis and overtreatment, the risk for which is high with the on-demand screening that is the current standard of care in most wealthy nations.

In a paper published online in The BMJ, the panel recommends instead a comprehensive nationwide program that would base PSA testing on individual patient risk and direct those with abnormal results to a managed system of imaging, targeted biopsy only if indicated, and subsequent active monitoring or treatment for those with more aggressive disease features.

Alternatively, government health programs could actively discourage widespread PSA testing and implement policies that would effectively limit PSA-based screening only to men with urologic symptoms warranting further exploration, said the authors, led by Andrew Vickers, PhD, a research epidemiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“Although we believe that early detection of prostate cancer should involve shared decision making, the current approach of determining testing by shared decision making has resulted in the worst possible practical outcome of high levels of PSA testing and medical harm, with minimal benefit and inequity,” they wrote.

“To make better use of PSA testing, policy makers should choose between a comprehensive, risk adapted approach that is specifically designed to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or restricting PSA testing to people referred to urologists with symptoms. That choice will need to take into account wider patient and public perspective, as well as health economic concerns,” they continued.
 

Inappropriate testing

Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the first PSA screen in 1986 as a means for monitoring disease progression in patients being treated for prostate cancer, the test has remained controversial, embraced by some for its presumed ability to spot early prostate cancer but scorned by others for its equivocal results in patients with benign prostate pathology and for its potential to lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of low-grade disease in men who would otherwise be likely to die of other causes.

Currently, only Lithuania and Kazakhstan have government-supported population-based screening programs for prostate cancer. In contrast, the United States, United Kingdom, and other high-income countries have opted not to implement nationwide prostate cancer screening but allow so-called “informed choice testing,” in which men can receiving PSA screening after discussion with a primary care physician, urologist, or other specialist.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that for men aged 55-69 years, the decision to undergo PSA testing should be an individual one, based on an understanding of the risks and benefits. For men aged 70 or older, the task force flatly states, “Do not screen for prostate cancer.”

But as Dr. Vickers and colleagues noted, “high income countries that have made PSA testing available to men who request it after shared decision making with their physician now have a high prevalence of PSA testing with an inappropriate age distribution.”

For example, they pointed out that in the United Kingdom, men in their 80s are twice as likely as are men in their 50s to get a PSA test, even though men in the older age group are far less likely to have benefit and far more likely to experience harm from treatment. Similarly, in France, nearly one-third of men over 40 get an annual PSA test, with the highest incidence of PSA testing in men over age 70. There are also high rates of PSA testing in men over 70 in Italy, Germany, and Ireland.

“A key problem is that, in current routine care – and despite guidelines to the contrary – most men with an abnormal PSA result have prostate biopsy, even though only a minority will have aggressive prostate cancer,” Dr. Vickers and colleagues wrote. “Furthermore, most men with biopsy-detected cancers have either surgery or radiotherapy (with or without androgen deprivation therapy) even if they have low-risk tumors that are unlikely to cause cancer related morbidity or mortality.”

In addition, informed-choice PSA testing may lead to health inequities, the team noted, citing data from the United States, Canada, and Switzerland showing an inverse association between income and education and the likelihood of PSA testing. Also, in the United States and Canada, men from ethnic minority groups are less likely to have PSA testing.
 

Comprehensive risk-based program

Dr. Vickers and colleagues proposed that a “comprehensive, risk-based prostate cancer detection program based on best evidence on how to use PSA testing and manage subsequent diagnostic follow-up and treatment could reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

“Such a program would restrict testing to men (and those not identifying as male but who have a prostate) aged 50-70, define testing intervals by PSA levels, stop testing early for those with lower PSA, offer biopsy only to those identified as at high risk of aggressive disease after a secondary test (such as magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or blood markers), and limit treatment to those with high Gleason grade tumors,” they wrote.
 

‘Sound analysis’

Two experts who were not involved with the BMJ paper applaud the suggestions made in comments posted on the U.K. Science Media Centre.

Benjamin W. Lamb, MBBS, MA, PhD, a consultant urologist and surgeon at Barts Health NHS Trust in London, said the analysis conducted by the panel “is sound as there are known benefits from risk-adapted comprehensive screening trials in men aged 50-70, but discordance with current practice, meaning benefits and harms are not those seen in trials.”

However, he also said that the strategies proposed by the authors would be unlikely to prevent older, well-informed men from requesting and getting a PSA test.

“In my view, the emphasis should be on engaging younger and at-risk men rather than restricting access for older men,” he said, noting that the alternative proposal of restricting PSA testing “in my view, is not feasible.”

Nick James, MBBS, PhD, professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and consultant oncologist at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, said, “I agree with the authors and strongly support the implementation of a risk-based approach to PSA testing at a national level.

“There is an urgent need for a more equitable and targeted screening strategy, which could help address existing health disparities,” Dr. James said. “Currently, individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to undergo PSA testing. Men in their 50s or younger, who may stand to benefit more from these tests, are also less likely to receive PSA tests compared to older men who benefit less. Linked to better diagnostic pathways with MRI, already standard in the UK, potential harms from overdiagnosis and overtreatment can be mitigated.”

The analysis was supported in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute with a Cancer Center Support Grant to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and NIH grants to coauthors. Dr. Vickers is a coinventor of the 4Kscore, a commercial test for predicting prostate biopsy outcome. He receives royalties from sales of the test and owns stock options in OPKO, which offers the test. Coauthor James W.F. Catto, PhD, disclosed ties to Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Ferring, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Nucleix, Photocure, QED Therapeutics, and Roche.

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

AURORA, COLO. – How often do you talk with patients about how to lower their out-of-pocket costs for medical care?

For most clinicians, the answer is: not often enough. But having those conversations can improve medication adherence and strengthen the patient-clinician relationship, according to panelists at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

The inverse association between out-of-pocket expenditures and fidelity to prescriptions is clear. A 2020 study by the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, for example, found that rates of prescription abandonment are less than 5% when a given medication carries no out-of-pocket cost for patients. That figure rises to 45% when the cost is more than $125, and to 60% when it exceeds $500. One in five Americans said cost prevented them from adhering to medication regimens, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers surveyed more than 2,000 men and women, 40.4% of whom were aged 75 or older. They found that nearly 90% of respondents said they would not be uncomfortable being asked about drug costs before a visit with a physician. A similar share (89.5%) said they would welcome the use by their physician of a real-time tool to determine the cost of their medication.

But the survey results contained a note of warning for clinicians: A significant number of respondents said they would be “extremely” upset if the cost of their medication exceeded the estimate from the pricing tool. And many also said they would be “moderately” or “extremely” angry if their physician used a pricing tool but failed to share the results with them.

“Real-time benefit tools may support medication cost conversations and cost-conscious prescribing, and patients are enthusiastic about their use,” the authors write. “However, if disclosed prices are inaccurate, there is potential for harm through loss of confidence in the physician and nonadherence to prescribed medications.”

While having conversations about cost can be difficult for both clinicians and patients, studies have shown that patients who discuss cost concerns with their doctors feel as if they have stronger relationships as a result.

Clinicians often avoid conversations about out-of-pocket expenses because they don’t know specific price information, they lack solutions to address cost, or they are uncomfortable bringing up the issue.

One member of the audience at the SGIM meeting recalled a patient who worked in a warehouse for a large company. The man, who had type 2 diabetes, had medical insurance, but even with insurance, insulin was going to cost him $150 per month. He struggled to afford the necessary treatment.

“He looked at me and said, ‘What do they want me to do? Do they want me to actually not be able to work for them and not manage my diabetes?’ ”

The clinician said he offered empathy in the moment but felt he could do little else.

Panelists acknowledged that clinicians are crunched on time when seeing patients, but being willing to initiate conversations about cost with patients and to offer resources can help patients get necessary treatment.
 

Start the conversation

Panel member Caroline Sloan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said making patients aware that you know cost can make a big difference.

The American College of Physicians advises clinicians to ask patients whether they are worried about the cost of care and to not assume which patients may have concerns.

The conversation could be started like this: “I’d like to discuss any concerns you might have about the cost of your health care.”

Normalize the concern by making it more general, and reassure your patient that your goal is to get them the best care. Say something like, “I’ve heard from many patients the cost of medications or tests is becoming hard to manage.”

Once a patient’s concerns are clear, you can direct them to resources for assistance in reducing their costs, Dr. Sloan said, such as ClearHealthCosts, FAIR Health, Healthcare Bluebook, New Choice Health, GoodRx, PharmacyChecker, HealthWell Foundation, Patient Advocate Foundation, Good Days, Good Health Will, Mercy Medical Angels, and the American Association of Family Physicians Neighborhood Navigator.

Dr. Sloan said she knows clinicians don’t have time to understand every insurance plan and other issues related to cost. “But at least know to ask about costs,” she said. “Practice, practice, practice. It feels awkward at first, but it gets easier every time.”

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

AURORA, COLO. – How often do you talk with patients about how to lower their out-of-pocket costs for medical care?

For most clinicians, the answer is: not often enough. But having those conversations can improve medication adherence and strengthen the patient-clinician relationship, according to panelists at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

The inverse association between out-of-pocket expenditures and fidelity to prescriptions is clear. A 2020 study by the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, for example, found that rates of prescription abandonment are less than 5% when a given medication carries no out-of-pocket cost for patients. That figure rises to 45% when the cost is more than $125, and to 60% when it exceeds $500. One in five Americans said cost prevented them from adhering to medication regimens, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers surveyed more than 2,000 men and women, 40.4% of whom were aged 75 or older. They found that nearly 90% of respondents said they would not be uncomfortable being asked about drug costs before a visit with a physician. A similar share (89.5%) said they would welcome the use by their physician of a real-time tool to determine the cost of their medication.

But the survey results contained a note of warning for clinicians: A significant number of respondents said they would be “extremely” upset if the cost of their medication exceeded the estimate from the pricing tool. And many also said they would be “moderately” or “extremely” angry if their physician used a pricing tool but failed to share the results with them.

“Real-time benefit tools may support medication cost conversations and cost-conscious prescribing, and patients are enthusiastic about their use,” the authors write. “However, if disclosed prices are inaccurate, there is potential for harm through loss of confidence in the physician and nonadherence to prescribed medications.”

While having conversations about cost can be difficult for both clinicians and patients, studies have shown that patients who discuss cost concerns with their doctors feel as if they have stronger relationships as a result.

Clinicians often avoid conversations about out-of-pocket expenses because they don’t know specific price information, they lack solutions to address cost, or they are uncomfortable bringing up the issue.

One member of the audience at the SGIM meeting recalled a patient who worked in a warehouse for a large company. The man, who had type 2 diabetes, had medical insurance, but even with insurance, insulin was going to cost him $150 per month. He struggled to afford the necessary treatment.

“He looked at me and said, ‘What do they want me to do? Do they want me to actually not be able to work for them and not manage my diabetes?’ ”

The clinician said he offered empathy in the moment but felt he could do little else.

Panelists acknowledged that clinicians are crunched on time when seeing patients, but being willing to initiate conversations about cost with patients and to offer resources can help patients get necessary treatment.
 

Start the conversation

Panel member Caroline Sloan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said making patients aware that you know cost can make a big difference.

The American College of Physicians advises clinicians to ask patients whether they are worried about the cost of care and to not assume which patients may have concerns.

The conversation could be started like this: “I’d like to discuss any concerns you might have about the cost of your health care.”

Normalize the concern by making it more general, and reassure your patient that your goal is to get them the best care. Say something like, “I’ve heard from many patients the cost of medications or tests is becoming hard to manage.”

Once a patient’s concerns are clear, you can direct them to resources for assistance in reducing their costs, Dr. Sloan said, such as ClearHealthCosts, FAIR Health, Healthcare Bluebook, New Choice Health, GoodRx, PharmacyChecker, HealthWell Foundation, Patient Advocate Foundation, Good Days, Good Health Will, Mercy Medical Angels, and the American Association of Family Physicians Neighborhood Navigator.

Dr. Sloan said she knows clinicians don’t have time to understand every insurance plan and other issues related to cost. “But at least know to ask about costs,” she said. “Practice, practice, practice. It feels awkward at first, but it gets easier every time.”

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

AURORA, COLO. – How often do you talk with patients about how to lower their out-of-pocket costs for medical care?

For most clinicians, the answer is: not often enough. But having those conversations can improve medication adherence and strengthen the patient-clinician relationship, according to panelists at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

The inverse association between out-of-pocket expenditures and fidelity to prescriptions is clear. A 2020 study by the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, for example, found that rates of prescription abandonment are less than 5% when a given medication carries no out-of-pocket cost for patients. That figure rises to 45% when the cost is more than $125, and to 60% when it exceeds $500. One in five Americans said cost prevented them from adhering to medication regimens, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers surveyed more than 2,000 men and women, 40.4% of whom were aged 75 or older. They found that nearly 90% of respondents said they would not be uncomfortable being asked about drug costs before a visit with a physician. A similar share (89.5%) said they would welcome the use by their physician of a real-time tool to determine the cost of their medication.

But the survey results contained a note of warning for clinicians: A significant number of respondents said they would be “extremely” upset if the cost of their medication exceeded the estimate from the pricing tool. And many also said they would be “moderately” or “extremely” angry if their physician used a pricing tool but failed to share the results with them.

“Real-time benefit tools may support medication cost conversations and cost-conscious prescribing, and patients are enthusiastic about their use,” the authors write. “However, if disclosed prices are inaccurate, there is potential for harm through loss of confidence in the physician and nonadherence to prescribed medications.”

While having conversations about cost can be difficult for both clinicians and patients, studies have shown that patients who discuss cost concerns with their doctors feel as if they have stronger relationships as a result.

Clinicians often avoid conversations about out-of-pocket expenses because they don’t know specific price information, they lack solutions to address cost, or they are uncomfortable bringing up the issue.

One member of the audience at the SGIM meeting recalled a patient who worked in a warehouse for a large company. The man, who had type 2 diabetes, had medical insurance, but even with insurance, insulin was going to cost him $150 per month. He struggled to afford the necessary treatment.

“He looked at me and said, ‘What do they want me to do? Do they want me to actually not be able to work for them and not manage my diabetes?’ ”

The clinician said he offered empathy in the moment but felt he could do little else.

Panelists acknowledged that clinicians are crunched on time when seeing patients, but being willing to initiate conversations about cost with patients and to offer resources can help patients get necessary treatment.
 

Start the conversation

Panel member Caroline Sloan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said making patients aware that you know cost can make a big difference.

The American College of Physicians advises clinicians to ask patients whether they are worried about the cost of care and to not assume which patients may have concerns.

The conversation could be started like this: “I’d like to discuss any concerns you might have about the cost of your health care.”

Normalize the concern by making it more general, and reassure your patient that your goal is to get them the best care. Say something like, “I’ve heard from many patients the cost of medications or tests is becoming hard to manage.”

Once a patient’s concerns are clear, you can direct them to resources for assistance in reducing their costs, Dr. Sloan said, such as ClearHealthCosts, FAIR Health, Healthcare Bluebook, New Choice Health, GoodRx, PharmacyChecker, HealthWell Foundation, Patient Advocate Foundation, Good Days, Good Health Will, Mercy Medical Angels, and the American Association of Family Physicians Neighborhood Navigator.

Dr. Sloan said she knows clinicians don’t have time to understand every insurance plan and other issues related to cost. “But at least know to ask about costs,” she said. “Practice, practice, practice. It feels awkward at first, but it gets easier every time.”

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

Drug shortages in the United States hit a 10-year high in the first quarter of 2023, according to data from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP). Among the top five drug classes affected by shortages are chemotherapy drugs used in the treatment of cancer, many of which do not have alternatives.

“The shortage of certain cancer drugs has become a serious and life-threatening issue for cancer patients across the country,” Karen E. Knudsen, MBA, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS) and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), said in a statement. “I have heard from patients and practitioners who are directly experiencing the impact of these shortages.”

As of early May, there were 15 oncology drugs on the official Food and Drug Administration drug shortage list. The other top drug classes on shortage include drugs used for central nervous system (CNS) disorders,  antimicrobials, fluids and electrolytes, and hormones.

Factors blamed for the current shortages include expanded demand, supply shortages, limited manufacturing capacity, and low profit margins for generic therapies.

Dr. Knudsen emphasized that several of the oncology drugs now in short supply do not have an effective alternative. “As first-line treatments for a number of cancers, including triple-negative breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and leukemia often experienced by pediatric cancer patients, the shortage could lead to delays in treatment that could result in worse outcomes,” she said.

The ACS has listed the following oncology drugs and supportive agents as being in short supply: carboplatin injection used to treat triple negative breast cancer, ovarian, head, and neck cancers; fludarabine phosphate injection used for treating B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia; dacarbazine injection for treatment of skin cancer; amifostine injection; azacitidine injection; capecitabine tablets; cisplatin injection; cytarabine injection; dexamethasone sodium phosphate injection; hydrocortisone sodium succinate injection; leucovorin calcium lyophilized powder for injection; Lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Pluvicto) injection; methotrexate injection; pentostatin injection; and streptozocin (Zanosar) sterile powder.

Many of these drugs, such as cisplatin, are used in multiple regimens, so the issue is not limited to one specific cancer type.

In addition to these drugs, many products used in cancer care such as intravenous saline solutions are also in short supply, the ACS noted.
 

Two decades of shortages

Drug shortages in the United States have been a chronic problem for more than 2 decades, waxing and waning in intensity. In March, a hearing on drug shortages held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs noted that since 2001, the number of new drug shortages has ranged between 58 (in 2004) and 267 (in 2011). The trend toward new drug shortages declined from 2018 through 2021, but then rose to 160 in 2022.

The report further noted that the first quarter of 2023 marked the highest number of ongoing shortages by quarter since early 2018, with 301 active shortages as of March 31. For some drugs, the problem has become chronic, as more than 15 critical drug products have been in short supply for more than a decade, and 20 have been in shortage since at least 2015.

A 2022 survey of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations nationwide showed that 63% of institutions reported one or more drug shortages every month, with a 34% increase in 2019, compared with 2018. Treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens were reported by 75% of respondents, the authors wrote.

Dr. Knudsen noted that the FDA is largely limited to working directly with the manufacturer on whatever issue is causing the shortage, as well as working with other manufacturers of the same product to urge them to ramp up production. 

“ACS CAN is urging Congress to look at longer-term solutions that change the fundamental underpinnings of the shortages,” she said. “In the meantime, we urge the industry to work with medical practitioners to help identify alternatives where possible to ensure that cancer patients’ treatments are not delayed.”
 

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

Drug shortages in the United States hit a 10-year high in the first quarter of 2023, according to data from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP). Among the top five drug classes affected by shortages are chemotherapy drugs used in the treatment of cancer, many of which do not have alternatives.

“The shortage of certain cancer drugs has become a serious and life-threatening issue for cancer patients across the country,” Karen E. Knudsen, MBA, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS) and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), said in a statement. “I have heard from patients and practitioners who are directly experiencing the impact of these shortages.”

As of early May, there were 15 oncology drugs on the official Food and Drug Administration drug shortage list. The other top drug classes on shortage include drugs used for central nervous system (CNS) disorders,  antimicrobials, fluids and electrolytes, and hormones.

Factors blamed for the current shortages include expanded demand, supply shortages, limited manufacturing capacity, and low profit margins for generic therapies.

Dr. Knudsen emphasized that several of the oncology drugs now in short supply do not have an effective alternative. “As first-line treatments for a number of cancers, including triple-negative breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and leukemia often experienced by pediatric cancer patients, the shortage could lead to delays in treatment that could result in worse outcomes,” she said.

The ACS has listed the following oncology drugs and supportive agents as being in short supply: carboplatin injection used to treat triple negative breast cancer, ovarian, head, and neck cancers; fludarabine phosphate injection used for treating B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia; dacarbazine injection for treatment of skin cancer; amifostine injection; azacitidine injection; capecitabine tablets; cisplatin injection; cytarabine injection; dexamethasone sodium phosphate injection; hydrocortisone sodium succinate injection; leucovorin calcium lyophilized powder for injection; Lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Pluvicto) injection; methotrexate injection; pentostatin injection; and streptozocin (Zanosar) sterile powder.

Many of these drugs, such as cisplatin, are used in multiple regimens, so the issue is not limited to one specific cancer type.

In addition to these drugs, many products used in cancer care such as intravenous saline solutions are also in short supply, the ACS noted.
 

Two decades of shortages

Drug shortages in the United States have been a chronic problem for more than 2 decades, waxing and waning in intensity. In March, a hearing on drug shortages held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs noted that since 2001, the number of new drug shortages has ranged between 58 (in 2004) and 267 (in 2011). The trend toward new drug shortages declined from 2018 through 2021, but then rose to 160 in 2022.

The report further noted that the first quarter of 2023 marked the highest number of ongoing shortages by quarter since early 2018, with 301 active shortages as of March 31. For some drugs, the problem has become chronic, as more than 15 critical drug products have been in short supply for more than a decade, and 20 have been in shortage since at least 2015.

A 2022 survey of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations nationwide showed that 63% of institutions reported one or more drug shortages every month, with a 34% increase in 2019, compared with 2018. Treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens were reported by 75% of respondents, the authors wrote.

Dr. Knudsen noted that the FDA is largely limited to working directly with the manufacturer on whatever issue is causing the shortage, as well as working with other manufacturers of the same product to urge them to ramp up production. 

“ACS CAN is urging Congress to look at longer-term solutions that change the fundamental underpinnings of the shortages,” she said. “In the meantime, we urge the industry to work with medical practitioners to help identify alternatives where possible to ensure that cancer patients’ treatments are not delayed.”
 

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

Drug shortages in the United States hit a 10-year high in the first quarter of 2023, according to data from the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP). Among the top five drug classes affected by shortages are chemotherapy drugs used in the treatment of cancer, many of which do not have alternatives.

“The shortage of certain cancer drugs has become a serious and life-threatening issue for cancer patients across the country,” Karen E. Knudsen, MBA, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society (ACS) and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), said in a statement. “I have heard from patients and practitioners who are directly experiencing the impact of these shortages.”

As of early May, there were 15 oncology drugs on the official Food and Drug Administration drug shortage list. The other top drug classes on shortage include drugs used for central nervous system (CNS) disorders,  antimicrobials, fluids and electrolytes, and hormones.

Factors blamed for the current shortages include expanded demand, supply shortages, limited manufacturing capacity, and low profit margins for generic therapies.

Dr. Knudsen emphasized that several of the oncology drugs now in short supply do not have an effective alternative. “As first-line treatments for a number of cancers, including triple-negative breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and leukemia often experienced by pediatric cancer patients, the shortage could lead to delays in treatment that could result in worse outcomes,” she said.

The ACS has listed the following oncology drugs and supportive agents as being in short supply: carboplatin injection used to treat triple negative breast cancer, ovarian, head, and neck cancers; fludarabine phosphate injection used for treating B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia; dacarbazine injection for treatment of skin cancer; amifostine injection; azacitidine injection; capecitabine tablets; cisplatin injection; cytarabine injection; dexamethasone sodium phosphate injection; hydrocortisone sodium succinate injection; leucovorin calcium lyophilized powder for injection; Lutetium Lu 177 vipivotide tetraxetan (Pluvicto) injection; methotrexate injection; pentostatin injection; and streptozocin (Zanosar) sterile powder.

Many of these drugs, such as cisplatin, are used in multiple regimens, so the issue is not limited to one specific cancer type.

In addition to these drugs, many products used in cancer care such as intravenous saline solutions are also in short supply, the ACS noted.
 

Two decades of shortages

Drug shortages in the United States have been a chronic problem for more than 2 decades, waxing and waning in intensity. In March, a hearing on drug shortages held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs noted that since 2001, the number of new drug shortages has ranged between 58 (in 2004) and 267 (in 2011). The trend toward new drug shortages declined from 2018 through 2021, but then rose to 160 in 2022.

The report further noted that the first quarter of 2023 marked the highest number of ongoing shortages by quarter since early 2018, with 301 active shortages as of March 31. For some drugs, the problem has become chronic, as more than 15 critical drug products have been in short supply for more than a decade, and 20 have been in shortage since at least 2015.

A 2022 survey of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations nationwide showed that 63% of institutions reported one or more drug shortages every month, with a 34% increase in 2019, compared with 2018. Treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens were reported by 75% of respondents, the authors wrote.

Dr. Knudsen noted that the FDA is largely limited to working directly with the manufacturer on whatever issue is causing the shortage, as well as working with other manufacturers of the same product to urge them to ramp up production. 

“ACS CAN is urging Congress to look at longer-term solutions that change the fundamental underpinnings of the shortages,” she said. “In the meantime, we urge the industry to work with medical practitioners to help identify alternatives where possible to ensure that cancer patients’ treatments are not delayed.”
 

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

Many of the persistent problems that breast cancer survivors experience after treatment are not part of the conversation with oncologists during treatment, said Patricia A. Ganz, MD, during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer annual congress.

Several studies suggest that many breast cancer patients are not well prepared to move forward after a breast cancer diagnosis and subsequent treatments, continued Dr. Ganz, who works at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles.

Meeting the survivorship needs of breast cancer patients requires addressing both their physical and psychosocial needs, Dr. Ganz said. She explained how to achieve that, but first pointed to research elaborating on what's missing from some breast cancer survivors' care and barriers to these patients having their variety of health-related needs met.

In a 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Survivorship, Dr. Ganz and colleagues conducted a survey of approximately 200 medical oncologists in the United States. They determined that less than 50% provide survivorship care plans to patients at the end of treatment or communicate with patients’ other physicians about follow-up care.

In a secondary analysis of data from the same survey published in 2022 in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Dr. Ganz and colleagues examined medical oncologists’ perceived barriers to addressing both physical and psychosocial long-term effects in breast cancer survivors. For both, lack of time was the greatest perceived barrier, cited by nearly two-thirds of oncologists. Other barriers to addressing physical effects included lack of evidence-based, effective interventions, lack of clinical algorithms to guide care, and ambiguity regarding professional responsibility at the end of treatment. Other top barriers to addressing psychosocial issues included lack of mental health providers, lack of psychosocial resources, and lack of clinician knowledge and skills.

Data from additional studies suggest that, overall, cancer patients with greater physical burdens, such as more complex and lengthy treatment regimens, also have greater psychosocial needs, Dr. Ganz noted. Plus, approximately 15%-20% of cancer survivors have ongoing anxiety and depressive symptoms.

Shift to primary care

As more breast cancer and other cancer patients survive for longer periods, more care will likely occur in general medical settings, Dr. Ganz said. Issues to be addressed will include the potential increased risk of comorbid conditions for these survivors, and whether survivorship interventions earlier in the disease trajectory will impact survivorship. For cancer patients who achieve remission after treatment, the first 5 years after a diagnosis involves treatment and short-term surveillance for late effects. Beyond 5 years, care for cancer survivors mainly involves primary care and management of any comorbid conditions, as well as surveillance for late effects and recurrences, and awareness of new research.

A patient consultation early in the process after diagnosis is the start of a continuum of care, Dr. Ganz said. A patient consultation should address symptoms related to initial treatments, such as neuropathy, pain, fatigue, and insomnia, as well as the psychological symptoms of anxiety and depression. An early consultation also should evaluate adherence to endocrine therapy and management of symptoms, if needed, with the larger goal of preparing patients for recovery and the transition to survivorship, and what to expect for long-term follow-up.
 

Delivering the three P’s

The “Three P’s” of survivor care for breast cancer patients are palliation, prevention, and promotion of health, according to Dr. Ganz .

The first “P,” for palliative, is a key part of survivorship care, said Dr. Ganz. Palliative care is defined as care that focuses on reducing symptom severity and improving quality of life. The biological effects of cancer treatment can be associated with physical effects, such as functional limitations and frailty, and behavioral/cognitive effects such as depression, fatigue, and cognitive deficits, she said. To manage these effects and provide palliative care, consultation is needed with specialists in relevant areas including mental health, pain management, physical medicine/rehabilitation, endocrinology, cardiology, and neurology.

The second “P,” which is for prevention in survivorship care, refers to ongoing follow-up screening to identify any potentially serious late-onset complications such as osteoporosis or cardiac disease so they can be addressed, said Dr. Ganz. Other considerations include chemoprevention if available and genetic counseling for patients with hereditary cancers. Prevention also includes counseling patients about lifestyle modifications to help prevent additional cancer.

The goal of the third “P,” which is for health promotion, is to promote risk reduction for the health problems associated with accelerated aging that may arise in cancer survivors, said Dr. Ganz.

Health promotion strategies include maintaining a healthy weight, increasing physical activity, and avoiding harmful exposures, she said. Healthy lifestyle interventions can also reduce the risk of other chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.

To that end, Dr. Ganz outlined several behavioral interventions that may mitigate the effects of cancer treatment on the accelerated aging process, including stress reduction in the form of meditation or yoga, cognitive behavioral therapy, improving sleep, increasing physical activity, reducing obesity, and decreasing tobacco and alcohol use. These interventions may help reduce inflammation and promote tissue repair and healing.

For cancer survivors, the life span may be longer than the health span, and these patients may benefit from an integrated model of care, with systematic screening and consolidated appointments, rather than a fragmented model in which departments and referrals are siloed, which may result in conflicting advice or redundancy, said Dr. Ganz.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to explore models of care delivery, as requirements for survivor care will vary among patients and care settings, Dr. Ganz said.

However, regardless of setting, treatment plans and shared decision-making can help reduce potential long-term or late-emerging effects, she said. Developing a survivorship care plan can help patients learn how to enhance their recovery.

During a question and answer session, Dr. Ganz was asked about whether hormone therapy could be used for patients with hormone negative breast cancer. “I think vaginal estrogen can be used if someone is on tamoxifen,” she said. However, “we need to be cautious” in case there are remaining estrogen positive cells, in order to avoid potential metastases, and use of hormone therapy in breast cancer survivors is an individualized decision based in part on quality of life.
 

Engaging a patient’s partner early can be helpful

If possible, engage the patient’s partner in survivorship discussions, said Luzia Travado, PhD, head of psycho-oncology at the Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, who presented on the topic of sexuality and commented on survivorship during the discussion. For those women with partners, engaging the partner early in treatment often means they are more likely to play a larger role in the post treatment and long term by providing stability and emotional support.

“Make sure partners are engaged and understand that they have a role, and that this role is valued,” she said. Unfortunately, there are a lot of divorced women with breast cancer, as the disease can take a toll on relationships. However, remember “sexuality is not just sex; it is caring, loving, and intimacy.”

“To end on a positive note, it is important to empower patients, and to give them self-management skills so they can make things even better in their survivorship,” said Dr. Ganz. In spite of discussing difficulties and challenges, one of the goals of the session was to offer potential solutions and answers.

Dr. Ganz disclosed serving as editor of the cancer survivorship section on Up-to-Date, and serving as a consultant for Blue Note Therapeutics, GRAIL, InformedDNA, and Roche-Genentech. Dr. Travado had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Many of the persistent problems that breast cancer survivors experience after treatment are not part of the conversation with oncologists during treatment, said Patricia A. Ganz, MD, during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer annual congress.

Several studies suggest that many breast cancer patients are not well prepared to move forward after a breast cancer diagnosis and subsequent treatments, continued Dr. Ganz, who works at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles.

Meeting the survivorship needs of breast cancer patients requires addressing both their physical and psychosocial needs, Dr. Ganz said. She explained how to achieve that, but first pointed to research elaborating on what's missing from some breast cancer survivors' care and barriers to these patients having their variety of health-related needs met.

In a 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Survivorship, Dr. Ganz and colleagues conducted a survey of approximately 200 medical oncologists in the United States. They determined that less than 50% provide survivorship care plans to patients at the end of treatment or communicate with patients’ other physicians about follow-up care.

In a secondary analysis of data from the same survey published in 2022 in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Dr. Ganz and colleagues examined medical oncologists’ perceived barriers to addressing both physical and psychosocial long-term effects in breast cancer survivors. For both, lack of time was the greatest perceived barrier, cited by nearly two-thirds of oncologists. Other barriers to addressing physical effects included lack of evidence-based, effective interventions, lack of clinical algorithms to guide care, and ambiguity regarding professional responsibility at the end of treatment. Other top barriers to addressing psychosocial issues included lack of mental health providers, lack of psychosocial resources, and lack of clinician knowledge and skills.

Data from additional studies suggest that, overall, cancer patients with greater physical burdens, such as more complex and lengthy treatment regimens, also have greater psychosocial needs, Dr. Ganz noted. Plus, approximately 15%-20% of cancer survivors have ongoing anxiety and depressive symptoms.

Shift to primary care

As more breast cancer and other cancer patients survive for longer periods, more care will likely occur in general medical settings, Dr. Ganz said. Issues to be addressed will include the potential increased risk of comorbid conditions for these survivors, and whether survivorship interventions earlier in the disease trajectory will impact survivorship. For cancer patients who achieve remission after treatment, the first 5 years after a diagnosis involves treatment and short-term surveillance for late effects. Beyond 5 years, care for cancer survivors mainly involves primary care and management of any comorbid conditions, as well as surveillance for late effects and recurrences, and awareness of new research.

A patient consultation early in the process after diagnosis is the start of a continuum of care, Dr. Ganz said. A patient consultation should address symptoms related to initial treatments, such as neuropathy, pain, fatigue, and insomnia, as well as the psychological symptoms of anxiety and depression. An early consultation also should evaluate adherence to endocrine therapy and management of symptoms, if needed, with the larger goal of preparing patients for recovery and the transition to survivorship, and what to expect for long-term follow-up.
 

Delivering the three P’s

The “Three P’s” of survivor care for breast cancer patients are palliation, prevention, and promotion of health, according to Dr. Ganz .

The first “P,” for palliative, is a key part of survivorship care, said Dr. Ganz. Palliative care is defined as care that focuses on reducing symptom severity and improving quality of life. The biological effects of cancer treatment can be associated with physical effects, such as functional limitations and frailty, and behavioral/cognitive effects such as depression, fatigue, and cognitive deficits, she said. To manage these effects and provide palliative care, consultation is needed with specialists in relevant areas including mental health, pain management, physical medicine/rehabilitation, endocrinology, cardiology, and neurology.

The second “P,” which is for prevention in survivorship care, refers to ongoing follow-up screening to identify any potentially serious late-onset complications such as osteoporosis or cardiac disease so they can be addressed, said Dr. Ganz. Other considerations include chemoprevention if available and genetic counseling for patients with hereditary cancers. Prevention also includes counseling patients about lifestyle modifications to help prevent additional cancer.

The goal of the third “P,” which is for health promotion, is to promote risk reduction for the health problems associated with accelerated aging that may arise in cancer survivors, said Dr. Ganz.

Health promotion strategies include maintaining a healthy weight, increasing physical activity, and avoiding harmful exposures, she said. Healthy lifestyle interventions can also reduce the risk of other chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.

To that end, Dr. Ganz outlined several behavioral interventions that may mitigate the effects of cancer treatment on the accelerated aging process, including stress reduction in the form of meditation or yoga, cognitive behavioral therapy, improving sleep, increasing physical activity, reducing obesity, and decreasing tobacco and alcohol use. These interventions may help reduce inflammation and promote tissue repair and healing.

For cancer survivors, the life span may be longer than the health span, and these patients may benefit from an integrated model of care, with systematic screening and consolidated appointments, rather than a fragmented model in which departments and referrals are siloed, which may result in conflicting advice or redundancy, said Dr. Ganz.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to explore models of care delivery, as requirements for survivor care will vary among patients and care settings, Dr. Ganz said.

However, regardless of setting, treatment plans and shared decision-making can help reduce potential long-term or late-emerging effects, she said. Developing a survivorship care plan can help patients learn how to enhance their recovery.

During a question and answer session, Dr. Ganz was asked about whether hormone therapy could be used for patients with hormone negative breast cancer. “I think vaginal estrogen can be used if someone is on tamoxifen,” she said. However, “we need to be cautious” in case there are remaining estrogen positive cells, in order to avoid potential metastases, and use of hormone therapy in breast cancer survivors is an individualized decision based in part on quality of life.
 

Engaging a patient’s partner early can be helpful

If possible, engage the patient’s partner in survivorship discussions, said Luzia Travado, PhD, head of psycho-oncology at the Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, who presented on the topic of sexuality and commented on survivorship during the discussion. For those women with partners, engaging the partner early in treatment often means they are more likely to play a larger role in the post treatment and long term by providing stability and emotional support.

“Make sure partners are engaged and understand that they have a role, and that this role is valued,” she said. Unfortunately, there are a lot of divorced women with breast cancer, as the disease can take a toll on relationships. However, remember “sexuality is not just sex; it is caring, loving, and intimacy.”

“To end on a positive note, it is important to empower patients, and to give them self-management skills so they can make things even better in their survivorship,” said Dr. Ganz. In spite of discussing difficulties and challenges, one of the goals of the session was to offer potential solutions and answers.

Dr. Ganz disclosed serving as editor of the cancer survivorship section on Up-to-Date, and serving as a consultant for Blue Note Therapeutics, GRAIL, InformedDNA, and Roche-Genentech. Dr. Travado had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Many of the persistent problems that breast cancer survivors experience after treatment are not part of the conversation with oncologists during treatment, said Patricia A. Ganz, MD, during a presentation at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer annual congress.

Several studies suggest that many breast cancer patients are not well prepared to move forward after a breast cancer diagnosis and subsequent treatments, continued Dr. Ganz, who works at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles.

Meeting the survivorship needs of breast cancer patients requires addressing both their physical and psychosocial needs, Dr. Ganz said. She explained how to achieve that, but first pointed to research elaborating on what's missing from some breast cancer survivors' care and barriers to these patients having their variety of health-related needs met.

In a 2021 study published in the Journal of Cancer Survivorship, Dr. Ganz and colleagues conducted a survey of approximately 200 medical oncologists in the United States. They determined that less than 50% provide survivorship care plans to patients at the end of treatment or communicate with patients’ other physicians about follow-up care.

In a secondary analysis of data from the same survey published in 2022 in Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Dr. Ganz and colleagues examined medical oncologists’ perceived barriers to addressing both physical and psychosocial long-term effects in breast cancer survivors. For both, lack of time was the greatest perceived barrier, cited by nearly two-thirds of oncologists. Other barriers to addressing physical effects included lack of evidence-based, effective interventions, lack of clinical algorithms to guide care, and ambiguity regarding professional responsibility at the end of treatment. Other top barriers to addressing psychosocial issues included lack of mental health providers, lack of psychosocial resources, and lack of clinician knowledge and skills.

Data from additional studies suggest that, overall, cancer patients with greater physical burdens, such as more complex and lengthy treatment regimens, also have greater psychosocial needs, Dr. Ganz noted. Plus, approximately 15%-20% of cancer survivors have ongoing anxiety and depressive symptoms.

Shift to primary care

As more breast cancer and other cancer patients survive for longer periods, more care will likely occur in general medical settings, Dr. Ganz said. Issues to be addressed will include the potential increased risk of comorbid conditions for these survivors, and whether survivorship interventions earlier in the disease trajectory will impact survivorship. For cancer patients who achieve remission after treatment, the first 5 years after a diagnosis involves treatment and short-term surveillance for late effects. Beyond 5 years, care for cancer survivors mainly involves primary care and management of any comorbid conditions, as well as surveillance for late effects and recurrences, and awareness of new research.

A patient consultation early in the process after diagnosis is the start of a continuum of care, Dr. Ganz said. A patient consultation should address symptoms related to initial treatments, such as neuropathy, pain, fatigue, and insomnia, as well as the psychological symptoms of anxiety and depression. An early consultation also should evaluate adherence to endocrine therapy and management of symptoms, if needed, with the larger goal of preparing patients for recovery and the transition to survivorship, and what to expect for long-term follow-up.
 

Delivering the three P’s

The “Three P’s” of survivor care for breast cancer patients are palliation, prevention, and promotion of health, according to Dr. Ganz .

The first “P,” for palliative, is a key part of survivorship care, said Dr. Ganz. Palliative care is defined as care that focuses on reducing symptom severity and improving quality of life. The biological effects of cancer treatment can be associated with physical effects, such as functional limitations and frailty, and behavioral/cognitive effects such as depression, fatigue, and cognitive deficits, she said. To manage these effects and provide palliative care, consultation is needed with specialists in relevant areas including mental health, pain management, physical medicine/rehabilitation, endocrinology, cardiology, and neurology.

The second “P,” which is for prevention in survivorship care, refers to ongoing follow-up screening to identify any potentially serious late-onset complications such as osteoporosis or cardiac disease so they can be addressed, said Dr. Ganz. Other considerations include chemoprevention if available and genetic counseling for patients with hereditary cancers. Prevention also includes counseling patients about lifestyle modifications to help prevent additional cancer.

The goal of the third “P,” which is for health promotion, is to promote risk reduction for the health problems associated with accelerated aging that may arise in cancer survivors, said Dr. Ganz.

Health promotion strategies include maintaining a healthy weight, increasing physical activity, and avoiding harmful exposures, she said. Healthy lifestyle interventions can also reduce the risk of other chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.

To that end, Dr. Ganz outlined several behavioral interventions that may mitigate the effects of cancer treatment on the accelerated aging process, including stress reduction in the form of meditation or yoga, cognitive behavioral therapy, improving sleep, increasing physical activity, reducing obesity, and decreasing tobacco and alcohol use. These interventions may help reduce inflammation and promote tissue repair and healing.

For cancer survivors, the life span may be longer than the health span, and these patients may benefit from an integrated model of care, with systematic screening and consolidated appointments, rather than a fragmented model in which departments and referrals are siloed, which may result in conflicting advice or redundancy, said Dr. Ganz.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to explore models of care delivery, as requirements for survivor care will vary among patients and care settings, Dr. Ganz said.

However, regardless of setting, treatment plans and shared decision-making can help reduce potential long-term or late-emerging effects, she said. Developing a survivorship care plan can help patients learn how to enhance their recovery.

During a question and answer session, Dr. Ganz was asked about whether hormone therapy could be used for patients with hormone negative breast cancer. “I think vaginal estrogen can be used if someone is on tamoxifen,” she said. However, “we need to be cautious” in case there are remaining estrogen positive cells, in order to avoid potential metastases, and use of hormone therapy in breast cancer survivors is an individualized decision based in part on quality of life.
 

Engaging a patient’s partner early can be helpful

If possible, engage the patient’s partner in survivorship discussions, said Luzia Travado, PhD, head of psycho-oncology at the Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, who presented on the topic of sexuality and commented on survivorship during the discussion. For those women with partners, engaging the partner early in treatment often means they are more likely to play a larger role in the post treatment and long term by providing stability and emotional support.

“Make sure partners are engaged and understand that they have a role, and that this role is valued,” she said. Unfortunately, there are a lot of divorced women with breast cancer, as the disease can take a toll on relationships. However, remember “sexuality is not just sex; it is caring, loving, and intimacy.”

“To end on a positive note, it is important to empower patients, and to give them self-management skills so they can make things even better in their survivorship,” said Dr. Ganz. In spite of discussing difficulties and challenges, one of the goals of the session was to offer potential solutions and answers.

Dr. Ganz disclosed serving as editor of the cancer survivorship section on Up-to-Date, and serving as a consultant for Blue Note Therapeutics, GRAIL, InformedDNA, and Roche-Genentech. Dr. Travado had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.

The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

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

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.

The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

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

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.

The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

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

“What am I allowed to do?” radiation oncologist Vivek Kavadi, MD, asked the business manager at Texas Oncology in Sugar Land, Tex.

Dr. Kavadi wanted to give his patient with early-stage breast cancer a standard radiation treatment – hypofractionated 3D conformal radiation therapy – following her lumpectomy.

But his hands were tied.

Dr. Kavadi had submitted a prior authorization request, but the patient’s health insurance was dragging its feet. And without prior authorization, Dr. Kavadi couldn’t schedule his patient’s first treatment.

“I chose the most cost-effective, standard treatment, but nothing could begin without the insurance company’s permission,” he said.

One of the most challenging aspects of the delay was explaining to his patient why he couldn’t schedule her treatment. “We would love to start, but your insurance company has not given us approval. The best I can do is give you a tentative appointment,” he recalled telling her.

After a few days with no word, calls to the insurance company began. “My patient called, I called, my office called,” Dr. Kavadi said. “It was a week or more of aggravation, stress, and time wasted for my patient and my team.”

This type of delay has become increasingly common in radiation oncology. One recent analysis estimated that 97% of radiation oncology services now require prior authorization under Medicare Advantage. And another analysis found that almost all radiation oncologists said prior authorization delays life-saving care for their patients.

The rise of prior authorization requirements may boil down to the fact that prior authorization is no longer reserved for uncertain or high-cost care. Terrence Cunningham, director of administrative simplification policy for the American Hospital Association, told this news organization last year that “prior authorization used to be applied only to new, costly, or high-risk services,” but now “many insurers require authorizations for even routine care, which is inappropriate.”

The growth of prior authorization requirements has forced many doctors, nurses, and pharmacists to dedicate part of their workday to handling requests and appealing denials and has forced many practices to hire staff exclusively for prior authorizations.

This additional work is costly.

One recent study found that the radiation oncology department of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., spent nearly $500,000 annually in employee time to obtain prior authorization for radiation therapy treatments. Extrapolated nationally, the researchers estimated that physicians’ annual compensation for prior authorization duties came to an estimated $46 million. Overall, 86% of these costs were for treatments that were ultimately approved, the majority on initial request and some on appeal.

Dr. Kavadi has five full-time employees dedicated to managing prior authorization requests and challenges.

And after a week of delays and hours on the phone with the insurer, his patient’s radiation treatment was ultimately approved.

Dr. Kavadi wondered why something so simple needed to be so onerous.

Stretching out an approval for a standard radiation treatment “feels like a means of intentionally delaying care,” Dr. Kavadi said. “This is an example of a process that has run so far amok. It’s just a burden across the board.”

And even with his 30 years of experience, “I still have to ask my business supervisor what I am allowed to do,” he said. “I can’t just proceed with what’s best for my patient, what the patient has consented to, and what also happens to be the least expensive option.”

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

“What am I allowed to do?” radiation oncologist Vivek Kavadi, MD, asked the business manager at Texas Oncology in Sugar Land, Tex.

Dr. Kavadi wanted to give his patient with early-stage breast cancer a standard radiation treatment – hypofractionated 3D conformal radiation therapy – following her lumpectomy.

But his hands were tied.

Dr. Kavadi had submitted a prior authorization request, but the patient’s health insurance was dragging its feet. And without prior authorization, Dr. Kavadi couldn’t schedule his patient’s first treatment.

“I chose the most cost-effective, standard treatment, but nothing could begin without the insurance company’s permission,” he said.

One of the most challenging aspects of the delay was explaining to his patient why he couldn’t schedule her treatment. “We would love to start, but your insurance company has not given us approval. The best I can do is give you a tentative appointment,” he recalled telling her.

After a few days with no word, calls to the insurance company began. “My patient called, I called, my office called,” Dr. Kavadi said. “It was a week or more of aggravation, stress, and time wasted for my patient and my team.”

This type of delay has become increasingly common in radiation oncology. One recent analysis estimated that 97% of radiation oncology services now require prior authorization under Medicare Advantage. And another analysis found that almost all radiation oncologists said prior authorization delays life-saving care for their patients.

The rise of prior authorization requirements may boil down to the fact that prior authorization is no longer reserved for uncertain or high-cost care. Terrence Cunningham, director of administrative simplification policy for the American Hospital Association, told this news organization last year that “prior authorization used to be applied only to new, costly, or high-risk services,” but now “many insurers require authorizations for even routine care, which is inappropriate.”

The growth of prior authorization requirements has forced many doctors, nurses, and pharmacists to dedicate part of their workday to handling requests and appealing denials and has forced many practices to hire staff exclusively for prior authorizations.

This additional work is costly.

One recent study found that the radiation oncology department of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., spent nearly $500,000 annually in employee time to obtain prior authorization for radiation therapy treatments. Extrapolated nationally, the researchers estimated that physicians’ annual compensation for prior authorization duties came to an estimated $46 million. Overall, 86% of these costs were for treatments that were ultimately approved, the majority on initial request and some on appeal.

Dr. Kavadi has five full-time employees dedicated to managing prior authorization requests and challenges.

And after a week of delays and hours on the phone with the insurer, his patient’s radiation treatment was ultimately approved.

Dr. Kavadi wondered why something so simple needed to be so onerous.

Stretching out an approval for a standard radiation treatment “feels like a means of intentionally delaying care,” Dr. Kavadi said. “This is an example of a process that has run so far amok. It’s just a burden across the board.”

And even with his 30 years of experience, “I still have to ask my business supervisor what I am allowed to do,” he said. “I can’t just proceed with what’s best for my patient, what the patient has consented to, and what also happens to be the least expensive option.”

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

“What am I allowed to do?” radiation oncologist Vivek Kavadi, MD, asked the business manager at Texas Oncology in Sugar Land, Tex.

Dr. Kavadi wanted to give his patient with early-stage breast cancer a standard radiation treatment – hypofractionated 3D conformal radiation therapy – following her lumpectomy.

But his hands were tied.

Dr. Kavadi had submitted a prior authorization request, but the patient’s health insurance was dragging its feet. And without prior authorization, Dr. Kavadi couldn’t schedule his patient’s first treatment.

“I chose the most cost-effective, standard treatment, but nothing could begin without the insurance company’s permission,” he said.

One of the most challenging aspects of the delay was explaining to his patient why he couldn’t schedule her treatment. “We would love to start, but your insurance company has not given us approval. The best I can do is give you a tentative appointment,” he recalled telling her.

After a few days with no word, calls to the insurance company began. “My patient called, I called, my office called,” Dr. Kavadi said. “It was a week or more of aggravation, stress, and time wasted for my patient and my team.”

This type of delay has become increasingly common in radiation oncology. One recent analysis estimated that 97% of radiation oncology services now require prior authorization under Medicare Advantage. And another analysis found that almost all radiation oncologists said prior authorization delays life-saving care for their patients.

The rise of prior authorization requirements may boil down to the fact that prior authorization is no longer reserved for uncertain or high-cost care. Terrence Cunningham, director of administrative simplification policy for the American Hospital Association, told this news organization last year that “prior authorization used to be applied only to new, costly, or high-risk services,” but now “many insurers require authorizations for even routine care, which is inappropriate.”

The growth of prior authorization requirements has forced many doctors, nurses, and pharmacists to dedicate part of their workday to handling requests and appealing denials and has forced many practices to hire staff exclusively for prior authorizations.

This additional work is costly.

One recent study found that the radiation oncology department of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., spent nearly $500,000 annually in employee time to obtain prior authorization for radiation therapy treatments. Extrapolated nationally, the researchers estimated that physicians’ annual compensation for prior authorization duties came to an estimated $46 million. Overall, 86% of these costs were for treatments that were ultimately approved, the majority on initial request and some on appeal.

Dr. Kavadi has five full-time employees dedicated to managing prior authorization requests and challenges.

And after a week of delays and hours on the phone with the insurer, his patient’s radiation treatment was ultimately approved.

Dr. Kavadi wondered why something so simple needed to be so onerous.

Stretching out an approval for a standard radiation treatment “feels like a means of intentionally delaying care,” Dr. Kavadi said. “This is an example of a process that has run so far amok. It’s just a burden across the board.”

And even with his 30 years of experience, “I still have to ask my business supervisor what I am allowed to do,” he said. “I can’t just proceed with what’s best for my patient, what the patient has consented to, and what also happens to be the least expensive option.”

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

While poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors clearly show benefit in certain kinds of breast cancer, questions persist about ideal drug targets and the value of combining them with other medications, oncologists explained at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer annual congress.

For now, the drugs are only approved in high-risk germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAmut) early breast cancer, oncologist Kevin Punie, MD, of Saint Augustine Hospital in Wilrijk, Belgium, said during a session at the meeting. Combining the drugs with chemotherapy “has not yet demonstrated significant benefits, and this is irrespective whether platinum was part of the chemotherapy backbone.”

PARP is a kind of enzyme that repairs damaged DNA in cells, especially cancerous ones. PARP inhibitors block the enzyme, potentially leading more cancer cells to die, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute states.

In a separate presentation during the same session, oncologist Andrew Tutt, MBChB, PhD, noted that a study he led – a phase 3, double-blinded, randomized 2021 trial – found that patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer who took the PARP inhibitor olarapib (Lynparza) versus placebo had improved outcomes on several measures, including 3-year invasive disease-free survival (85.9% vs. 77.1%, P < .001). However, the study noted that “olaparib had limited effects on global patient-reported quality of life.”

Dr. Tutt, of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and Kings College London, said 57% of patients who took olarapib suffered nausea versus 24% of those who took placebo, and fatigue and anemia were also more common in the olarapib group. Anemia can be severe and lead to transfusions in some cases.

As Dr. Punie explained, there are many reasons to consider combining PARP inhibitors with other treatments such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and radiotherapy. The combinations may have synergetic effects, and they could have potential in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings.

The combination of the PARP inhibitor olaparib and endocrine therapy is now approved by the European Medicines Agency for the adjuvant treatment of certain patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations who have HER2-negative, high-risk early breast cancer, Dr. Punie noted.

The 2021 study led by Dr. Tutt reported that treatment or safety differences were found in those who received both olaparib and endocrine therapy versus those who only received olarapib.

So far, Dr. Punie said, “we not yet have enough clinical evidence to say that there’s really synergy between PNP inhibitors and other anticancer therapies.” According to the National Institutes of Health, medical synergy “describes the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”

In regard to chemotherapy, it makes sense that PARP inhibitors would be helpful in combination, Dr. Punie said. DNA damage to cancer cells accumulates during chemotherapy, he said, and they’re more depending on PARP for repair.

Study results so far have been mixed. A 2022 study, for example, found that adding the experimental PARP inhibitor veliparib to the chemotherapy regimen carboplatin-paclitaxel didn’t improve outcomes, he said. A similar study examining the addition of olaparib to carboplatin-paclitaxel is ongoing.

As for combining radiotherapy and PARP inhibitors, Dr. Punie said that preclinical findings are promising, and research is underway. There’s also ongoing research into combining PARP inhibitors with immunotherapy.

Off-label use of olaparib with immunotherapy or sequential treatment may be appropriate in the setting of adjuvant gBRCAmut triple-negative breast cancer with residual disease, he said.

During his presentation, Dr. Tutt called for researchers to investigate the use of PARP inhibitors in the de-escalation of treatment in lower-risk gBRCAmut disease.

“Clearly, some patients require chemotherapy, and we know patients respond very well to neoadjuvant chemotherapy if they have a BRCA mutation, but we don’t yet know who we can de-escalate in,” he said.

He also highlighted the need to reduce anemia in patients on PARP inhibitors, “particularly if we’re moving into lower-risk populations or possibly considering prevention trials.

“The study of PARP inhibitor resistance ... is now urgent, so that we can address it,” he said.

Dr. Punie disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Focus Patient, Medscape, MSD, Mundi Pharma, Need, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, and PharmaMar. Dr. Tutt disclosed financial relationships with Artios, Gilead, MD Anderson, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Vertex, AstraZeneca, EM Partners, Medscape Education, CRUK, Inbiomotion, Myriad Genetics, and Breast Cancer Now.

While poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors clearly show benefit in certain kinds of breast cancer, questions persist about ideal drug targets and the value of combining them with other medications, oncologists explained at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer annual congress.

For now, the drugs are only approved in high-risk germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAmut) early breast cancer, oncologist Kevin Punie, MD, of Saint Augustine Hospital in Wilrijk, Belgium, said during a session at the meeting. Combining the drugs with chemotherapy “has not yet demonstrated significant benefits, and this is irrespective whether platinum was part of the chemotherapy backbone.”

PARP is a kind of enzyme that repairs damaged DNA in cells, especially cancerous ones. PARP inhibitors block the enzyme, potentially leading more cancer cells to die, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute states.

In a separate presentation during the same session, oncologist Andrew Tutt, MBChB, PhD, noted that a study he led – a phase 3, double-blinded, randomized 2021 trial – found that patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer who took the PARP inhibitor olarapib (Lynparza) versus placebo had improved outcomes on several measures, including 3-year invasive disease-free survival (85.9% vs. 77.1%, P < .001). However, the study noted that “olaparib had limited effects on global patient-reported quality of life.”

Dr. Tutt, of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and Kings College London, said 57% of patients who took olarapib suffered nausea versus 24% of those who took placebo, and fatigue and anemia were also more common in the olarapib group. Anemia can be severe and lead to transfusions in some cases.

As Dr. Punie explained, there are many reasons to consider combining PARP inhibitors with other treatments such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and radiotherapy. The combinations may have synergetic effects, and they could have potential in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings.

The combination of the PARP inhibitor olaparib and endocrine therapy is now approved by the European Medicines Agency for the adjuvant treatment of certain patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations who have HER2-negative, high-risk early breast cancer, Dr. Punie noted.

The 2021 study led by Dr. Tutt reported that treatment or safety differences were found in those who received both olaparib and endocrine therapy versus those who only received olarapib.

So far, Dr. Punie said, “we not yet have enough clinical evidence to say that there’s really synergy between PNP inhibitors and other anticancer therapies.” According to the National Institutes of Health, medical synergy “describes the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”

In regard to chemotherapy, it makes sense that PARP inhibitors would be helpful in combination, Dr. Punie said. DNA damage to cancer cells accumulates during chemotherapy, he said, and they’re more depending on PARP for repair.

Study results so far have been mixed. A 2022 study, for example, found that adding the experimental PARP inhibitor veliparib to the chemotherapy regimen carboplatin-paclitaxel didn’t improve outcomes, he said. A similar study examining the addition of olaparib to carboplatin-paclitaxel is ongoing.

As for combining radiotherapy and PARP inhibitors, Dr. Punie said that preclinical findings are promising, and research is underway. There’s also ongoing research into combining PARP inhibitors with immunotherapy.

Off-label use of olaparib with immunotherapy or sequential treatment may be appropriate in the setting of adjuvant gBRCAmut triple-negative breast cancer with residual disease, he said.

During his presentation, Dr. Tutt called for researchers to investigate the use of PARP inhibitors in the de-escalation of treatment in lower-risk gBRCAmut disease.

“Clearly, some patients require chemotherapy, and we know patients respond very well to neoadjuvant chemotherapy if they have a BRCA mutation, but we don’t yet know who we can de-escalate in,” he said.

He also highlighted the need to reduce anemia in patients on PARP inhibitors, “particularly if we’re moving into lower-risk populations or possibly considering prevention trials.

“The study of PARP inhibitor resistance ... is now urgent, so that we can address it,” he said.

Dr. Punie disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Focus Patient, Medscape, MSD, Mundi Pharma, Need, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, and PharmaMar. Dr. Tutt disclosed financial relationships with Artios, Gilead, MD Anderson, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Vertex, AstraZeneca, EM Partners, Medscape Education, CRUK, Inbiomotion, Myriad Genetics, and Breast Cancer Now.

While poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors clearly show benefit in certain kinds of breast cancer, questions persist about ideal drug targets and the value of combining them with other medications, oncologists explained at the European Society for Medical Oncology Breast Cancer annual congress.

For now, the drugs are only approved in high-risk germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAmut) early breast cancer, oncologist Kevin Punie, MD, of Saint Augustine Hospital in Wilrijk, Belgium, said during a session at the meeting. Combining the drugs with chemotherapy “has not yet demonstrated significant benefits, and this is irrespective whether platinum was part of the chemotherapy backbone.”

PARP is a kind of enzyme that repairs damaged DNA in cells, especially cancerous ones. PARP inhibitors block the enzyme, potentially leading more cancer cells to die, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute states.

In a separate presentation during the same session, oncologist Andrew Tutt, MBChB, PhD, noted that a study he led – a phase 3, double-blinded, randomized 2021 trial – found that patients with BRCA1- or BRCA2-mutated breast cancer who took the PARP inhibitor olarapib (Lynparza) versus placebo had improved outcomes on several measures, including 3-year invasive disease-free survival (85.9% vs. 77.1%, P < .001). However, the study noted that “olaparib had limited effects on global patient-reported quality of life.”

Dr. Tutt, of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and Kings College London, said 57% of patients who took olarapib suffered nausea versus 24% of those who took placebo, and fatigue and anemia were also more common in the olarapib group. Anemia can be severe and lead to transfusions in some cases.

As Dr. Punie explained, there are many reasons to consider combining PARP inhibitors with other treatments such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and radiotherapy. The combinations may have synergetic effects, and they could have potential in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings.

The combination of the PARP inhibitor olaparib and endocrine therapy is now approved by the European Medicines Agency for the adjuvant treatment of certain patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations who have HER2-negative, high-risk early breast cancer, Dr. Punie noted.

The 2021 study led by Dr. Tutt reported that treatment or safety differences were found in those who received both olaparib and endocrine therapy versus those who only received olarapib.

So far, Dr. Punie said, “we not yet have enough clinical evidence to say that there’s really synergy between PNP inhibitors and other anticancer therapies.” According to the National Institutes of Health, medical synergy “describes the interaction of two or more drugs when their combined effect is greater than the sum of the effects seen when each drug is given alone.”

In regard to chemotherapy, it makes sense that PARP inhibitors would be helpful in combination, Dr. Punie said. DNA damage to cancer cells accumulates during chemotherapy, he said, and they’re more depending on PARP for repair.

Study results so far have been mixed. A 2022 study, for example, found that adding the experimental PARP inhibitor veliparib to the chemotherapy regimen carboplatin-paclitaxel didn’t improve outcomes, he said. A similar study examining the addition of olaparib to carboplatin-paclitaxel is ongoing.

As for combining radiotherapy and PARP inhibitors, Dr. Punie said that preclinical findings are promising, and research is underway. There’s also ongoing research into combining PARP inhibitors with immunotherapy.

Off-label use of olaparib with immunotherapy or sequential treatment may be appropriate in the setting of adjuvant gBRCAmut triple-negative breast cancer with residual disease, he said.

During his presentation, Dr. Tutt called for researchers to investigate the use of PARP inhibitors in the de-escalation of treatment in lower-risk gBRCAmut disease.

“Clearly, some patients require chemotherapy, and we know patients respond very well to neoadjuvant chemotherapy if they have a BRCA mutation, but we don’t yet know who we can de-escalate in,” he said.

He also highlighted the need to reduce anemia in patients on PARP inhibitors, “particularly if we’re moving into lower-risk populations or possibly considering prevention trials.

“The study of PARP inhibitor resistance ... is now urgent, so that we can address it,” he said.

Dr. Punie disclosed financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Exact Sciences, Focus Patient, Medscape, MSD, Mundi Pharma, Need, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Sanofi, Seagen, and PharmaMar. Dr. Tutt disclosed financial relationships with Artios, Gilead, MD Anderson, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Vertex, AstraZeneca, EM Partners, Medscape Education, CRUK, Inbiomotion, Myriad Genetics, and Breast Cancer Now.

Mailing do-it-yourself sampling kits to test for cervical cancer doubled the rate of screening in a population of low-income and under-screened women, researchers say. 

The self-sampling kits, which detect human papillomavirus (HPV), are available only for use in clinical trials, but the researchers hope that eventually these kits will be approved for use by the general public. 

The researchers, from the University of North Carolina, explored use of these kits in the My Body, My Test-3 study, which was published online in The Lancet Public Health.

In a commentary published with the study, Runzhi Wang, MD, and Jennell Coleman, MD, MPH, both of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said it “provides the required evidence that ... self-collected samples can be an effective strategy for hard-to-reach populations.”

The study involved 665 women (aged 25-64) in North Carolina who were either uninsured or enrolled in Medicaid or Medicare. The patients had low-income backgrounds and lived in urban areas. More than half self-reported as Black or Hispanic (55%), uninsured (78%) or unemployed (57%). None had a Pap smear in at least 4 years or a high-risk HPV test in the last 6 years. 

Two-thirds of the women were mailed an HPV self-collection kit and received assistance with scheduling an in-person screening appointment. The kit included a Viba-Brush device, which is inserted into the vagina like a tampon to collect the sample.

The other third of women, the control group, only received scheduling assistance.

The team found that mailing the self-collection tests along with helping women book in-clinic appointments improved screening rates twofold, compared with just assisting patients to schedule an appointment. 

Screening success among those who received the at-home collection kit was 72%, compared with 37% in the control group. 

Of those who received the kits, 78% returned them. This is “impressive,” said Dr. Wang and Dr. Coleman, as previous studies have reported return rates of only 8%-20%.

University of North Carolina

About 23% of eligible women are overdue for cervical cancer screening by at least a year, according to the National Cancer Institute. Jennifer Smith, PhD, MPH, professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an author of the study, believes every woman deserves equal access to cervical screening.

“I think we really need to make efforts to increase cervical cancer screening among women who are overdue for screening by a year or more from the recommended guidelines,” Dr. Smith said. “We’ve proven along with the wide evidence both in the U.S. and globally that self-collection intervention works well and can motivate screening uptake by breaking down barriers for populations that have less access to care.”

“We’re hoping this research in combination with all of the extensive evidence on the positive performance of HPV self-collection will provide additional information to be considered by the FDA for approval of the kits for primary screening,” Dr. Smith said. 

University of North Carolina

“Government approval of at-home HPV tests would have a huge impact,” said coauthor Noel Brewer, PhD, also of UNC Chapel Hill. “We could better reach those in rural areas where cervical cancer screening is hard to come by.”

Dr. Smith has received research grants, supply donations, and consultancies for Hologic and BD Diagnostics. Dr. Brewer, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Coleman reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Mailing do-it-yourself sampling kits to test for cervical cancer doubled the rate of screening in a population of low-income and under-screened women, researchers say. 

The self-sampling kits, which detect human papillomavirus (HPV), are available only for use in clinical trials, but the researchers hope that eventually these kits will be approved for use by the general public. 

The researchers, from the University of North Carolina, explored use of these kits in the My Body, My Test-3 study, which was published online in The Lancet Public Health.

In a commentary published with the study, Runzhi Wang, MD, and Jennell Coleman, MD, MPH, both of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said it “provides the required evidence that ... self-collected samples can be an effective strategy for hard-to-reach populations.”

The study involved 665 women (aged 25-64) in North Carolina who were either uninsured or enrolled in Medicaid or Medicare. The patients had low-income backgrounds and lived in urban areas. More than half self-reported as Black or Hispanic (55%), uninsured (78%) or unemployed (57%). None had a Pap smear in at least 4 years or a high-risk HPV test in the last 6 years. 

Two-thirds of the women were mailed an HPV self-collection kit and received assistance with scheduling an in-person screening appointment. The kit included a Viba-Brush device, which is inserted into the vagina like a tampon to collect the sample.

The other third of women, the control group, only received scheduling assistance.

The team found that mailing the self-collection tests along with helping women book in-clinic appointments improved screening rates twofold, compared with just assisting patients to schedule an appointment. 

Screening success among those who received the at-home collection kit was 72%, compared with 37% in the control group. 

Of those who received the kits, 78% returned them. This is “impressive,” said Dr. Wang and Dr. Coleman, as previous studies have reported return rates of only 8%-20%.

University of North Carolina

About 23% of eligible women are overdue for cervical cancer screening by at least a year, according to the National Cancer Institute. Jennifer Smith, PhD, MPH, professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an author of the study, believes every woman deserves equal access to cervical screening.

“I think we really need to make efforts to increase cervical cancer screening among women who are overdue for screening by a year or more from the recommended guidelines,” Dr. Smith said. “We’ve proven along with the wide evidence both in the U.S. and globally that self-collection intervention works well and can motivate screening uptake by breaking down barriers for populations that have less access to care.”

“We’re hoping this research in combination with all of the extensive evidence on the positive performance of HPV self-collection will provide additional information to be considered by the FDA for approval of the kits for primary screening,” Dr. Smith said. 

University of North Carolina

“Government approval of at-home HPV tests would have a huge impact,” said coauthor Noel Brewer, PhD, also of UNC Chapel Hill. “We could better reach those in rural areas where cervical cancer screening is hard to come by.”

Dr. Smith has received research grants, supply donations, and consultancies for Hologic and BD Diagnostics. Dr. Brewer, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Coleman reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Mailing do-it-yourself sampling kits to test for cervical cancer doubled the rate of screening in a population of low-income and under-screened women, researchers say. 

The self-sampling kits, which detect human papillomavirus (HPV), are available only for use in clinical trials, but the researchers hope that eventually these kits will be approved for use by the general public. 

The researchers, from the University of North Carolina, explored use of these kits in the My Body, My Test-3 study, which was published online in The Lancet Public Health.

In a commentary published with the study, Runzhi Wang, MD, and Jennell Coleman, MD, MPH, both of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said it “provides the required evidence that ... self-collected samples can be an effective strategy for hard-to-reach populations.”

The study involved 665 women (aged 25-64) in North Carolina who were either uninsured or enrolled in Medicaid or Medicare. The patients had low-income backgrounds and lived in urban areas. More than half self-reported as Black or Hispanic (55%), uninsured (78%) or unemployed (57%). None had a Pap smear in at least 4 years or a high-risk HPV test in the last 6 years. 

Two-thirds of the women were mailed an HPV self-collection kit and received assistance with scheduling an in-person screening appointment. The kit included a Viba-Brush device, which is inserted into the vagina like a tampon to collect the sample.

The other third of women, the control group, only received scheduling assistance.

The team found that mailing the self-collection tests along with helping women book in-clinic appointments improved screening rates twofold, compared with just assisting patients to schedule an appointment. 

Screening success among those who received the at-home collection kit was 72%, compared with 37% in the control group. 

Of those who received the kits, 78% returned them. This is “impressive,” said Dr. Wang and Dr. Coleman, as previous studies have reported return rates of only 8%-20%.

University of North Carolina

About 23% of eligible women are overdue for cervical cancer screening by at least a year, according to the National Cancer Institute. Jennifer Smith, PhD, MPH, professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an author of the study, believes every woman deserves equal access to cervical screening.

“I think we really need to make efforts to increase cervical cancer screening among women who are overdue for screening by a year or more from the recommended guidelines,” Dr. Smith said. “We’ve proven along with the wide evidence both in the U.S. and globally that self-collection intervention works well and can motivate screening uptake by breaking down barriers for populations that have less access to care.”

“We’re hoping this research in combination with all of the extensive evidence on the positive performance of HPV self-collection will provide additional information to be considered by the FDA for approval of the kits for primary screening,” Dr. Smith said. 

University of North Carolina

“Government approval of at-home HPV tests would have a huge impact,” said coauthor Noel Brewer, PhD, also of UNC Chapel Hill. “We could better reach those in rural areas where cervical cancer screening is hard to come by.”

Dr. Smith has received research grants, supply donations, and consultancies for Hologic and BD Diagnostics. Dr. Brewer, Dr. Wang, and Dr. Coleman reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Having a fatty liver raises a patient’s risk of colorectal cancer liver metastasis via an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, yes-associated protein (YAP) signaling, and extracellular vesicle-microRNAs, according to the authors of new research.

These findings support the previously reported link between fatty liver and colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastasis, and suggest that CRC patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) may respond differently to treatment than CRC patients without NAFLD, wrote lead author Zhijun Wang, MD, PhD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues, in their paper.

“Obesity and NAFLD are the significant risk factors for CRC,” the investigators explained, in Cell Metabolism. “A growing body of epidemiological evidence indicates that fatty liver increases the occurrence of CRC liver metastasis and the local recurrence after resection of CRC liver metastases, thereby worsening prognosis ... There is an urgent need to understand the molecular mechanisms of metastasis in patients with fatty liver to manage those patients effectively.”

To this end, Dr. Wang and colleagues conducted a series of experiments involving mice, cell cultures, and human sera. They found that fatty liver increases risk of CRC liver metastasis via extracellular vesicles (EVs) that contain procarcinogenic miRNAs. As these EVs transfer microRNAs from fatty liver hepatocytes to metastatic cancer cells, YAP activity increases, which, in turn, suppresses immune activity within the tumor microenvironment, promoting growth of CRC metastasis.

Beyond the increased risk of liver metastasis presented by fatty liver, the investigators suggested that NAFLD may cause “more complex” metastatic tumor microenvironments, potentially explaining “diverse responses” to cancer therapies among patients with CRC and liver metastases.

“In summary, our study demonstrates that the pre- and prometastatic liver environment of fatty liver is induced by procarcinogenic EVs and results in an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironemnt, in which YAP plays an important role,” the investigators concluded. “Our study provides new insight into [the] distinct liver tumor microenvironment in patients with fatty liver and without fatty liver, which may contribute to the aggressiveness of metastatic tumors and weak responses to anticancer therapy in patients with fatty liver. Additional studies are warranted to develop precision medicine for treating patients with CRC and liver metastasis.”

One of the study authors disclosed relationships with Altimmune, Cytodyn, Novo Nordisk, and others. The other investigators had no relevant financial disclosures.

Having a fatty liver raises a patient’s risk of colorectal cancer liver metastasis via an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, yes-associated protein (YAP) signaling, and extracellular vesicle-microRNAs, according to the authors of new research.

These findings support the previously reported link between fatty liver and colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastasis, and suggest that CRC patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) may respond differently to treatment than CRC patients without NAFLD, wrote lead author Zhijun Wang, MD, PhD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues, in their paper.

“Obesity and NAFLD are the significant risk factors for CRC,” the investigators explained, in Cell Metabolism. “A growing body of epidemiological evidence indicates that fatty liver increases the occurrence of CRC liver metastasis and the local recurrence after resection of CRC liver metastases, thereby worsening prognosis ... There is an urgent need to understand the molecular mechanisms of metastasis in patients with fatty liver to manage those patients effectively.”

To this end, Dr. Wang and colleagues conducted a series of experiments involving mice, cell cultures, and human sera. They found that fatty liver increases risk of CRC liver metastasis via extracellular vesicles (EVs) that contain procarcinogenic miRNAs. As these EVs transfer microRNAs from fatty liver hepatocytes to metastatic cancer cells, YAP activity increases, which, in turn, suppresses immune activity within the tumor microenvironment, promoting growth of CRC metastasis.

Beyond the increased risk of liver metastasis presented by fatty liver, the investigators suggested that NAFLD may cause “more complex” metastatic tumor microenvironments, potentially explaining “diverse responses” to cancer therapies among patients with CRC and liver metastases.

“In summary, our study demonstrates that the pre- and prometastatic liver environment of fatty liver is induced by procarcinogenic EVs and results in an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironemnt, in which YAP plays an important role,” the investigators concluded. “Our study provides new insight into [the] distinct liver tumor microenvironment in patients with fatty liver and without fatty liver, which may contribute to the aggressiveness of metastatic tumors and weak responses to anticancer therapy in patients with fatty liver. Additional studies are warranted to develop precision medicine for treating patients with CRC and liver metastasis.”

One of the study authors disclosed relationships with Altimmune, Cytodyn, Novo Nordisk, and others. The other investigators had no relevant financial disclosures.

Having a fatty liver raises a patient’s risk of colorectal cancer liver metastasis via an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, yes-associated protein (YAP) signaling, and extracellular vesicle-microRNAs, according to the authors of new research.

These findings support the previously reported link between fatty liver and colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastasis, and suggest that CRC patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) may respond differently to treatment than CRC patients without NAFLD, wrote lead author Zhijun Wang, MD, PhD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and colleagues, in their paper.

“Obesity and NAFLD are the significant risk factors for CRC,” the investigators explained, in Cell Metabolism. “A growing body of epidemiological evidence indicates that fatty liver increases the occurrence of CRC liver metastasis and the local recurrence after resection of CRC liver metastases, thereby worsening prognosis ... There is an urgent need to understand the molecular mechanisms of metastasis in patients with fatty liver to manage those patients effectively.”

To this end, Dr. Wang and colleagues conducted a series of experiments involving mice, cell cultures, and human sera. They found that fatty liver increases risk of CRC liver metastasis via extracellular vesicles (EVs) that contain procarcinogenic miRNAs. As these EVs transfer microRNAs from fatty liver hepatocytes to metastatic cancer cells, YAP activity increases, which, in turn, suppresses immune activity within the tumor microenvironment, promoting growth of CRC metastasis.

Beyond the increased risk of liver metastasis presented by fatty liver, the investigators suggested that NAFLD may cause “more complex” metastatic tumor microenvironments, potentially explaining “diverse responses” to cancer therapies among patients with CRC and liver metastases.

“In summary, our study demonstrates that the pre- and prometastatic liver environment of fatty liver is induced by procarcinogenic EVs and results in an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironemnt, in which YAP plays an important role,” the investigators concluded. “Our study provides new insight into [the] distinct liver tumor microenvironment in patients with fatty liver and without fatty liver, which may contribute to the aggressiveness of metastatic tumors and weak responses to anticancer therapy in patients with fatty liver. Additional studies are warranted to develop precision medicine for treating patients with CRC and liver metastasis.”

One of the study authors disclosed relationships with Altimmune, Cytodyn, Novo Nordisk, and others. The other investigators had no relevant financial disclosures.

CHICAGO – Preoperative clinical diagnoses of pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) are frequently found to be in error when patients go to surgery as recommended under international guidelines, data from a retrospective study show.

An analysis of all pancreatic resections performed for presumed PCN at the Verona Pancreas Institute, Italy, from 2011 through 2020 showed a high degree of discrepancy between the preoperative clinical diagnosis and the final postoperative pathology, with some lesions being misdiagnosed in nearly two-thirds of cases, reported Anna Burelli, MD, of the department of general and pancreatic surgery at the University of Verona.

“Diagnostic errors are still common for resected PCNs. Morphological and clinical information alone still poorly frame actual targets for surgery, and hopefully the development of new reliable biomarkers will represent the next evolution in pancreatic cystic neoplasm management,” she said in an oral abstract session at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

Diagnostic errors are significant issues in care of patients with PCN, because clinicians must balance the need for prompt, definitive treatment when necessary with the need for avoiding the significant morbidity of pancreatic resection for patients with lesions that turn out to be nonmalignant.

The investigators define “misdiagnosis” as a discrepancy between the preoperative clinical diagnosis and the postoperative pathology, and “mismatch” as a discrepancy between the preoperative suspicion of malignant or benign disease and the final pathology.
 

Checkered history

In previous cases series from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston (2010) and the Verona Pancreas Institute (2012) – both experienced, high-volume centers – PCN misdiagnosis rates were 30% and 21%, respectively, and results from the current study show that things haven’t changed much since then, Dr. Burelli said.

PCNs are divided into neoplastic and nonneoplastic categories, with mucin-producing subtypes considered to be precancerous lesions that require accurate diagnosis and close monitoring.

Examples of neoplastic PCNs are intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) of the main pancreatic duct or side branch and mucinous cystadenomas. In contrast, serous cystadenomas, considered nonneoplastic, are mostly benign lesions discovered incidentally during abdominal imaging for another indication. It is very difficult, however, to distinguish between the two PCN subtypes clinically.

For example, Dr. Burelli showed images from a patient who received a preoperative diagnosis of mixed IPMN that was in fact found to be chronic pancreatitis on postoperative pathology.

Dr. Burelli noted that AGA and joint European guidelines for management of PCNs have been updated over the past decade, with the latest AGA iteration in 2015.

A 2017 study evaluating the 2015 AGA guidelines for management of asymptomatic PCNs found that following the guidelines in a large multicenter cohort “would have resulted in 60 % fewer patients being referred for surgical resection, and accurately recommended surveillance in 95% of patients with asymptomatic PCNs.”

Misdiagnosis and mismatch common

In the current study, Dr. Burelli and colleagues reviewed all pancreatic resections performed for PCNs at their center from 2011 through 2020.

Of 601 patients included in the retrospective study, 301 underwent endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).

The investigators identified misdiagnosis in 19% of cases and mismatch in 34%, and there was no significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy among the 50% of patients who underwent EUS.

The most frequently misdiagnosed lesions were cystic neuroendocrine tumors, in 61% of cases. The least misdiagnosed lesions were pseudopapillary tumors, in 6% of cases.

Many of the diagnostic errors were clinically important. For example, seven cases presumed to be serous cystic neoplasms (an almost always benign lesion) were found on final pathology to have a different, malignant histology.

Mismatch examples included 50 IPMNs with high-risk stigmata that were presumed to be malignant before surgery but were nonmalignant on final pathology, and 38 IPMNs without high-risk stigmata which were thought on clinical examination to be benign but turned out to be malignant on final pathology.

“Our results are in line with the current literature,” Dr. Burelli said, citing a recent meta-analysis showing that among 3,292 patients who underwent resection for mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs), the pooled rate of malignancy was 16.1%, yet the 2012 International Association of Pancreatology guidelines recommend surgery for all fit patients with MCNs, and joint European evidence-based guidelines from 2018 recommend surgery for MCNs 40 mm or larger, those with mural nodules, and for patients who are symptomatic.

The 16.1% pooled malignancy rate suggests “that there is space for surveillance in most cases of MCNs,” she said.

In addition, morphologic and clinical evaluation for IPMN with high-risk stigmata have been shown to have low specificity and low sensitivity, “so should guideline recommendations be revised?” Dr. Burelli said.

She pointed to a recent multi-institutional study in Gastroenterology showing that real-time next-generation sequencing of pancreatic cyst fluid “is sensitive and specific for various pancreatic cyst types and advanced neoplasia arising from mucinous cysts, but also reveals the diversity of genomic alterations seen in pancreatic cysts and their clinical significance.”

“This is not the future; this is the present,” she concluded.

Invited discussant R. Matthew Walsh, MD, a surgeon specializing in pancreatic and cancer surgery at the Cleveland Clinic, complimented the contributions of her group.

“The patient that you showed with chronic pancreatitis could have very well benefited from the operation regardless of the diagnosis if they were symptomatic,” he said, addressing Dr. Burelli. “So what is the group that is the regrettable surgical patients, and where are you aiming your studies? Is it really the 24% with high-risk features in IPMN that have low-grade dysplasia, or is it the 58% who we’re not sure why they were operated on because they didn’t have high-grade features who had low-grade dysplasia?”

She replied that “the goal here is to avoid surgery for benign entities, and we know that the only true benign entities are serous cystic neoplasms, and all the others have a malignant potential, but we think at Verona Pancreas Institute there is no reason to operate on low-grade dysplasia free patients. This is what we really would like to avoid.”

Dr. Walsh also asked, given their finding that EUS did not appear to offer a benefit to patients or change decision making, which patients should still get EUS.

“I think that only patients in which the diagnosis is uncertain or in which there are some worrisome features or high-risk stigmata should undergo EUS before surgery, and also to continue follow-up,” Dr. Burelli said. “I don’t think that the conclusion is that EUS is not useful, but it’s not useful in all.”

For example, large, microcystic lesions can be readily identified radiographically, but other, more complex cases may still require EUS to help nail down or refine a diagnosis, she said.

The study was internally funded. Dr. Burelli and Dr. Walsh reported having no conflicts of interest.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

CHICAGO – Preoperative clinical diagnoses of pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) are frequently found to be in error when patients go to surgery as recommended under international guidelines, data from a retrospective study show.

An analysis of all pancreatic resections performed for presumed PCN at the Verona Pancreas Institute, Italy, from 2011 through 2020 showed a high degree of discrepancy between the preoperative clinical diagnosis and the final postoperative pathology, with some lesions being misdiagnosed in nearly two-thirds of cases, reported Anna Burelli, MD, of the department of general and pancreatic surgery at the University of Verona.

“Diagnostic errors are still common for resected PCNs. Morphological and clinical information alone still poorly frame actual targets for surgery, and hopefully the development of new reliable biomarkers will represent the next evolution in pancreatic cystic neoplasm management,” she said in an oral abstract session at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

Diagnostic errors are significant issues in care of patients with PCN, because clinicians must balance the need for prompt, definitive treatment when necessary with the need for avoiding the significant morbidity of pancreatic resection for patients with lesions that turn out to be nonmalignant.

The investigators define “misdiagnosis” as a discrepancy between the preoperative clinical diagnosis and the postoperative pathology, and “mismatch” as a discrepancy between the preoperative suspicion of malignant or benign disease and the final pathology.
 

Checkered history

In previous cases series from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston (2010) and the Verona Pancreas Institute (2012) – both experienced, high-volume centers – PCN misdiagnosis rates were 30% and 21%, respectively, and results from the current study show that things haven’t changed much since then, Dr. Burelli said.

PCNs are divided into neoplastic and nonneoplastic categories, with mucin-producing subtypes considered to be precancerous lesions that require accurate diagnosis and close monitoring.

Examples of neoplastic PCNs are intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) of the main pancreatic duct or side branch and mucinous cystadenomas. In contrast, serous cystadenomas, considered nonneoplastic, are mostly benign lesions discovered incidentally during abdominal imaging for another indication. It is very difficult, however, to distinguish between the two PCN subtypes clinically.

For example, Dr. Burelli showed images from a patient who received a preoperative diagnosis of mixed IPMN that was in fact found to be chronic pancreatitis on postoperative pathology.

Dr. Burelli noted that AGA and joint European guidelines for management of PCNs have been updated over the past decade, with the latest AGA iteration in 2015.

A 2017 study evaluating the 2015 AGA guidelines for management of asymptomatic PCNs found that following the guidelines in a large multicenter cohort “would have resulted in 60 % fewer patients being referred for surgical resection, and accurately recommended surveillance in 95% of patients with asymptomatic PCNs.”

Misdiagnosis and mismatch common

In the current study, Dr. Burelli and colleagues reviewed all pancreatic resections performed for PCNs at their center from 2011 through 2020.

Of 601 patients included in the retrospective study, 301 underwent endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).

The investigators identified misdiagnosis in 19% of cases and mismatch in 34%, and there was no significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy among the 50% of patients who underwent EUS.

The most frequently misdiagnosed lesions were cystic neuroendocrine tumors, in 61% of cases. The least misdiagnosed lesions were pseudopapillary tumors, in 6% of cases.

Many of the diagnostic errors were clinically important. For example, seven cases presumed to be serous cystic neoplasms (an almost always benign lesion) were found on final pathology to have a different, malignant histology.

Mismatch examples included 50 IPMNs with high-risk stigmata that were presumed to be malignant before surgery but were nonmalignant on final pathology, and 38 IPMNs without high-risk stigmata which were thought on clinical examination to be benign but turned out to be malignant on final pathology.

“Our results are in line with the current literature,” Dr. Burelli said, citing a recent meta-analysis showing that among 3,292 patients who underwent resection for mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs), the pooled rate of malignancy was 16.1%, yet the 2012 International Association of Pancreatology guidelines recommend surgery for all fit patients with MCNs, and joint European evidence-based guidelines from 2018 recommend surgery for MCNs 40 mm or larger, those with mural nodules, and for patients who are symptomatic.

The 16.1% pooled malignancy rate suggests “that there is space for surveillance in most cases of MCNs,” she said.

In addition, morphologic and clinical evaluation for IPMN with high-risk stigmata have been shown to have low specificity and low sensitivity, “so should guideline recommendations be revised?” Dr. Burelli said.

She pointed to a recent multi-institutional study in Gastroenterology showing that real-time next-generation sequencing of pancreatic cyst fluid “is sensitive and specific for various pancreatic cyst types and advanced neoplasia arising from mucinous cysts, but also reveals the diversity of genomic alterations seen in pancreatic cysts and their clinical significance.”

“This is not the future; this is the present,” she concluded.

Invited discussant R. Matthew Walsh, MD, a surgeon specializing in pancreatic and cancer surgery at the Cleveland Clinic, complimented the contributions of her group.

“The patient that you showed with chronic pancreatitis could have very well benefited from the operation regardless of the diagnosis if they were symptomatic,” he said, addressing Dr. Burelli. “So what is the group that is the regrettable surgical patients, and where are you aiming your studies? Is it really the 24% with high-risk features in IPMN that have low-grade dysplasia, or is it the 58% who we’re not sure why they were operated on because they didn’t have high-grade features who had low-grade dysplasia?”

She replied that “the goal here is to avoid surgery for benign entities, and we know that the only true benign entities are serous cystic neoplasms, and all the others have a malignant potential, but we think at Verona Pancreas Institute there is no reason to operate on low-grade dysplasia free patients. This is what we really would like to avoid.”

Dr. Walsh also asked, given their finding that EUS did not appear to offer a benefit to patients or change decision making, which patients should still get EUS.

“I think that only patients in which the diagnosis is uncertain or in which there are some worrisome features or high-risk stigmata should undergo EUS before surgery, and also to continue follow-up,” Dr. Burelli said. “I don’t think that the conclusion is that EUS is not useful, but it’s not useful in all.”

For example, large, microcystic lesions can be readily identified radiographically, but other, more complex cases may still require EUS to help nail down or refine a diagnosis, she said.

The study was internally funded. Dr. Burelli and Dr. Walsh reported having no conflicts of interest.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.

CHICAGO – Preoperative clinical diagnoses of pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) are frequently found to be in error when patients go to surgery as recommended under international guidelines, data from a retrospective study show.

An analysis of all pancreatic resections performed for presumed PCN at the Verona Pancreas Institute, Italy, from 2011 through 2020 showed a high degree of discrepancy between the preoperative clinical diagnosis and the final postoperative pathology, with some lesions being misdiagnosed in nearly two-thirds of cases, reported Anna Burelli, MD, of the department of general and pancreatic surgery at the University of Verona.

“Diagnostic errors are still common for resected PCNs. Morphological and clinical information alone still poorly frame actual targets for surgery, and hopefully the development of new reliable biomarkers will represent the next evolution in pancreatic cystic neoplasm management,” she said in an oral abstract session at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

Diagnostic errors are significant issues in care of patients with PCN, because clinicians must balance the need for prompt, definitive treatment when necessary with the need for avoiding the significant morbidity of pancreatic resection for patients with lesions that turn out to be nonmalignant.

The investigators define “misdiagnosis” as a discrepancy between the preoperative clinical diagnosis and the postoperative pathology, and “mismatch” as a discrepancy between the preoperative suspicion of malignant or benign disease and the final pathology.
 

Checkered history

In previous cases series from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston (2010) and the Verona Pancreas Institute (2012) – both experienced, high-volume centers – PCN misdiagnosis rates were 30% and 21%, respectively, and results from the current study show that things haven’t changed much since then, Dr. Burelli said.

PCNs are divided into neoplastic and nonneoplastic categories, with mucin-producing subtypes considered to be precancerous lesions that require accurate diagnosis and close monitoring.

Examples of neoplastic PCNs are intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) of the main pancreatic duct or side branch and mucinous cystadenomas. In contrast, serous cystadenomas, considered nonneoplastic, are mostly benign lesions discovered incidentally during abdominal imaging for another indication. It is very difficult, however, to distinguish between the two PCN subtypes clinically.

For example, Dr. Burelli showed images from a patient who received a preoperative diagnosis of mixed IPMN that was in fact found to be chronic pancreatitis on postoperative pathology.

Dr. Burelli noted that AGA and joint European guidelines for management of PCNs have been updated over the past decade, with the latest AGA iteration in 2015.

A 2017 study evaluating the 2015 AGA guidelines for management of asymptomatic PCNs found that following the guidelines in a large multicenter cohort “would have resulted in 60 % fewer patients being referred for surgical resection, and accurately recommended surveillance in 95% of patients with asymptomatic PCNs.”

Misdiagnosis and mismatch common

In the current study, Dr. Burelli and colleagues reviewed all pancreatic resections performed for PCNs at their center from 2011 through 2020.

Of 601 patients included in the retrospective study, 301 underwent endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).

The investigators identified misdiagnosis in 19% of cases and mismatch in 34%, and there was no significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy among the 50% of patients who underwent EUS.

The most frequently misdiagnosed lesions were cystic neuroendocrine tumors, in 61% of cases. The least misdiagnosed lesions were pseudopapillary tumors, in 6% of cases.

Many of the diagnostic errors were clinically important. For example, seven cases presumed to be serous cystic neoplasms (an almost always benign lesion) were found on final pathology to have a different, malignant histology.

Mismatch examples included 50 IPMNs with high-risk stigmata that were presumed to be malignant before surgery but were nonmalignant on final pathology, and 38 IPMNs without high-risk stigmata which were thought on clinical examination to be benign but turned out to be malignant on final pathology.

“Our results are in line with the current literature,” Dr. Burelli said, citing a recent meta-analysis showing that among 3,292 patients who underwent resection for mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs), the pooled rate of malignancy was 16.1%, yet the 2012 International Association of Pancreatology guidelines recommend surgery for all fit patients with MCNs, and joint European evidence-based guidelines from 2018 recommend surgery for MCNs 40 mm or larger, those with mural nodules, and for patients who are symptomatic.

The 16.1% pooled malignancy rate suggests “that there is space for surveillance in most cases of MCNs,” she said.

In addition, morphologic and clinical evaluation for IPMN with high-risk stigmata have been shown to have low specificity and low sensitivity, “so should guideline recommendations be revised?” Dr. Burelli said.

She pointed to a recent multi-institutional study in Gastroenterology showing that real-time next-generation sequencing of pancreatic cyst fluid “is sensitive and specific for various pancreatic cyst types and advanced neoplasia arising from mucinous cysts, but also reveals the diversity of genomic alterations seen in pancreatic cysts and their clinical significance.”

“This is not the future; this is the present,” she concluded.

Invited discussant R. Matthew Walsh, MD, a surgeon specializing in pancreatic and cancer surgery at the Cleveland Clinic, complimented the contributions of her group.

“The patient that you showed with chronic pancreatitis could have very well benefited from the operation regardless of the diagnosis if they were symptomatic,” he said, addressing Dr. Burelli. “So what is the group that is the regrettable surgical patients, and where are you aiming your studies? Is it really the 24% with high-risk features in IPMN that have low-grade dysplasia, or is it the 58% who we’re not sure why they were operated on because they didn’t have high-grade features who had low-grade dysplasia?”

She replied that “the goal here is to avoid surgery for benign entities, and we know that the only true benign entities are serous cystic neoplasms, and all the others have a malignant potential, but we think at Verona Pancreas Institute there is no reason to operate on low-grade dysplasia free patients. This is what we really would like to avoid.”

Dr. Walsh also asked, given their finding that EUS did not appear to offer a benefit to patients or change decision making, which patients should still get EUS.

“I think that only patients in which the diagnosis is uncertain or in which there are some worrisome features or high-risk stigmata should undergo EUS before surgery, and also to continue follow-up,” Dr. Burelli said. “I don’t think that the conclusion is that EUS is not useful, but it’s not useful in all.”

For example, large, microcystic lesions can be readily identified radiographically, but other, more complex cases may still require EUS to help nail down or refine a diagnosis, she said.

The study was internally funded. Dr. Burelli and Dr. Walsh reported having no conflicts of interest.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.