AVAHO

Over the past 30 years, more than 80 new systemic therapies for cancer have been approved, and many patients diagnosed with localized disease have benefited with improved progression-free and overall survival. The same can be said for some – but by no means all – patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis, a new study indicates.

“Our results show that the survival of patients with de novo metastatic cancer improved slowly over 30 years but that these gains were typically modest and unevenly distributed among cancers,” comment the authors, led by Marianne Luyendijk, MSc, from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The retrospective study compared survival data of patients with de novo metastatic disease diagnosed from 1989 through 1993 with those of patients diagnosed from 2014 to 2018.

The results show that 5-year survival increased by 15% or more among patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors; neuroendocrine tumors; melanoma; and cancers of the prostate, breast, thyroid, and testes.

For patients with other cancers, however, the gains in survival were more modest. For example, over the study period, 5-year survival of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer increased by only 6%, a disappointing finding, given the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy during the most recent period, the authors note.

In contrast, there was a 16% improvement in long-term survival of patients with metastatic melanoma, likely owing to the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

The data also showed differences over time in the proportion of patients diagnosed with de novo metastatic disease; some cancers, such as NSCLC and small cell lung cancer, were more frequently diagnosed at late stages in the more recent era, possibly owing to increased screening and the use of technology such as FDG-PET imaging.

On the other end of the spectrum, cancers of the prostate, rectum, uterine cervix, breast, gallbladder, and bile ducts were more likely to be caught at an earlier stage during later years of the study period.

The authors say that among the possible explanations for a less than robust reduction over time in metastatic disease is that new drugs do not always translate into improved survival. They cite a 2017 study showing that among 53 new cancer drugs approved by U.S., European, or Australian drug regulators, fewer than half improved overall survival by at least 3 months, and an additional 26% offered survival advantages that were either shorter than 3 months or of unknown benefit.

“This may also explain why the 1- and 5-year survival rates of some cancers have changed little in the last 30 years,” they write. “Nevertheless, even minor benefits in survival or other outcomes (for example, quality of life) may represent progress in treating patients with metastatic cancer.”

The investigators recommend that to improve understanding of the effect of new therapies on survival of metastatic disease, cancer registries include data on therapies used beyond the first line, as well as comorbidities and quality-of-life measures.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Ms. Luyendijk has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several co-authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

Over the past 30 years, more than 80 new systemic therapies for cancer have been approved, and many patients diagnosed with localized disease have benefited with improved progression-free and overall survival. The same can be said for some – but by no means all – patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis, a new study indicates.

“Our results show that the survival of patients with de novo metastatic cancer improved slowly over 30 years but that these gains were typically modest and unevenly distributed among cancers,” comment the authors, led by Marianne Luyendijk, MSc, from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The retrospective study compared survival data of patients with de novo metastatic disease diagnosed from 1989 through 1993 with those of patients diagnosed from 2014 to 2018.

The results show that 5-year survival increased by 15% or more among patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors; neuroendocrine tumors; melanoma; and cancers of the prostate, breast, thyroid, and testes.

For patients with other cancers, however, the gains in survival were more modest. For example, over the study period, 5-year survival of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer increased by only 6%, a disappointing finding, given the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy during the most recent period, the authors note.

In contrast, there was a 16% improvement in long-term survival of patients with metastatic melanoma, likely owing to the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

The data also showed differences over time in the proportion of patients diagnosed with de novo metastatic disease; some cancers, such as NSCLC and small cell lung cancer, were more frequently diagnosed at late stages in the more recent era, possibly owing to increased screening and the use of technology such as FDG-PET imaging.

On the other end of the spectrum, cancers of the prostate, rectum, uterine cervix, breast, gallbladder, and bile ducts were more likely to be caught at an earlier stage during later years of the study period.

The authors say that among the possible explanations for a less than robust reduction over time in metastatic disease is that new drugs do not always translate into improved survival. They cite a 2017 study showing that among 53 new cancer drugs approved by U.S., European, or Australian drug regulators, fewer than half improved overall survival by at least 3 months, and an additional 26% offered survival advantages that were either shorter than 3 months or of unknown benefit.

“This may also explain why the 1- and 5-year survival rates of some cancers have changed little in the last 30 years,” they write. “Nevertheless, even minor benefits in survival or other outcomes (for example, quality of life) may represent progress in treating patients with metastatic cancer.”

The investigators recommend that to improve understanding of the effect of new therapies on survival of metastatic disease, cancer registries include data on therapies used beyond the first line, as well as comorbidities and quality-of-life measures.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Ms. Luyendijk has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several co-authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

Over the past 30 years, more than 80 new systemic therapies for cancer have been approved, and many patients diagnosed with localized disease have benefited with improved progression-free and overall survival. The same can be said for some – but by no means all – patients with metastatic disease at diagnosis, a new study indicates.

“Our results show that the survival of patients with de novo metastatic cancer improved slowly over 30 years but that these gains were typically modest and unevenly distributed among cancers,” comment the authors, led by Marianne Luyendijk, MSc, from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization, Utrecht.

The study was published online  in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The retrospective study compared survival data of patients with de novo metastatic disease diagnosed from 1989 through 1993 with those of patients diagnosed from 2014 to 2018.

The results show that 5-year survival increased by 15% or more among patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors; neuroendocrine tumors; melanoma; and cancers of the prostate, breast, thyroid, and testes.

For patients with other cancers, however, the gains in survival were more modest. For example, over the study period, 5-year survival of patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer increased by only 6%, a disappointing finding, given the advent of targeted therapies and immunotherapy during the most recent period, the authors note.

In contrast, there was a 16% improvement in long-term survival of patients with metastatic melanoma, likely owing to the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

The data also showed differences over time in the proportion of patients diagnosed with de novo metastatic disease; some cancers, such as NSCLC and small cell lung cancer, were more frequently diagnosed at late stages in the more recent era, possibly owing to increased screening and the use of technology such as FDG-PET imaging.

On the other end of the spectrum, cancers of the prostate, rectum, uterine cervix, breast, gallbladder, and bile ducts were more likely to be caught at an earlier stage during later years of the study period.

The authors say that among the possible explanations for a less than robust reduction over time in metastatic disease is that new drugs do not always translate into improved survival. They cite a 2017 study showing that among 53 new cancer drugs approved by U.S., European, or Australian drug regulators, fewer than half improved overall survival by at least 3 months, and an additional 26% offered survival advantages that were either shorter than 3 months or of unknown benefit.

“This may also explain why the 1- and 5-year survival rates of some cancers have changed little in the last 30 years,” they write. “Nevertheless, even minor benefits in survival or other outcomes (for example, quality of life) may represent progress in treating patients with metastatic cancer.”

The investigators recommend that to improve understanding of the effect of new therapies on survival of metastatic disease, cancer registries include data on therapies used beyond the first line, as well as comorbidities and quality-of-life measures.

The authors did not report a study funding source. Ms. Luyendijk has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Several co-authors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

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

Some patients with HER2-positive breast cancer can reduce the intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy while maintaining the full benefits in terms of prognosis, new data suggest. Lowering the intensity of chemotherapy also reduces the adverse events that are associated with it.

An open-label study of about 400 participants indicated that 12 weeks of treatment with paclitaxel (Abraxane) and trastuzumab (Herceptin), followed by 9 months of trastuzumab monotherapy, was associated with very good long-term outcomes for patients with certain HER2-positive breast cancers. Few distant recurrences were observed, and tolerability was good.

The study was conducted by a team that included researchers from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, one of the main oncology institutes in Italy.

“HER2-positive breast cancers harbor a particularly poor prognosis, compared with HER2-negative tumors, if left untreated. However, the blockade of HER2 with trastuzumab, when added to adjuvant multiagent chemotherapy, has been shown to improve outcomes for this population,” wrote the researchers, led by Sara M. Tolaney, MD, chief of breast oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to report the long-term outcomes of patients with small, node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancers prospectively treated with a de-escalated adjuvant regimen.”

The study was published in the March issue of The Lancet Oncology.
 

Avoiding side effects

HER2-positive breast cancers, which are characterized by amplification of the HER2 gene and overexpression of the HER2 protein, account for 15% of new cases of localized breast cancer. They are more aggressive and resistant to some anticancer treatments but show sensitivity to stronger chemotherapy.

“We presented the 10-year analysis, which shows that survival for breast cancer among the 406 patients recruited in the study was 98.8% after 10 years, with only 6 recurrences,” study author Paolo Tarantino, MD, researcher at the European Institute of Oncology and clinical research fellow at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in a statement. “Our data support the use of the de-escalated adjuvant paclitaxel trastuzumab regimen as an adequate standard for small HER2-positive breast cancers, which avoids the side effects of polychemotherapy.”

The researchers also focused on patient selection and identified a significant relationship between the value of HER2DX, a new diagnostic tool capable of describing multiple characteristics of HER2-positive breast cancer, and the prognosis. If future research validates these preliminary results, the biomarker may help to further customize cancer treatments in the future, according to Dr. Tarantino.
 

‘A valuable alternative’

“This is the 10-year update of the APT study, which is not randomized and has no control arm,” Alessandra Gennari, MD, PhD, associate professor of oncology at the University of Eastern Piedmont and head of oncology at Maggiore University Hospital in Novara, Italy, said in an interview. Dr. Gennari, who was not involved in the study, was lead author of the European Society for Medical Oncology’s 2021 guidelines on metastatic breast cancer. “This study shows, nevertheless, that in a subpopulation of HER2-positive patients with low to moderate risk of recurrence, the de-escalation of chemotherapy together with trastuzumab is a valuable alternative to more complex regimens with chemotherapy agents and is very well tolerated.”

Dr. Gennari’s comment echoes those of an editorial that accompanied the Lancet Oncology study. “This work represents a milestone in the history of breast cancer: We have definitively shown that for early HER2-positive tumors, you can do less by getting more,” coauthor Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, full professor of medical oncology at University of Milan and head of early drug development at the European Institute of Oncology, told this news organization. “It completes a pathway started by my group at the European Institute of Oncology in 2009, when we showed that HER2-positive tumors have a very good prognosis if diagnosed at a very early stage, and therefore can be treated with less aggressive and less toxic chemotherapies.” Candiolo Cancer Institute oncologists Elena Geuna, MD, and Filippo Montemurro, MD, coauthored the editorial with Dr. Curigliano.

Research on de-escalation increased after that study, and data showed that a lighter chemotherapy regimen is safe and effective and allows patients to live longer and with fewer side effects. “This finding immediately changed clinical practice, and the newly published work now adds an important piece: De-escalation maintains its benefit over the long term, beyond 10 years,” said Dr. Curigliano. “It also shows that in the future, we could identify the patients that will benefit from doing more, but also those that will benefit from doing even less, thanks to the new marker HER2DX.”

The study was funded by Genentech. Dr. Tolaney has received consulting or advisory board fees from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, BMS, Eisai, Sanofi, and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Tarantino has received consulting or advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Lilly, and has received payment or honoraria for educational events from AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Curigliano and Dr. Gennari reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Some patients with HER2-positive breast cancer can reduce the intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy while maintaining the full benefits in terms of prognosis, new data suggest. Lowering the intensity of chemotherapy also reduces the adverse events that are associated with it.

An open-label study of about 400 participants indicated that 12 weeks of treatment with paclitaxel (Abraxane) and trastuzumab (Herceptin), followed by 9 months of trastuzumab monotherapy, was associated with very good long-term outcomes for patients with certain HER2-positive breast cancers. Few distant recurrences were observed, and tolerability was good.

The study was conducted by a team that included researchers from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, one of the main oncology institutes in Italy.

“HER2-positive breast cancers harbor a particularly poor prognosis, compared with HER2-negative tumors, if left untreated. However, the blockade of HER2 with trastuzumab, when added to adjuvant multiagent chemotherapy, has been shown to improve outcomes for this population,” wrote the researchers, led by Sara M. Tolaney, MD, chief of breast oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to report the long-term outcomes of patients with small, node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancers prospectively treated with a de-escalated adjuvant regimen.”

The study was published in the March issue of The Lancet Oncology.
 

Avoiding side effects

HER2-positive breast cancers, which are characterized by amplification of the HER2 gene and overexpression of the HER2 protein, account for 15% of new cases of localized breast cancer. They are more aggressive and resistant to some anticancer treatments but show sensitivity to stronger chemotherapy.

“We presented the 10-year analysis, which shows that survival for breast cancer among the 406 patients recruited in the study was 98.8% after 10 years, with only 6 recurrences,” study author Paolo Tarantino, MD, researcher at the European Institute of Oncology and clinical research fellow at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in a statement. “Our data support the use of the de-escalated adjuvant paclitaxel trastuzumab regimen as an adequate standard for small HER2-positive breast cancers, which avoids the side effects of polychemotherapy.”

The researchers also focused on patient selection and identified a significant relationship between the value of HER2DX, a new diagnostic tool capable of describing multiple characteristics of HER2-positive breast cancer, and the prognosis. If future research validates these preliminary results, the biomarker may help to further customize cancer treatments in the future, according to Dr. Tarantino.
 

‘A valuable alternative’

“This is the 10-year update of the APT study, which is not randomized and has no control arm,” Alessandra Gennari, MD, PhD, associate professor of oncology at the University of Eastern Piedmont and head of oncology at Maggiore University Hospital in Novara, Italy, said in an interview. Dr. Gennari, who was not involved in the study, was lead author of the European Society for Medical Oncology’s 2021 guidelines on metastatic breast cancer. “This study shows, nevertheless, that in a subpopulation of HER2-positive patients with low to moderate risk of recurrence, the de-escalation of chemotherapy together with trastuzumab is a valuable alternative to more complex regimens with chemotherapy agents and is very well tolerated.”

Dr. Gennari’s comment echoes those of an editorial that accompanied the Lancet Oncology study. “This work represents a milestone in the history of breast cancer: We have definitively shown that for early HER2-positive tumors, you can do less by getting more,” coauthor Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, full professor of medical oncology at University of Milan and head of early drug development at the European Institute of Oncology, told this news organization. “It completes a pathway started by my group at the European Institute of Oncology in 2009, when we showed that HER2-positive tumors have a very good prognosis if diagnosed at a very early stage, and therefore can be treated with less aggressive and less toxic chemotherapies.” Candiolo Cancer Institute oncologists Elena Geuna, MD, and Filippo Montemurro, MD, coauthored the editorial with Dr. Curigliano.

Research on de-escalation increased after that study, and data showed that a lighter chemotherapy regimen is safe and effective and allows patients to live longer and with fewer side effects. “This finding immediately changed clinical practice, and the newly published work now adds an important piece: De-escalation maintains its benefit over the long term, beyond 10 years,” said Dr. Curigliano. “It also shows that in the future, we could identify the patients that will benefit from doing more, but also those that will benefit from doing even less, thanks to the new marker HER2DX.”

The study was funded by Genentech. Dr. Tolaney has received consulting or advisory board fees from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, BMS, Eisai, Sanofi, and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Tarantino has received consulting or advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Lilly, and has received payment or honoraria for educational events from AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Curigliano and Dr. Gennari reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Some patients with HER2-positive breast cancer can reduce the intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy while maintaining the full benefits in terms of prognosis, new data suggest. Lowering the intensity of chemotherapy also reduces the adverse events that are associated with it.

An open-label study of about 400 participants indicated that 12 weeks of treatment with paclitaxel (Abraxane) and trastuzumab (Herceptin), followed by 9 months of trastuzumab monotherapy, was associated with very good long-term outcomes for patients with certain HER2-positive breast cancers. Few distant recurrences were observed, and tolerability was good.

The study was conducted by a team that included researchers from the European Institute of Oncology in Milan, one of the main oncology institutes in Italy.

“HER2-positive breast cancers harbor a particularly poor prognosis, compared with HER2-negative tumors, if left untreated. However, the blockade of HER2 with trastuzumab, when added to adjuvant multiagent chemotherapy, has been shown to improve outcomes for this population,” wrote the researchers, led by Sara M. Tolaney, MD, chief of breast oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to report the long-term outcomes of patients with small, node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancers prospectively treated with a de-escalated adjuvant regimen.”

The study was published in the March issue of The Lancet Oncology.
 

Avoiding side effects

HER2-positive breast cancers, which are characterized by amplification of the HER2 gene and overexpression of the HER2 protein, account for 15% of new cases of localized breast cancer. They are more aggressive and resistant to some anticancer treatments but show sensitivity to stronger chemotherapy.

“We presented the 10-year analysis, which shows that survival for breast cancer among the 406 patients recruited in the study was 98.8% after 10 years, with only 6 recurrences,” study author Paolo Tarantino, MD, researcher at the European Institute of Oncology and clinical research fellow at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in a statement. “Our data support the use of the de-escalated adjuvant paclitaxel trastuzumab regimen as an adequate standard for small HER2-positive breast cancers, which avoids the side effects of polychemotherapy.”

The researchers also focused on patient selection and identified a significant relationship between the value of HER2DX, a new diagnostic tool capable of describing multiple characteristics of HER2-positive breast cancer, and the prognosis. If future research validates these preliminary results, the biomarker may help to further customize cancer treatments in the future, according to Dr. Tarantino.
 

‘A valuable alternative’

“This is the 10-year update of the APT study, which is not randomized and has no control arm,” Alessandra Gennari, MD, PhD, associate professor of oncology at the University of Eastern Piedmont and head of oncology at Maggiore University Hospital in Novara, Italy, said in an interview. Dr. Gennari, who was not involved in the study, was lead author of the European Society for Medical Oncology’s 2021 guidelines on metastatic breast cancer. “This study shows, nevertheless, that in a subpopulation of HER2-positive patients with low to moderate risk of recurrence, the de-escalation of chemotherapy together with trastuzumab is a valuable alternative to more complex regimens with chemotherapy agents and is very well tolerated.”

Dr. Gennari’s comment echoes those of an editorial that accompanied the Lancet Oncology study. “This work represents a milestone in the history of breast cancer: We have definitively shown that for early HER2-positive tumors, you can do less by getting more,” coauthor Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, full professor of medical oncology at University of Milan and head of early drug development at the European Institute of Oncology, told this news organization. “It completes a pathway started by my group at the European Institute of Oncology in 2009, when we showed that HER2-positive tumors have a very good prognosis if diagnosed at a very early stage, and therefore can be treated with less aggressive and less toxic chemotherapies.” Candiolo Cancer Institute oncologists Elena Geuna, MD, and Filippo Montemurro, MD, coauthored the editorial with Dr. Curigliano.

Research on de-escalation increased after that study, and data showed that a lighter chemotherapy regimen is safe and effective and allows patients to live longer and with fewer side effects. “This finding immediately changed clinical practice, and the newly published work now adds an important piece: De-escalation maintains its benefit over the long term, beyond 10 years,” said Dr. Curigliano. “It also shows that in the future, we could identify the patients that will benefit from doing more, but also those that will benefit from doing even less, thanks to the new marker HER2DX.”

The study was funded by Genentech. Dr. Tolaney has received consulting or advisory board fees from Genentech, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Gilead, BMS, Eisai, Sanofi, and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Tarantino has received consulting or advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, and Lilly, and has received payment or honoraria for educational events from AstraZeneca and Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Curigliano and Dr. Gennari reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Processed and ultraprocessed food consumption has been shown to increase the risk for various cancers. A new analysis suggests that replacing even a small amount of such foods with an equal amount of minimally processed options may reduce that risk.

Using data from more than 450,000 participants, the dietary substitution analysis found that swapping out just 10% of processed foods with minimally processed foods significantly lowered the risk for cancer overall by 4% as well as the risk for several cancer types, including esophageal squamous cell carcinoma by 43% and hepatocellular carcinoma by 23%.

Making this substitution with ultraprocessed foods also appeared to lower cancer risk but often to a lesser degree. For instance, swapping 10% of ultraprocessed foods for minimally processed foods lowered the overall cancer risk by just 1%, the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma by 27%, and the risk of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma by 20%.

Overall, “this study suggests that the replacement of processed and ultraprocessed foods and drinks with an equal amount of minimally processed foods might reduce the risk of various cancer types,” Nathalie Kliemann, PhD, from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, and colleagues concluded.

The findings were published in The Lancet Planetary Health.

Processed and ultraprocessed foods tend to have high-energy density and low nutritional value, and some epidemiological evidence indicates a possible link between consuming ultraprocessed food and cancer outcomes.

Dr. Kliemann and colleagues, for instance, recently published a study showing a link between ultraprocessed food consumption and increased risk for cancer, particularly ovarian cancer, as well as increased risk of dying from cancer. That study of nearly 200,000 middle-aged adults in the UK Biobank database showed that, for each 10 percentage point increase in the consumption of ultraprocessed foods, there was a 2% increase in the overall incidence of cancer and a 19% increase in ovarian cancer incidence.

However, conflicting reports exist, and research exploring associations between processed foods and cancer remains limited.

The researchers wanted to better understand the potential association between the degree of food processing and risk for cancer in a larger cohort of individuals.

The investigators performed a dietary substitution analysis using data from more than 450,000 participants from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study and looking at 25 anatomical sites. EPIC study participants, who had no cancer diagnoses prior to enrollment, were identified between March 1991 and July 2001. Of the 450,111 included in the analysis, 47,573 were diagnosed with cancer during a mean follow-up of 14.1 years. Mean age at recruitment was 51 years, and mean BMI was 25.3 kg/m².

Food items were classified according to their level of processing using the NOVA classification system: minimally or nonprocessed foods (NOVA 1), processed culinary ingredients (NOVA 2), processed foods (NOVA 3), and ultraprocessed foods (NOVA 4). The investigators highlighted comparisons between NOVA 1 and NOVA 3 and between NOVA 1 and NOVA 4.

The analysis revealed that swapping out just 10% of processed foods with minimally processed foods significantly lowered the risk for cancer overall (hazard ratio, 0.96) as well as for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (HR, 0.57), hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 0.77), head and neck cancers (HR, 0.80), colon cancer (HR, 0,88), rectal cancer (HR, 0.90), and postmenopausal breast cancer (HR, 0.93)

Swapping 10% of ultraprocessed foods for minimally processed foods lowered the risk of cancer overall only slightly (HR, 0.99) as well as the risk for various cancer types, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 0.73), head and neck cancers (HR, 0.80), esophageal adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.80), and colon cancer (HR, 0.93).

The authors noted several limitations to the analysis, perhaps most notably that intake of ultraprocessed foods contributed to about 32% of total daily energy intake among study participants, but today that percentage could be nearly double across European countries.

“This discrepancy might explain the fewer significant associations observed between ultraprocessed foods and cancer risk than in processed foods and cancer risk,” the authors suggested.

The findings are “broadly in line with current evidence,” but the authors also noted some inconsistencies. For example, the current study showed a positive association between processed food consumption and risk for colorectal cancer and postmenopausal breast cancer, whereas other studies have not.

Overall, though, the authors concluded that increased consumption of minimally processed and fresh foods was associated with reduced overall risk for cancer and risk for specific cancers, and increased consumption of processed and ultraprocessed foods was associated with increased cancer risks.

This study “is the largest study investigating these associations between food processing and cancer risk and therefore has greater power to detect differences in populations, potentially explaining why we found overall more significant results for different cancer sites than other cohorts,” Dr. Kliemann and colleagues wrote.

This study was funded by Cancer Research UK, the French National Cancer Institute, and World Cancer Research Fund International. The authors declared no competing interests.

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

Processed and ultraprocessed food consumption has been shown to increase the risk for various cancers. A new analysis suggests that replacing even a small amount of such foods with an equal amount of minimally processed options may reduce that risk.

Using data from more than 450,000 participants, the dietary substitution analysis found that swapping out just 10% of processed foods with minimally processed foods significantly lowered the risk for cancer overall by 4% as well as the risk for several cancer types, including esophageal squamous cell carcinoma by 43% and hepatocellular carcinoma by 23%.

Making this substitution with ultraprocessed foods also appeared to lower cancer risk but often to a lesser degree. For instance, swapping 10% of ultraprocessed foods for minimally processed foods lowered the overall cancer risk by just 1%, the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma by 27%, and the risk of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma by 20%.

Overall, “this study suggests that the replacement of processed and ultraprocessed foods and drinks with an equal amount of minimally processed foods might reduce the risk of various cancer types,” Nathalie Kliemann, PhD, from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, and colleagues concluded.

The findings were published in The Lancet Planetary Health.

Processed and ultraprocessed foods tend to have high-energy density and low nutritional value, and some epidemiological evidence indicates a possible link between consuming ultraprocessed food and cancer outcomes.

Dr. Kliemann and colleagues, for instance, recently published a study showing a link between ultraprocessed food consumption and increased risk for cancer, particularly ovarian cancer, as well as increased risk of dying from cancer. That study of nearly 200,000 middle-aged adults in the UK Biobank database showed that, for each 10 percentage point increase in the consumption of ultraprocessed foods, there was a 2% increase in the overall incidence of cancer and a 19% increase in ovarian cancer incidence.

However, conflicting reports exist, and research exploring associations between processed foods and cancer remains limited.

The researchers wanted to better understand the potential association between the degree of food processing and risk for cancer in a larger cohort of individuals.

The investigators performed a dietary substitution analysis using data from more than 450,000 participants from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study and looking at 25 anatomical sites. EPIC study participants, who had no cancer diagnoses prior to enrollment, were identified between March 1991 and July 2001. Of the 450,111 included in the analysis, 47,573 were diagnosed with cancer during a mean follow-up of 14.1 years. Mean age at recruitment was 51 years, and mean BMI was 25.3 kg/m².

Food items were classified according to their level of processing using the NOVA classification system: minimally or nonprocessed foods (NOVA 1), processed culinary ingredients (NOVA 2), processed foods (NOVA 3), and ultraprocessed foods (NOVA 4). The investigators highlighted comparisons between NOVA 1 and NOVA 3 and between NOVA 1 and NOVA 4.

The analysis revealed that swapping out just 10% of processed foods with minimally processed foods significantly lowered the risk for cancer overall (hazard ratio, 0.96) as well as for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (HR, 0.57), hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 0.77), head and neck cancers (HR, 0.80), colon cancer (HR, 0,88), rectal cancer (HR, 0.90), and postmenopausal breast cancer (HR, 0.93)

Swapping 10% of ultraprocessed foods for minimally processed foods lowered the risk of cancer overall only slightly (HR, 0.99) as well as the risk for various cancer types, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 0.73), head and neck cancers (HR, 0.80), esophageal adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.80), and colon cancer (HR, 0.93).

The authors noted several limitations to the analysis, perhaps most notably that intake of ultraprocessed foods contributed to about 32% of total daily energy intake among study participants, but today that percentage could be nearly double across European countries.

“This discrepancy might explain the fewer significant associations observed between ultraprocessed foods and cancer risk than in processed foods and cancer risk,” the authors suggested.

The findings are “broadly in line with current evidence,” but the authors also noted some inconsistencies. For example, the current study showed a positive association between processed food consumption and risk for colorectal cancer and postmenopausal breast cancer, whereas other studies have not.

Overall, though, the authors concluded that increased consumption of minimally processed and fresh foods was associated with reduced overall risk for cancer and risk for specific cancers, and increased consumption of processed and ultraprocessed foods was associated with increased cancer risks.

This study “is the largest study investigating these associations between food processing and cancer risk and therefore has greater power to detect differences in populations, potentially explaining why we found overall more significant results for different cancer sites than other cohorts,” Dr. Kliemann and colleagues wrote.

This study was funded by Cancer Research UK, the French National Cancer Institute, and World Cancer Research Fund International. The authors declared no competing interests.

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

Processed and ultraprocessed food consumption has been shown to increase the risk for various cancers. A new analysis suggests that replacing even a small amount of such foods with an equal amount of minimally processed options may reduce that risk.

Using data from more than 450,000 participants, the dietary substitution analysis found that swapping out just 10% of processed foods with minimally processed foods significantly lowered the risk for cancer overall by 4% as well as the risk for several cancer types, including esophageal squamous cell carcinoma by 43% and hepatocellular carcinoma by 23%.

Making this substitution with ultraprocessed foods also appeared to lower cancer risk but often to a lesser degree. For instance, swapping 10% of ultraprocessed foods for minimally processed foods lowered the overall cancer risk by just 1%, the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma by 27%, and the risk of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma by 20%.

Overall, “this study suggests that the replacement of processed and ultraprocessed foods and drinks with an equal amount of minimally processed foods might reduce the risk of various cancer types,” Nathalie Kliemann, PhD, from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, and colleagues concluded.

The findings were published in The Lancet Planetary Health.

Processed and ultraprocessed foods tend to have high-energy density and low nutritional value, and some epidemiological evidence indicates a possible link between consuming ultraprocessed food and cancer outcomes.

Dr. Kliemann and colleagues, for instance, recently published a study showing a link between ultraprocessed food consumption and increased risk for cancer, particularly ovarian cancer, as well as increased risk of dying from cancer. That study of nearly 200,000 middle-aged adults in the UK Biobank database showed that, for each 10 percentage point increase in the consumption of ultraprocessed foods, there was a 2% increase in the overall incidence of cancer and a 19% increase in ovarian cancer incidence.

However, conflicting reports exist, and research exploring associations between processed foods and cancer remains limited.

The researchers wanted to better understand the potential association between the degree of food processing and risk for cancer in a larger cohort of individuals.

The investigators performed a dietary substitution analysis using data from more than 450,000 participants from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study and looking at 25 anatomical sites. EPIC study participants, who had no cancer diagnoses prior to enrollment, were identified between March 1991 and July 2001. Of the 450,111 included in the analysis, 47,573 were diagnosed with cancer during a mean follow-up of 14.1 years. Mean age at recruitment was 51 years, and mean BMI was 25.3 kg/m².

Food items were classified according to their level of processing using the NOVA classification system: minimally or nonprocessed foods (NOVA 1), processed culinary ingredients (NOVA 2), processed foods (NOVA 3), and ultraprocessed foods (NOVA 4). The investigators highlighted comparisons between NOVA 1 and NOVA 3 and between NOVA 1 and NOVA 4.

The analysis revealed that swapping out just 10% of processed foods with minimally processed foods significantly lowered the risk for cancer overall (hazard ratio, 0.96) as well as for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (HR, 0.57), hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 0.77), head and neck cancers (HR, 0.80), colon cancer (HR, 0,88), rectal cancer (HR, 0.90), and postmenopausal breast cancer (HR, 0.93)

Swapping 10% of ultraprocessed foods for minimally processed foods lowered the risk of cancer overall only slightly (HR, 0.99) as well as the risk for various cancer types, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 0.73), head and neck cancers (HR, 0.80), esophageal adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.80), and colon cancer (HR, 0.93).

The authors noted several limitations to the analysis, perhaps most notably that intake of ultraprocessed foods contributed to about 32% of total daily energy intake among study participants, but today that percentage could be nearly double across European countries.

“This discrepancy might explain the fewer significant associations observed between ultraprocessed foods and cancer risk than in processed foods and cancer risk,” the authors suggested.

The findings are “broadly in line with current evidence,” but the authors also noted some inconsistencies. For example, the current study showed a positive association between processed food consumption and risk for colorectal cancer and postmenopausal breast cancer, whereas other studies have not.

Overall, though, the authors concluded that increased consumption of minimally processed and fresh foods was associated with reduced overall risk for cancer and risk for specific cancers, and increased consumption of processed and ultraprocessed foods was associated with increased cancer risks.

This study “is the largest study investigating these associations between food processing and cancer risk and therefore has greater power to detect differences in populations, potentially explaining why we found overall more significant results for different cancer sites than other cohorts,” Dr. Kliemann and colleagues wrote.

This study was funded by Cancer Research UK, the French National Cancer Institute, and World Cancer Research Fund International. The authors declared no competing interests.

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

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and surgery offer nearly equal overall survival rates for patients with stage I and II non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to population-based data from a German cancer registry.

“From a public health perspective, SBRT is a good therapeutic option in terms of survival, especially for elderly and inoperable patients,” noted the study authors, led by Jörg Andreas Müller, MD, department of radiation oncology, University Hospital of Halle, Germany.

The analysis was published online in the journal Strahlentherapie Und Onkologie.

Surgery remains the standard of care for early stage NSCLC. However, many patients are not eligible for surgery because of the tumor’s location, age, frailty, or comorbidities.

Before the introduction of SBRT, conventional radiation therapy was the only reasonable option for inoperable patients, with study data showing only a small survival improvement in treated vs. untreated patients.

High-precision, image-guided SBRT offers better tumor control with limited toxicity. And while many radiation oncology centers in Germany adopted SBRT as an alternative treatment for surgery after 2000, few population-based studies evaluating SBRT’s impact on overall survival exist.

Using the German clinical cancer registry of Berlin-Brandenburg, Dr. Müller and colleagues assessed SBRT as an alternative to surgery in 558 patients with stage I and II NSCLC, diagnosed between 2000 and 2015.

More patients received surgery than SBRT (74% vs. 26%). Those who received SBRT were younger than those in the surgery group and had better Karnofsky performance status.

Among patients in the SBRT group, median survival was 19 months overall and 27 months in patients over age 75. In the surgery group, median survival was 22 months overall and 24 months in those over 75.

In a univariate survival model of a propensity-matched sample of 292 patients – half of whom received SBRT – survival rates were similar among those who underwent SBRT versus surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2; P = .2).

Survival was also similar in the two treatment groups in a T1 subanalysis (HR, 1.12; P = .7) as well as in patients over age 75 (HR, 0.86; P = .5).

Better performance status scores were associated with improved survival, and higher histological grades and TNM stages were linked to higher mortality risk. The availability of histological data did not have a significant impact on survival outcomes.

Overall, the findings suggest that SBRT and surgery offer comparable survival outcomes in early stage NSCLC and “the availability of histological data might not be decisive for treatment planning,” Dr. Müller and colleagues said. 

Drew Moghanaki, MD, chief of the thoracic oncology service at UCLA Health Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, highlighted the findings on Twitter.

A thoracic surgeon from Germany responded with several concerns about the study, including the use of statistics with univariate modeling and undiagnosed lymph node (N) status.

Dr. Moghanaki replied that these “concerns summarize how we USED to think. It increasingly seems they aren’t as important as our teachers once thought they were.  As we move into the future we need to reassess the data that supported these recommendations as they seem more academic than patient centered.”

The study authors reported no specific funding, and no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and surgery offer nearly equal overall survival rates for patients with stage I and II non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to population-based data from a German cancer registry.

“From a public health perspective, SBRT is a good therapeutic option in terms of survival, especially for elderly and inoperable patients,” noted the study authors, led by Jörg Andreas Müller, MD, department of radiation oncology, University Hospital of Halle, Germany.

The analysis was published online in the journal Strahlentherapie Und Onkologie.

Surgery remains the standard of care for early stage NSCLC. However, many patients are not eligible for surgery because of the tumor’s location, age, frailty, or comorbidities.

Before the introduction of SBRT, conventional radiation therapy was the only reasonable option for inoperable patients, with study data showing only a small survival improvement in treated vs. untreated patients.

High-precision, image-guided SBRT offers better tumor control with limited toxicity. And while many radiation oncology centers in Germany adopted SBRT as an alternative treatment for surgery after 2000, few population-based studies evaluating SBRT’s impact on overall survival exist.

Using the German clinical cancer registry of Berlin-Brandenburg, Dr. Müller and colleagues assessed SBRT as an alternative to surgery in 558 patients with stage I and II NSCLC, diagnosed between 2000 and 2015.

More patients received surgery than SBRT (74% vs. 26%). Those who received SBRT were younger than those in the surgery group and had better Karnofsky performance status.

Among patients in the SBRT group, median survival was 19 months overall and 27 months in patients over age 75. In the surgery group, median survival was 22 months overall and 24 months in those over 75.

In a univariate survival model of a propensity-matched sample of 292 patients – half of whom received SBRT – survival rates were similar among those who underwent SBRT versus surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2; P = .2).

Survival was also similar in the two treatment groups in a T1 subanalysis (HR, 1.12; P = .7) as well as in patients over age 75 (HR, 0.86; P = .5).

Better performance status scores were associated with improved survival, and higher histological grades and TNM stages were linked to higher mortality risk. The availability of histological data did not have a significant impact on survival outcomes.

Overall, the findings suggest that SBRT and surgery offer comparable survival outcomes in early stage NSCLC and “the availability of histological data might not be decisive for treatment planning,” Dr. Müller and colleagues said. 

Drew Moghanaki, MD, chief of the thoracic oncology service at UCLA Health Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, highlighted the findings on Twitter.

A thoracic surgeon from Germany responded with several concerns about the study, including the use of statistics with univariate modeling and undiagnosed lymph node (N) status.

Dr. Moghanaki replied that these “concerns summarize how we USED to think. It increasingly seems they aren’t as important as our teachers once thought they were.  As we move into the future we need to reassess the data that supported these recommendations as they seem more academic than patient centered.”

The study authors reported no specific funding, and no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and surgery offer nearly equal overall survival rates for patients with stage I and II non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to population-based data from a German cancer registry.

“From a public health perspective, SBRT is a good therapeutic option in terms of survival, especially for elderly and inoperable patients,” noted the study authors, led by Jörg Andreas Müller, MD, department of radiation oncology, University Hospital of Halle, Germany.

The analysis was published online in the journal Strahlentherapie Und Onkologie.

Surgery remains the standard of care for early stage NSCLC. However, many patients are not eligible for surgery because of the tumor’s location, age, frailty, or comorbidities.

Before the introduction of SBRT, conventional radiation therapy was the only reasonable option for inoperable patients, with study data showing only a small survival improvement in treated vs. untreated patients.

High-precision, image-guided SBRT offers better tumor control with limited toxicity. And while many radiation oncology centers in Germany adopted SBRT as an alternative treatment for surgery after 2000, few population-based studies evaluating SBRT’s impact on overall survival exist.

Using the German clinical cancer registry of Berlin-Brandenburg, Dr. Müller and colleagues assessed SBRT as an alternative to surgery in 558 patients with stage I and II NSCLC, diagnosed between 2000 and 2015.

More patients received surgery than SBRT (74% vs. 26%). Those who received SBRT were younger than those in the surgery group and had better Karnofsky performance status.

Among patients in the SBRT group, median survival was 19 months overall and 27 months in patients over age 75. In the surgery group, median survival was 22 months overall and 24 months in those over 75.

In a univariate survival model of a propensity-matched sample of 292 patients – half of whom received SBRT – survival rates were similar among those who underwent SBRT versus surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 1.2; P = .2).

Survival was also similar in the two treatment groups in a T1 subanalysis (HR, 1.12; P = .7) as well as in patients over age 75 (HR, 0.86; P = .5).

Better performance status scores were associated with improved survival, and higher histological grades and TNM stages were linked to higher mortality risk. The availability of histological data did not have a significant impact on survival outcomes.

Overall, the findings suggest that SBRT and surgery offer comparable survival outcomes in early stage NSCLC and “the availability of histological data might not be decisive for treatment planning,” Dr. Müller and colleagues said. 

Drew Moghanaki, MD, chief of the thoracic oncology service at UCLA Health Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, highlighted the findings on Twitter.

A thoracic surgeon from Germany responded with several concerns about the study, including the use of statistics with univariate modeling and undiagnosed lymph node (N) status.

Dr. Moghanaki replied that these “concerns summarize how we USED to think. It increasingly seems they aren’t as important as our teachers once thought they were.  As we move into the future we need to reassess the data that supported these recommendations as they seem more academic than patient centered.”

The study authors reported no specific funding, and no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A 2.5-mg dose of olanzapine once daily significantly improved appetite in patients undergoing chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic gastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary, or lung cancer.

Anorexia is a problem in approximately 50% of newly-diagnosed cancer patients, and can compromise survival, wrote study author Lakshmi Sandhya, MD, of Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India, and colleagues. In particular, patients with lung and gastrointestinal tract cancers are prone to anorexia during chemotherapy, they said. Olanzapine is a demonstrated appetite stimulant and has been used in cancer patients as a short-term antiemetic, but its use for long-term appetite stimulation has not been well-studied, they said.

In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the researchers randomized 124 adults aged 18 years and older to a 2.5 grams of olanzapine or placebo for 12 weeks. The participants had untreated, locally advanced, or metastatic gastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB), or lung cancers.

The median age of the participants was 55 years. The primary outcome was a weight gain greater than 5% and improved appetite based on the visual analog scale (VAS) and questionnaires. A change in nutritional status, quality of life (QOL), and chemotherapy toxicity, were secondary endpoints.

After 12 weeks, complete data were available for 58 patients in the olanzapine group and 54 in the placebo group. Of these, 60% of the olanzapine group and 9% of the placebo group met the primary endpoint of a weight gain greater than 5%. The proportion of patients with improved appetite based on VAS scores and questionnaire scores was significantly higher in olanzapine patients vs. placebo patients (43% vs. 13% and 22% vs. 4%, respectively).

In addition, 52% of the olanzapine group vs. 18% of the placebo group achieved more than 75% intake of recommended daily calories.

Most of the reported toxicities were not hematological and similar between the groups (85% for olanzapine vs. 88% for placebo). The proportion of patients with toxicities of grade 3 or higher was lower in the olanzapine group vs. the placebo group (12% vs. 37%, P = .002). Patients in the olanzapine group also reported significantly improved quality of life from baseline compared to the placebo patients.

The findings were limited by several factors including the heterogeneous cancers and treatment regimens, the lack of data on weight beyond 12 weeks, the relatively small study population, and the subjective nature of anorexia measurements, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that low-dose olanzapine is an effective and well-tolerated add-on intervention for the subset of patients at risk for anorexia at the start of chemotherapy, they said.

“Future studies could look at various cancers in a multicentric setting and long-term endpoints such as patient survival,” they concluded.

The study drug and placebo were funded by an intramural grant from Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER). The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A 2.5-mg dose of olanzapine once daily significantly improved appetite in patients undergoing chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic gastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary, or lung cancer.

Anorexia is a problem in approximately 50% of newly-diagnosed cancer patients, and can compromise survival, wrote study author Lakshmi Sandhya, MD, of Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India, and colleagues. In particular, patients with lung and gastrointestinal tract cancers are prone to anorexia during chemotherapy, they said. Olanzapine is a demonstrated appetite stimulant and has been used in cancer patients as a short-term antiemetic, but its use for long-term appetite stimulation has not been well-studied, they said.

In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the researchers randomized 124 adults aged 18 years and older to a 2.5 grams of olanzapine or placebo for 12 weeks. The participants had untreated, locally advanced, or metastatic gastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB), or lung cancers.

The median age of the participants was 55 years. The primary outcome was a weight gain greater than 5% and improved appetite based on the visual analog scale (VAS) and questionnaires. A change in nutritional status, quality of life (QOL), and chemotherapy toxicity, were secondary endpoints.

After 12 weeks, complete data were available for 58 patients in the olanzapine group and 54 in the placebo group. Of these, 60% of the olanzapine group and 9% of the placebo group met the primary endpoint of a weight gain greater than 5%. The proportion of patients with improved appetite based on VAS scores and questionnaire scores was significantly higher in olanzapine patients vs. placebo patients (43% vs. 13% and 22% vs. 4%, respectively).

In addition, 52% of the olanzapine group vs. 18% of the placebo group achieved more than 75% intake of recommended daily calories.

Most of the reported toxicities were not hematological and similar between the groups (85% for olanzapine vs. 88% for placebo). The proportion of patients with toxicities of grade 3 or higher was lower in the olanzapine group vs. the placebo group (12% vs. 37%, P = .002). Patients in the olanzapine group also reported significantly improved quality of life from baseline compared to the placebo patients.

The findings were limited by several factors including the heterogeneous cancers and treatment regimens, the lack of data on weight beyond 12 weeks, the relatively small study population, and the subjective nature of anorexia measurements, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that low-dose olanzapine is an effective and well-tolerated add-on intervention for the subset of patients at risk for anorexia at the start of chemotherapy, they said.

“Future studies could look at various cancers in a multicentric setting and long-term endpoints such as patient survival,” they concluded.

The study drug and placebo were funded by an intramural grant from Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER). The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A 2.5-mg dose of olanzapine once daily significantly improved appetite in patients undergoing chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic gastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary, or lung cancer.

Anorexia is a problem in approximately 50% of newly-diagnosed cancer patients, and can compromise survival, wrote study author Lakshmi Sandhya, MD, of Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, India, and colleagues. In particular, patients with lung and gastrointestinal tract cancers are prone to anorexia during chemotherapy, they said. Olanzapine is a demonstrated appetite stimulant and has been used in cancer patients as a short-term antiemetic, but its use for long-term appetite stimulation has not been well-studied, they said.

In the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, the researchers randomized 124 adults aged 18 years and older to a 2.5 grams of olanzapine or placebo for 12 weeks. The participants had untreated, locally advanced, or metastatic gastric, hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB), or lung cancers.

The median age of the participants was 55 years. The primary outcome was a weight gain greater than 5% and improved appetite based on the visual analog scale (VAS) and questionnaires. A change in nutritional status, quality of life (QOL), and chemotherapy toxicity, were secondary endpoints.

After 12 weeks, complete data were available for 58 patients in the olanzapine group and 54 in the placebo group. Of these, 60% of the olanzapine group and 9% of the placebo group met the primary endpoint of a weight gain greater than 5%. The proportion of patients with improved appetite based on VAS scores and questionnaire scores was significantly higher in olanzapine patients vs. placebo patients (43% vs. 13% and 22% vs. 4%, respectively).

In addition, 52% of the olanzapine group vs. 18% of the placebo group achieved more than 75% intake of recommended daily calories.

Most of the reported toxicities were not hematological and similar between the groups (85% for olanzapine vs. 88% for placebo). The proportion of patients with toxicities of grade 3 or higher was lower in the olanzapine group vs. the placebo group (12% vs. 37%, P = .002). Patients in the olanzapine group also reported significantly improved quality of life from baseline compared to the placebo patients.

The findings were limited by several factors including the heterogeneous cancers and treatment regimens, the lack of data on weight beyond 12 weeks, the relatively small study population, and the subjective nature of anorexia measurements, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that low-dose olanzapine is an effective and well-tolerated add-on intervention for the subset of patients at risk for anorexia at the start of chemotherapy, they said.

“Future studies could look at various cancers in a multicentric setting and long-term endpoints such as patient survival,” they concluded.

The study drug and placebo were funded by an intramural grant from Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER). The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The latest therapies for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) offer prolonged remission, along with a need for better tools to gauge their effectiveness. Data from a new study published in Frontiers in Oncology demonstrate that assessing measurable residual disease (MRD) helps doctors evaluate and implement novel treatments.

“MRD measurement is now a key feature of CLL clinical trials reporting. It can change CLL care by enabling approval of medication use in the wider (nontrial) patient population based on MRD data, without having to wait (ever-increasing) times for conventional trial outcomes, such as progression-free survival [PFS],” said study author Tahla Munir MD, of the department of hematology, at the Leeds (England) Teaching Hospitals of the National Health Service Trust.

courtesy of NHS

“It also has potential to direct our treatment duration and follow-up strategies based on MRD results taken during or at the end of treatment, and to direct new treatment strategies, such as intermittent (as opposed to fixed-duration or continuous) treatment,” Dr. Munir said in an interview.

The review study defined MRD according to the detectable proportion of residual CLL cells. (Current international consensus for undetectable is U-MRD4 1 leukemic cell in 10,000 leukocytes.) The advantages and disadvantages of different MRD assays were analyzed. Multiparameter flow cytometry, an older technology, proved less sensitive to newer tests. It is reliable measuring to a sensitivity of U-MRD4 and more widely available than next-generation real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction tests (NG-PCR).

“NG-PCR has the most potential for use in laboratory practice. It doesn’t require patient-specific primers and can detect around 1 CLL cell in 1x10⁶ leukocytes. The biggest challenge is laboratory sequencing and bioinformatic capacity,” said lead study author Amelia Fisher, clinical research fellow at the division of cancer studies and pathology, University of Leeds.

“Multiple wells are required to gather adequate data to match the sensitivity of NGS. As this technology improves to match NGS sensitivity using fewer wells, once primers (bespoke to each patient) are designed it will provide a simple to use, rapid and easily reportable MRD tool, that could be scaled up in the event of MRD testing becoming routine practice,” explained Dr. Fisher.

The study also demonstrated how MRD can offer more in-depth insights into the success of treatments versus PFS. In the MURANO clinical trial, which compared venetoclax-rituximab treatment with standard chemoimmunotherapy (SC) to treat relapsed or refractory CLL, the PFS and overall survival (OS) remained significantly prolonged in the VR group at 5 years after therapy.

Analysis of MRD levels in the VR arm demonstrated that those with U-MRD4 had superior OS, with survival at 5 years of 95.3%, compared with those with higher rates of MRD (72.9%). A slower rate of MRD doubling time in the VR-treated patients, compared with the SC-treated patients, also buttressed the notion of moving from SC to VR treatment for the general CLL patient population.

Researchers cautioned that “a lot of the data is very recent, and therefore we do not have conventional trial outcomes, e.g., PFS and OS for all the studies. Some of the data we have is over a relatively short time period.”

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

An independent expert not associated with the study, Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, associate medical director of the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, expressed agreement with the study’s main findings.

“It is very likely that MRD assessment will be incorporated as a standard measurement of treatment efficacy in patients with CLL in the near future. The technologies have evolved to high levels of sensitivity, and the methods are being successfully harmonized and standardized,” she said.

Neither the study authors nor Dr. Ferrajoli reported conflicts of interest.

The latest therapies for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) offer prolonged remission, along with a need for better tools to gauge their effectiveness. Data from a new study published in Frontiers in Oncology demonstrate that assessing measurable residual disease (MRD) helps doctors evaluate and implement novel treatments.

“MRD measurement is now a key feature of CLL clinical trials reporting. It can change CLL care by enabling approval of medication use in the wider (nontrial) patient population based on MRD data, without having to wait (ever-increasing) times for conventional trial outcomes, such as progression-free survival [PFS],” said study author Tahla Munir MD, of the department of hematology, at the Leeds (England) Teaching Hospitals of the National Health Service Trust.

courtesy of NHS

“It also has potential to direct our treatment duration and follow-up strategies based on MRD results taken during or at the end of treatment, and to direct new treatment strategies, such as intermittent (as opposed to fixed-duration or continuous) treatment,” Dr. Munir said in an interview.

The review study defined MRD according to the detectable proportion of residual CLL cells. (Current international consensus for undetectable is U-MRD4 1 leukemic cell in 10,000 leukocytes.) The advantages and disadvantages of different MRD assays were analyzed. Multiparameter flow cytometry, an older technology, proved less sensitive to newer tests. It is reliable measuring to a sensitivity of U-MRD4 and more widely available than next-generation real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction tests (NG-PCR).

“NG-PCR has the most potential for use in laboratory practice. It doesn’t require patient-specific primers and can detect around 1 CLL cell in 1x10⁶ leukocytes. The biggest challenge is laboratory sequencing and bioinformatic capacity,” said lead study author Amelia Fisher, clinical research fellow at the division of cancer studies and pathology, University of Leeds.

“Multiple wells are required to gather adequate data to match the sensitivity of NGS. As this technology improves to match NGS sensitivity using fewer wells, once primers (bespoke to each patient) are designed it will provide a simple to use, rapid and easily reportable MRD tool, that could be scaled up in the event of MRD testing becoming routine practice,” explained Dr. Fisher.

The study also demonstrated how MRD can offer more in-depth insights into the success of treatments versus PFS. In the MURANO clinical trial, which compared venetoclax-rituximab treatment with standard chemoimmunotherapy (SC) to treat relapsed or refractory CLL, the PFS and overall survival (OS) remained significantly prolonged in the VR group at 5 years after therapy.

Analysis of MRD levels in the VR arm demonstrated that those with U-MRD4 had superior OS, with survival at 5 years of 95.3%, compared with those with higher rates of MRD (72.9%). A slower rate of MRD doubling time in the VR-treated patients, compared with the SC-treated patients, also buttressed the notion of moving from SC to VR treatment for the general CLL patient population.

Researchers cautioned that “a lot of the data is very recent, and therefore we do not have conventional trial outcomes, e.g., PFS and OS for all the studies. Some of the data we have is over a relatively short time period.”

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

An independent expert not associated with the study, Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, associate medical director of the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, expressed agreement with the study’s main findings.

“It is very likely that MRD assessment will be incorporated as a standard measurement of treatment efficacy in patients with CLL in the near future. The technologies have evolved to high levels of sensitivity, and the methods are being successfully harmonized and standardized,” she said.

Neither the study authors nor Dr. Ferrajoli reported conflicts of interest.

The latest therapies for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) offer prolonged remission, along with a need for better tools to gauge their effectiveness. Data from a new study published in Frontiers in Oncology demonstrate that assessing measurable residual disease (MRD) helps doctors evaluate and implement novel treatments.

“MRD measurement is now a key feature of CLL clinical trials reporting. It can change CLL care by enabling approval of medication use in the wider (nontrial) patient population based on MRD data, without having to wait (ever-increasing) times for conventional trial outcomes, such as progression-free survival [PFS],” said study author Tahla Munir MD, of the department of hematology, at the Leeds (England) Teaching Hospitals of the National Health Service Trust.

courtesy of NHS

“It also has potential to direct our treatment duration and follow-up strategies based on MRD results taken during or at the end of treatment, and to direct new treatment strategies, such as intermittent (as opposed to fixed-duration or continuous) treatment,” Dr. Munir said in an interview.

The review study defined MRD according to the detectable proportion of residual CLL cells. (Current international consensus for undetectable is U-MRD4 1 leukemic cell in 10,000 leukocytes.) The advantages and disadvantages of different MRD assays were analyzed. Multiparameter flow cytometry, an older technology, proved less sensitive to newer tests. It is reliable measuring to a sensitivity of U-MRD4 and more widely available than next-generation real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction tests (NG-PCR).

“NG-PCR has the most potential for use in laboratory practice. It doesn’t require patient-specific primers and can detect around 1 CLL cell in 1x10⁶ leukocytes. The biggest challenge is laboratory sequencing and bioinformatic capacity,” said lead study author Amelia Fisher, clinical research fellow at the division of cancer studies and pathology, University of Leeds.

“Multiple wells are required to gather adequate data to match the sensitivity of NGS. As this technology improves to match NGS sensitivity using fewer wells, once primers (bespoke to each patient) are designed it will provide a simple to use, rapid and easily reportable MRD tool, that could be scaled up in the event of MRD testing becoming routine practice,” explained Dr. Fisher.

The study also demonstrated how MRD can offer more in-depth insights into the success of treatments versus PFS. In the MURANO clinical trial, which compared venetoclax-rituximab treatment with standard chemoimmunotherapy (SC) to treat relapsed or refractory CLL, the PFS and overall survival (OS) remained significantly prolonged in the VR group at 5 years after therapy.

Analysis of MRD levels in the VR arm demonstrated that those with U-MRD4 had superior OS, with survival at 5 years of 95.3%, compared with those with higher rates of MRD (72.9%). A slower rate of MRD doubling time in the VR-treated patients, compared with the SC-treated patients, also buttressed the notion of moving from SC to VR treatment for the general CLL patient population.

Researchers cautioned that “a lot of the data is very recent, and therefore we do not have conventional trial outcomes, e.g., PFS and OS for all the studies. Some of the data we have is over a relatively short time period.”

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

An independent expert not associated with the study, Alessandra Ferrajoli, MD, associate medical director of the department of leukemia at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, expressed agreement with the study’s main findings.

“It is very likely that MRD assessment will be incorporated as a standard measurement of treatment efficacy in patients with CLL in the near future. The technologies have evolved to high levels of sensitivity, and the methods are being successfully harmonized and standardized,” she said.

Neither the study authors nor Dr. Ferrajoli reported conflicts of interest.

“Did you love your wife?” asks a character in “Rose,” a book by Martin Cruz Smith.

“No, but she became a fact through perseverance,” the man replied.

Medicine also has such relationships, it seems – tentative ideas that turned into fact simply by existing long enough.

Age 65 as the cutoff for cervical screening may be one such example. It has existed for 27 years with limited science to back it up. That may soon change with the launch of a $3.3 million study that is being funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The study is intended to provide a more solid foundation for the benefits and harms of cervical screening for women older than 65.

It’s an important issue: 20% of all cervical cancer cases are found in women who are older than 65. Most of these patients have late-stage disease, which can be fatal. In the United States, 35% of cervical cancer deaths occur after age 65. But women in this age group are usually no longer screened for cervical cancer.

Back in 1996, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that for women at average risk with adequate prior screening, cervical screening should stop at the age of 65. This recommendation has been carried forward year after year and has been incorporated into several other guidelines.

For example, current guidelines from the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the USPSTF recommend that cervical screening stop at aged 65 for patients with adequate prior screening.

“Adequate screening” is defined as three consecutive normal Pap tests or two consecutive negative human papillomavirus tests or two consecutive negative co-tests within the prior 10 years, with the most recent screening within 5 years and with no precancerous lesions in the past 25 years.

This all sounds reasonable; however, for most women, medical records aren’t up to the task of providing a clean bill of cervical health over many decades.

Explained Sarah Feldman, MD, an associate professor in obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston: “You know, when a patient says to me at 65, ‘Should I continue screening?’ I say, ‘Do you have all your results?’ And they’ll say, ‘Well, I remember I had a sort of abnormal pap 15 years ago,’ and I say, ‘All right; well, who knows what that was?’ So I’ll continue screening.”

According to George Sawaya, MD, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, up to 60% of women do not meet the criteria to end screening at age 65. This means that each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million women turn 65 and should, in theory, continue to undergo screening for cervical cancer.

Unfortunately, the evidence base for the harms and benefits of cervical screening after age 65 is almost nonexistent – at least by the current standards of evidence-based medicine.

“We need to be clear that we don’t really know the appropriateness of the screening after 65,” said Dr. Sawaya, “which is ironic, because cervical cancer screening is probably the most commonly implemented cancer screening test in the country because it starts so early and ends so late and it’s applied so frequently.”

Dr. Feldman agrees that the age 65 cutoff is “somewhat arbitrary.” She said, “Why don’t they want to consider it continuing past 65? I don’t really understand, I have to be honest with you.”

So what’s the scientific evidence backing up the 27-year-old recommendation?

In 2018, the USPSTF’s cervical-screening guidelines concluded “with moderate certainty that the benefits of screening in women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer do not outweigh the potential harms.”

This recommendation was based on a new decision model commissioned by the USPSTF. The model was needed because, as noted by the guidelines’ authors, “None of the screening trials enrolled women older than 65 years, so direct evidence on when to stop screening is not available.”

In 2020, the ACS carried out a fresh literature review and published its own recommendations. The ACS concluded that “the evidence for the effectiveness of screening beyond age 65 is limited, based solely on observational and modeling studies.”

As a result, the ACS assigned a “qualified recommendation” to the age-65 moratorium (defined as “less certainty about the balance of benefits and harms or about patients’ values and preferences”).

Most recently, the 2021 Updated Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines, published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, endorsed the recommendations of the USPSTF.

Dr. Sawaya said, “The whole issue about screening over 65 is complicated from a lot of perspectives. We don’t know a lot about the safety. We don’t really know a lot about patients’ perceptions of it. But we do know that there has to be an upper age limit after which screening is just simply imprudent.”

Dr. Sawaya acknowledges that there exists a “heck-why-not” attitude toward cervical screening after 65 among some physicians, given that the tests are quick and cheap and could save a life, but he sounds a note of caution.

“It’s like when we used to use old cameras: the film was cheap, but the developing was really expensive,” Dr. Sawaya said. “So it’s not necessarily about the tests being cheap, it’s about the cascade of events [that follow].”

Follow-up for cervical cancer can be more hazardous for a postmenopausal patient than for a younger woman, explained Dr. Sawaya, because the transformation zone of the cervix may be difficult to see on colposcopy. Instead of a straightforward 5-minute procedure in the doctor’s office, the older patient may need the operating room simply to provide the first biopsy.

In addition, treatments such as cone biopsy, loop excision, or ablation are also more worrying for older women, said Dr. Sawaya, “So you start thinking about the risks of anesthesia, you start thinking about the risks of bleeding and infection, etc. And these have not been well described in older people.”

To add to the uncertainty about the merits and risks of hunting out cervical cancer in older women, a lot has changed in women’s health since 1996.

Explained Dr. Sawaya, “This stake was put in the ground in 1996, ... but since that time, life expectancy has gained 5 years. So a logical person would say, ‘Oh, well, let’s just say it should be 70 now, right?’ [But] can we even use old studies to inform the current cohort of women who are entering this 65-year-and-older age group?”

To answer all these questions, a 5-year, $3.3 million study funded by the NIH through the National Cancer Institute is now underway.

The project, named Comparative Effectiveness Research to Validate and Improve Cervical Cancer Screening (CERVICCS 2), will be led by Dr. Sawaya and Michael Silverberg, PhD, associate director of the Behavioral Health, Aging and Infectious Diseases Section of Kaiser Permanente Northern California’s Division of Research.

Dr. Sawaya concluded: “There’s very few things that are packaged away and thought to be just the truth. And this is why we always have to be vigilant. ... And that’s what keeps science so interesting and exciting.”

Dr. Sawaya has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Feldman writes for UpToDate and receives several NIH grants.

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

“Did you love your wife?” asks a character in “Rose,” a book by Martin Cruz Smith.

“No, but she became a fact through perseverance,” the man replied.

Medicine also has such relationships, it seems – tentative ideas that turned into fact simply by existing long enough.

Age 65 as the cutoff for cervical screening may be one such example. It has existed for 27 years with limited science to back it up. That may soon change with the launch of a $3.3 million study that is being funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The study is intended to provide a more solid foundation for the benefits and harms of cervical screening for women older than 65.

It’s an important issue: 20% of all cervical cancer cases are found in women who are older than 65. Most of these patients have late-stage disease, which can be fatal. In the United States, 35% of cervical cancer deaths occur after age 65. But women in this age group are usually no longer screened for cervical cancer.

Back in 1996, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that for women at average risk with adequate prior screening, cervical screening should stop at the age of 65. This recommendation has been carried forward year after year and has been incorporated into several other guidelines.

For example, current guidelines from the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the USPSTF recommend that cervical screening stop at aged 65 for patients with adequate prior screening.

“Adequate screening” is defined as three consecutive normal Pap tests or two consecutive negative human papillomavirus tests or two consecutive negative co-tests within the prior 10 years, with the most recent screening within 5 years and with no precancerous lesions in the past 25 years.

This all sounds reasonable; however, for most women, medical records aren’t up to the task of providing a clean bill of cervical health over many decades.

Explained Sarah Feldman, MD, an associate professor in obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston: “You know, when a patient says to me at 65, ‘Should I continue screening?’ I say, ‘Do you have all your results?’ And they’ll say, ‘Well, I remember I had a sort of abnormal pap 15 years ago,’ and I say, ‘All right; well, who knows what that was?’ So I’ll continue screening.”

According to George Sawaya, MD, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, up to 60% of women do not meet the criteria to end screening at age 65. This means that each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million women turn 65 and should, in theory, continue to undergo screening for cervical cancer.

Unfortunately, the evidence base for the harms and benefits of cervical screening after age 65 is almost nonexistent – at least by the current standards of evidence-based medicine.

“We need to be clear that we don’t really know the appropriateness of the screening after 65,” said Dr. Sawaya, “which is ironic, because cervical cancer screening is probably the most commonly implemented cancer screening test in the country because it starts so early and ends so late and it’s applied so frequently.”

Dr. Feldman agrees that the age 65 cutoff is “somewhat arbitrary.” She said, “Why don’t they want to consider it continuing past 65? I don’t really understand, I have to be honest with you.”

So what’s the scientific evidence backing up the 27-year-old recommendation?

In 2018, the USPSTF’s cervical-screening guidelines concluded “with moderate certainty that the benefits of screening in women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer do not outweigh the potential harms.”

This recommendation was based on a new decision model commissioned by the USPSTF. The model was needed because, as noted by the guidelines’ authors, “None of the screening trials enrolled women older than 65 years, so direct evidence on when to stop screening is not available.”

In 2020, the ACS carried out a fresh literature review and published its own recommendations. The ACS concluded that “the evidence for the effectiveness of screening beyond age 65 is limited, based solely on observational and modeling studies.”

As a result, the ACS assigned a “qualified recommendation” to the age-65 moratorium (defined as “less certainty about the balance of benefits and harms or about patients’ values and preferences”).

Most recently, the 2021 Updated Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines, published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, endorsed the recommendations of the USPSTF.

Dr. Sawaya said, “The whole issue about screening over 65 is complicated from a lot of perspectives. We don’t know a lot about the safety. We don’t really know a lot about patients’ perceptions of it. But we do know that there has to be an upper age limit after which screening is just simply imprudent.”

Dr. Sawaya acknowledges that there exists a “heck-why-not” attitude toward cervical screening after 65 among some physicians, given that the tests are quick and cheap and could save a life, but he sounds a note of caution.

“It’s like when we used to use old cameras: the film was cheap, but the developing was really expensive,” Dr. Sawaya said. “So it’s not necessarily about the tests being cheap, it’s about the cascade of events [that follow].”

Follow-up for cervical cancer can be more hazardous for a postmenopausal patient than for a younger woman, explained Dr. Sawaya, because the transformation zone of the cervix may be difficult to see on colposcopy. Instead of a straightforward 5-minute procedure in the doctor’s office, the older patient may need the operating room simply to provide the first biopsy.

In addition, treatments such as cone biopsy, loop excision, or ablation are also more worrying for older women, said Dr. Sawaya, “So you start thinking about the risks of anesthesia, you start thinking about the risks of bleeding and infection, etc. And these have not been well described in older people.”

To add to the uncertainty about the merits and risks of hunting out cervical cancer in older women, a lot has changed in women’s health since 1996.

Explained Dr. Sawaya, “This stake was put in the ground in 1996, ... but since that time, life expectancy has gained 5 years. So a logical person would say, ‘Oh, well, let’s just say it should be 70 now, right?’ [But] can we even use old studies to inform the current cohort of women who are entering this 65-year-and-older age group?”

To answer all these questions, a 5-year, $3.3 million study funded by the NIH through the National Cancer Institute is now underway.

The project, named Comparative Effectiveness Research to Validate and Improve Cervical Cancer Screening (CERVICCS 2), will be led by Dr. Sawaya and Michael Silverberg, PhD, associate director of the Behavioral Health, Aging and Infectious Diseases Section of Kaiser Permanente Northern California’s Division of Research.

Dr. Sawaya concluded: “There’s very few things that are packaged away and thought to be just the truth. And this is why we always have to be vigilant. ... And that’s what keeps science so interesting and exciting.”

Dr. Sawaya has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Feldman writes for UpToDate and receives several NIH grants.

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

“Did you love your wife?” asks a character in “Rose,” a book by Martin Cruz Smith.

“No, but she became a fact through perseverance,” the man replied.

Medicine also has such relationships, it seems – tentative ideas that turned into fact simply by existing long enough.

Age 65 as the cutoff for cervical screening may be one such example. It has existed for 27 years with limited science to back it up. That may soon change with the launch of a $3.3 million study that is being funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The study is intended to provide a more solid foundation for the benefits and harms of cervical screening for women older than 65.

It’s an important issue: 20% of all cervical cancer cases are found in women who are older than 65. Most of these patients have late-stage disease, which can be fatal. In the United States, 35% of cervical cancer deaths occur after age 65. But women in this age group are usually no longer screened for cervical cancer.

Back in 1996, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that for women at average risk with adequate prior screening, cervical screening should stop at the age of 65. This recommendation has been carried forward year after year and has been incorporated into several other guidelines.

For example, current guidelines from the American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the USPSTF recommend that cervical screening stop at aged 65 for patients with adequate prior screening.

“Adequate screening” is defined as three consecutive normal Pap tests or two consecutive negative human papillomavirus tests or two consecutive negative co-tests within the prior 10 years, with the most recent screening within 5 years and with no precancerous lesions in the past 25 years.

This all sounds reasonable; however, for most women, medical records aren’t up to the task of providing a clean bill of cervical health over many decades.

Explained Sarah Feldman, MD, an associate professor in obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston: “You know, when a patient says to me at 65, ‘Should I continue screening?’ I say, ‘Do you have all your results?’ And they’ll say, ‘Well, I remember I had a sort of abnormal pap 15 years ago,’ and I say, ‘All right; well, who knows what that was?’ So I’ll continue screening.”

According to George Sawaya, MD, professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco, up to 60% of women do not meet the criteria to end screening at age 65. This means that each year in the United States, approximately 1.7 million women turn 65 and should, in theory, continue to undergo screening for cervical cancer.

Unfortunately, the evidence base for the harms and benefits of cervical screening after age 65 is almost nonexistent – at least by the current standards of evidence-based medicine.

“We need to be clear that we don’t really know the appropriateness of the screening after 65,” said Dr. Sawaya, “which is ironic, because cervical cancer screening is probably the most commonly implemented cancer screening test in the country because it starts so early and ends so late and it’s applied so frequently.”

Dr. Feldman agrees that the age 65 cutoff is “somewhat arbitrary.” She said, “Why don’t they want to consider it continuing past 65? I don’t really understand, I have to be honest with you.”

So what’s the scientific evidence backing up the 27-year-old recommendation?

In 2018, the USPSTF’s cervical-screening guidelines concluded “with moderate certainty that the benefits of screening in women older than 65 years who have had adequate prior screening and are not otherwise at high risk for cervical cancer do not outweigh the potential harms.”

This recommendation was based on a new decision model commissioned by the USPSTF. The model was needed because, as noted by the guidelines’ authors, “None of the screening trials enrolled women older than 65 years, so direct evidence on when to stop screening is not available.”

In 2020, the ACS carried out a fresh literature review and published its own recommendations. The ACS concluded that “the evidence for the effectiveness of screening beyond age 65 is limited, based solely on observational and modeling studies.”

As a result, the ACS assigned a “qualified recommendation” to the age-65 moratorium (defined as “less certainty about the balance of benefits and harms or about patients’ values and preferences”).

Most recently, the 2021 Updated Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines, published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, endorsed the recommendations of the USPSTF.

Dr. Sawaya said, “The whole issue about screening over 65 is complicated from a lot of perspectives. We don’t know a lot about the safety. We don’t really know a lot about patients’ perceptions of it. But we do know that there has to be an upper age limit after which screening is just simply imprudent.”

Dr. Sawaya acknowledges that there exists a “heck-why-not” attitude toward cervical screening after 65 among some physicians, given that the tests are quick and cheap and could save a life, but he sounds a note of caution.

“It’s like when we used to use old cameras: the film was cheap, but the developing was really expensive,” Dr. Sawaya said. “So it’s not necessarily about the tests being cheap, it’s about the cascade of events [that follow].”

Follow-up for cervical cancer can be more hazardous for a postmenopausal patient than for a younger woman, explained Dr. Sawaya, because the transformation zone of the cervix may be difficult to see on colposcopy. Instead of a straightforward 5-minute procedure in the doctor’s office, the older patient may need the operating room simply to provide the first biopsy.

In addition, treatments such as cone biopsy, loop excision, or ablation are also more worrying for older women, said Dr. Sawaya, “So you start thinking about the risks of anesthesia, you start thinking about the risks of bleeding and infection, etc. And these have not been well described in older people.”

To add to the uncertainty about the merits and risks of hunting out cervical cancer in older women, a lot has changed in women’s health since 1996.

Explained Dr. Sawaya, “This stake was put in the ground in 1996, ... but since that time, life expectancy has gained 5 years. So a logical person would say, ‘Oh, well, let’s just say it should be 70 now, right?’ [But] can we even use old studies to inform the current cohort of women who are entering this 65-year-and-older age group?”

To answer all these questions, a 5-year, $3.3 million study funded by the NIH through the National Cancer Institute is now underway.

The project, named Comparative Effectiveness Research to Validate and Improve Cervical Cancer Screening (CERVICCS 2), will be led by Dr. Sawaya and Michael Silverberg, PhD, associate director of the Behavioral Health, Aging and Infectious Diseases Section of Kaiser Permanente Northern California’s Division of Research.

Dr. Sawaya concluded: “There’s very few things that are packaged away and thought to be just the truth. And this is why we always have to be vigilant. ... And that’s what keeps science so interesting and exciting.”

Dr. Sawaya has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Feldman writes for UpToDate and receives several NIH grants.

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

Younger people who experience stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage have about a three- to fivefold increased risk of being diagnosed with cancer in the next few years, new research shows.

In young people, stroke might be the first manifestation of an underlying cancer, according to the investigators, led by Jamie Verhoeven, MD, PhD, with the department of neurology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The new study can be viewed as a “stepping stone for future studies investigating the usefulness of screening for cancer after stroke,” the researchers say.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Currently, the diagnostic workup for young people with stroke includes searching for rare clotting disorders, although screening for cancer is not regularly performed.

Some research suggests that stroke and cancer are linked, but the literature is limited. In prior studies among people of all ages, cancer incidence after stroke has been variable – from 1% to 5% at 1 year and from 11% to 30% after 10 years.

To the team’s knowledge, only two studies have described the incidence of cancer after stroke among younger patients. One put the risk at 0.5% for people aged 18-50 years in the first year after stroke; the other described a cumulative risk of 17.3% in the 10 years after stroke for patients aged 18-55 years.

Using Dutch data, Dr. Verhoeven and colleagues identified 27,616 young stroke patients (age, 15-49 years; median age, 45 years) and 362,782 older stroke patients (median age, 76 years).

The cumulative incidence of any new cancer at 10 years was 3.7% among the younger stroke patients and 8.5% among the older stroke patients.

The incidence of a new cancer after stroke among younger patients was higher among women than men, while the opposite was true for older stroke patients.

Compared with the general population, younger stroke patients had a more than 2.5-fold greater likelihood of being diagnosed with a new cancer in the first year after ischemic stroke (standardized incidence ratio, 2.6). The risk was highest for lung cancer (SIR, 6.9), followed by hematologic cancers (SIR, 5.2).

Compared with the general population, younger stroke patients had nearly a 5.5-fold greater likelihood of being diagnosed with a new cancer in the first year after intracerebral hemorrhage (SIR, 5.4), and the risk was highest for hematologic cancers (SIR, 14.2).

In younger patients, the cumulative incidence of any cancer decreased over the years but remained significantly higher for 8 years following a stroke.

For patients aged 50 years or older, the 1-year risk for any new cancer after either ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage was 1.2 times higher, compared with the general population.

“We typically think of occult cancer as being a cause of stroke in an older population, given that the incidence of cancer increases over time [but] what this study shows is that we probably do need to consider occult cancer as an underlying cause of stroke even in a younger population,” said Laura Gioia, MD, stroke neurologist at the University of Montreal, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Verhoeven and colleagues conclude that their finding supports the hypothesis of a causal link between cancer and stroke. Given the timing between stroke and cancer diagnosis, cancer may have been present when the stroke occurred and possibly played a role in causing it, the authors note. However, conclusions on causal mechanisms cannot be drawn from the current study.

The question of whether young stroke patients should be screened for cancer is a tough one, Dr. Gioia noted. “Cancer represents a small percentage of causes of stroke. That means you would have to screen a lot of people with a benefit that is still uncertain for the moment,” Dr. Gioia said in an interview.

“I think we need to keep cancer in mind as a cause of stroke in our young patients, and that should probably guide our history-taking with the patient and consider imaging when it’s appropriate and when we think that there could be an underlying occult cancer,” Dr. Gioia suggested.

The study was funded in part through unrestricted funding by Stryker, Medtronic, and Cerenovus. Dr. Verhoeven and Dr. Gioia have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Younger people who experience stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage have about a three- to fivefold increased risk of being diagnosed with cancer in the next few years, new research shows.

In young people, stroke might be the first manifestation of an underlying cancer, according to the investigators, led by Jamie Verhoeven, MD, PhD, with the department of neurology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The new study can be viewed as a “stepping stone for future studies investigating the usefulness of screening for cancer after stroke,” the researchers say.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Currently, the diagnostic workup for young people with stroke includes searching for rare clotting disorders, although screening for cancer is not regularly performed.

Some research suggests that stroke and cancer are linked, but the literature is limited. In prior studies among people of all ages, cancer incidence after stroke has been variable – from 1% to 5% at 1 year and from 11% to 30% after 10 years.

To the team’s knowledge, only two studies have described the incidence of cancer after stroke among younger patients. One put the risk at 0.5% for people aged 18-50 years in the first year after stroke; the other described a cumulative risk of 17.3% in the 10 years after stroke for patients aged 18-55 years.

Using Dutch data, Dr. Verhoeven and colleagues identified 27,616 young stroke patients (age, 15-49 years; median age, 45 years) and 362,782 older stroke patients (median age, 76 years).

The cumulative incidence of any new cancer at 10 years was 3.7% among the younger stroke patients and 8.5% among the older stroke patients.

The incidence of a new cancer after stroke among younger patients was higher among women than men, while the opposite was true for older stroke patients.

Compared with the general population, younger stroke patients had a more than 2.5-fold greater likelihood of being diagnosed with a new cancer in the first year after ischemic stroke (standardized incidence ratio, 2.6). The risk was highest for lung cancer (SIR, 6.9), followed by hematologic cancers (SIR, 5.2).

Compared with the general population, younger stroke patients had nearly a 5.5-fold greater likelihood of being diagnosed with a new cancer in the first year after intracerebral hemorrhage (SIR, 5.4), and the risk was highest for hematologic cancers (SIR, 14.2).

In younger patients, the cumulative incidence of any cancer decreased over the years but remained significantly higher for 8 years following a stroke.

For patients aged 50 years or older, the 1-year risk for any new cancer after either ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage was 1.2 times higher, compared with the general population.

“We typically think of occult cancer as being a cause of stroke in an older population, given that the incidence of cancer increases over time [but] what this study shows is that we probably do need to consider occult cancer as an underlying cause of stroke even in a younger population,” said Laura Gioia, MD, stroke neurologist at the University of Montreal, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Verhoeven and colleagues conclude that their finding supports the hypothesis of a causal link between cancer and stroke. Given the timing between stroke and cancer diagnosis, cancer may have been present when the stroke occurred and possibly played a role in causing it, the authors note. However, conclusions on causal mechanisms cannot be drawn from the current study.

The question of whether young stroke patients should be screened for cancer is a tough one, Dr. Gioia noted. “Cancer represents a small percentage of causes of stroke. That means you would have to screen a lot of people with a benefit that is still uncertain for the moment,” Dr. Gioia said in an interview.

“I think we need to keep cancer in mind as a cause of stroke in our young patients, and that should probably guide our history-taking with the patient and consider imaging when it’s appropriate and when we think that there could be an underlying occult cancer,” Dr. Gioia suggested.

The study was funded in part through unrestricted funding by Stryker, Medtronic, and Cerenovus. Dr. Verhoeven and Dr. Gioia have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Younger people who experience stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage have about a three- to fivefold increased risk of being diagnosed with cancer in the next few years, new research shows.

In young people, stroke might be the first manifestation of an underlying cancer, according to the investigators, led by Jamie Verhoeven, MD, PhD, with the department of neurology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

The new study can be viewed as a “stepping stone for future studies investigating the usefulness of screening for cancer after stroke,” the researchers say.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Currently, the diagnostic workup for young people with stroke includes searching for rare clotting disorders, although screening for cancer is not regularly performed.

Some research suggests that stroke and cancer are linked, but the literature is limited. In prior studies among people of all ages, cancer incidence after stroke has been variable – from 1% to 5% at 1 year and from 11% to 30% after 10 years.

To the team’s knowledge, only two studies have described the incidence of cancer after stroke among younger patients. One put the risk at 0.5% for people aged 18-50 years in the first year after stroke; the other described a cumulative risk of 17.3% in the 10 years after stroke for patients aged 18-55 years.

Using Dutch data, Dr. Verhoeven and colleagues identified 27,616 young stroke patients (age, 15-49 years; median age, 45 years) and 362,782 older stroke patients (median age, 76 years).

The cumulative incidence of any new cancer at 10 years was 3.7% among the younger stroke patients and 8.5% among the older stroke patients.

The incidence of a new cancer after stroke among younger patients was higher among women than men, while the opposite was true for older stroke patients.

Compared with the general population, younger stroke patients had a more than 2.5-fold greater likelihood of being diagnosed with a new cancer in the first year after ischemic stroke (standardized incidence ratio, 2.6). The risk was highest for lung cancer (SIR, 6.9), followed by hematologic cancers (SIR, 5.2).

Compared with the general population, younger stroke patients had nearly a 5.5-fold greater likelihood of being diagnosed with a new cancer in the first year after intracerebral hemorrhage (SIR, 5.4), and the risk was highest for hematologic cancers (SIR, 14.2).

In younger patients, the cumulative incidence of any cancer decreased over the years but remained significantly higher for 8 years following a stroke.

For patients aged 50 years or older, the 1-year risk for any new cancer after either ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage was 1.2 times higher, compared with the general population.

“We typically think of occult cancer as being a cause of stroke in an older population, given that the incidence of cancer increases over time [but] what this study shows is that we probably do need to consider occult cancer as an underlying cause of stroke even in a younger population,” said Laura Gioia, MD, stroke neurologist at the University of Montreal, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Verhoeven and colleagues conclude that their finding supports the hypothesis of a causal link between cancer and stroke. Given the timing between stroke and cancer diagnosis, cancer may have been present when the stroke occurred and possibly played a role in causing it, the authors note. However, conclusions on causal mechanisms cannot be drawn from the current study.

The question of whether young stroke patients should be screened for cancer is a tough one, Dr. Gioia noted. “Cancer represents a small percentage of causes of stroke. That means you would have to screen a lot of people with a benefit that is still uncertain for the moment,” Dr. Gioia said in an interview.

“I think we need to keep cancer in mind as a cause of stroke in our young patients, and that should probably guide our history-taking with the patient and consider imaging when it’s appropriate and when we think that there could be an underlying occult cancer,” Dr. Gioia suggested.

The study was funded in part through unrestricted funding by Stryker, Medtronic, and Cerenovus. Dr. Verhoeven and Dr. Gioia have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The highly favorable results of the CheckMate 816 trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus nivolumab for resectable stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were impressive enough to prompt a Food and Drug Administration approval of this combination in March 2022.

For many, this led to a marked shift in how we approached these patients. But in my conversations with many care teams, they have expressed ambivalence about using the chemoimmunotherapy regimen. Some have conveyed to me that the lack of statistically significant improvement in overall survival is a sticking point. Others have expressed uncertainty about the true benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy alongside nivolumab for patients with earlier-stage disease, given that 64% of patients in the trial had stage IIIA disease. The benefit of the neoadjuvant combination in patients with low or negative tumor programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression also remains a question mark, though the trial found no significant differences in outcomes by PD-L1 subset.

But among many of my colleagues who favor adjuvant over neoadjuvant therapy, it isn’t necessarily the fine points of the data that present the real barrier: it’s the sentiment that “we just don’t favor a neoadjuvant approach at my place.”

If the worry is that a subset of patients who are eligible for up-front surgery may be derailed from the operating room if they experience significant disease progression or a complication during preoperative therapy or that surgery will more difficult after chemoimmunotherapy, those concerns are not supported by evidence. In fact, data on surgical outcomes from CheckMate 816 assessing these issues found that surgery after chemoimmunotherapy was approximately 30 minutes faster than it was after chemotherapy alone. In addition, the combination neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy approach was associated with less extensive surgeries, particularly for patients with stage IIIA NSCLC, and patients experienced measurably lower reports of pain and dyspnea as well.

Though postoperative systemic therapy has been our general approach for resectable NSCLC for nearly 2 decades, there are several reasons to focus on neoadjuvant therapy.

First, immunotherapy may work more effectively when the tumor antigens as well as lymph nodes and lymphatic system are present in situ at the time.

Second, patients may be eager to complete their treatment within a 3-month period of just three cycles of systemic therapy followed by surgery rather than receiving their treatment over a prolonged chapter of their lives, starting with surgery followed by four cycles of chemotherapy and 1 year of immunotherapy. 

Finally, we can’t ignore the fact that most neoadjuvant therapy is delivered exactly as intended, whereas planned adjuvant therapy is often not started or rarely completed as designed. At most, only about half of appropriate patients for adjuvant chemotherapy even start it, and far less complete a full four cycles or go on to complete prolonged adjuvant immunotherapy.

We also can’t underestimate the value of imaging and pathology findings after patients have completed neoadjuvant therapy. The pathologic complete response rate in CheckMate 816 is predictive of improved event-free survival over time.

And that isn’t just a binary variable of achieving a pathologic complete response or not. The degree of residual, viable tumor after surgery is a continuous variable associated along a spectrum with event-free survival. Our colleagues who treat breast cancer have been able to customize postoperative therapy to improve outcomes on the basis of the results achieved with neoadjuvant therapy. Multidisciplinary gastrointestinal oncology teams have revolutionized outcomes with rectal cancer by transitioning to total neoadjuvant therapy that makes it possible to deliver treatment more reliably and pursue organ-sparing approaches while achieving better survival.

Putting all of this together, I appreciate arguments against the generalizability or the maturity of the data supporting neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for resectable NSCLC. However, sidestepping our most promising advances will harm our patients. Plus, what’s the point of generating practice-changing results if we don’t accept and implement them?

We owe it to our patients to follow the evolving evidence and not just stick to what we’ve always done.

Dr. West is an associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., and vice president of network strategy at AccessHope in Los Angeles. Dr. West serves as web editor for JAMA Oncology, edits and writes several sections on lung cancer for UpToDate, and leads a wide range of continuing medical education and other educational programs.

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

The highly favorable results of the CheckMate 816 trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus nivolumab for resectable stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were impressive enough to prompt a Food and Drug Administration approval of this combination in March 2022.

For many, this led to a marked shift in how we approached these patients. But in my conversations with many care teams, they have expressed ambivalence about using the chemoimmunotherapy regimen. Some have conveyed to me that the lack of statistically significant improvement in overall survival is a sticking point. Others have expressed uncertainty about the true benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy alongside nivolumab for patients with earlier-stage disease, given that 64% of patients in the trial had stage IIIA disease. The benefit of the neoadjuvant combination in patients with low or negative tumor programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression also remains a question mark, though the trial found no significant differences in outcomes by PD-L1 subset.

But among many of my colleagues who favor adjuvant over neoadjuvant therapy, it isn’t necessarily the fine points of the data that present the real barrier: it’s the sentiment that “we just don’t favor a neoadjuvant approach at my place.”

If the worry is that a subset of patients who are eligible for up-front surgery may be derailed from the operating room if they experience significant disease progression or a complication during preoperative therapy or that surgery will more difficult after chemoimmunotherapy, those concerns are not supported by evidence. In fact, data on surgical outcomes from CheckMate 816 assessing these issues found that surgery after chemoimmunotherapy was approximately 30 minutes faster than it was after chemotherapy alone. In addition, the combination neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy approach was associated with less extensive surgeries, particularly for patients with stage IIIA NSCLC, and patients experienced measurably lower reports of pain and dyspnea as well.

Though postoperative systemic therapy has been our general approach for resectable NSCLC for nearly 2 decades, there are several reasons to focus on neoadjuvant therapy.

First, immunotherapy may work more effectively when the tumor antigens as well as lymph nodes and lymphatic system are present in situ at the time.

Second, patients may be eager to complete their treatment within a 3-month period of just three cycles of systemic therapy followed by surgery rather than receiving their treatment over a prolonged chapter of their lives, starting with surgery followed by four cycles of chemotherapy and 1 year of immunotherapy. 

Finally, we can’t ignore the fact that most neoadjuvant therapy is delivered exactly as intended, whereas planned adjuvant therapy is often not started or rarely completed as designed. At most, only about half of appropriate patients for adjuvant chemotherapy even start it, and far less complete a full four cycles or go on to complete prolonged adjuvant immunotherapy.

We also can’t underestimate the value of imaging and pathology findings after patients have completed neoadjuvant therapy. The pathologic complete response rate in CheckMate 816 is predictive of improved event-free survival over time.

And that isn’t just a binary variable of achieving a pathologic complete response or not. The degree of residual, viable tumor after surgery is a continuous variable associated along a spectrum with event-free survival. Our colleagues who treat breast cancer have been able to customize postoperative therapy to improve outcomes on the basis of the results achieved with neoadjuvant therapy. Multidisciplinary gastrointestinal oncology teams have revolutionized outcomes with rectal cancer by transitioning to total neoadjuvant therapy that makes it possible to deliver treatment more reliably and pursue organ-sparing approaches while achieving better survival.

Putting all of this together, I appreciate arguments against the generalizability or the maturity of the data supporting neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for resectable NSCLC. However, sidestepping our most promising advances will harm our patients. Plus, what’s the point of generating practice-changing results if we don’t accept and implement them?

We owe it to our patients to follow the evolving evidence and not just stick to what we’ve always done.

Dr. West is an associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., and vice president of network strategy at AccessHope in Los Angeles. Dr. West serves as web editor for JAMA Oncology, edits and writes several sections on lung cancer for UpToDate, and leads a wide range of continuing medical education and other educational programs.

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

The highly favorable results of the CheckMate 816 trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus nivolumab for resectable stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were impressive enough to prompt a Food and Drug Administration approval of this combination in March 2022.

For many, this led to a marked shift in how we approached these patients. But in my conversations with many care teams, they have expressed ambivalence about using the chemoimmunotherapy regimen. Some have conveyed to me that the lack of statistically significant improvement in overall survival is a sticking point. Others have expressed uncertainty about the true benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy alongside nivolumab for patients with earlier-stage disease, given that 64% of patients in the trial had stage IIIA disease. The benefit of the neoadjuvant combination in patients with low or negative tumor programmed death–ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression also remains a question mark, though the trial found no significant differences in outcomes by PD-L1 subset.

But among many of my colleagues who favor adjuvant over neoadjuvant therapy, it isn’t necessarily the fine points of the data that present the real barrier: it’s the sentiment that “we just don’t favor a neoadjuvant approach at my place.”

If the worry is that a subset of patients who are eligible for up-front surgery may be derailed from the operating room if they experience significant disease progression or a complication during preoperative therapy or that surgery will more difficult after chemoimmunotherapy, those concerns are not supported by evidence. In fact, data on surgical outcomes from CheckMate 816 assessing these issues found that surgery after chemoimmunotherapy was approximately 30 minutes faster than it was after chemotherapy alone. In addition, the combination neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy approach was associated with less extensive surgeries, particularly for patients with stage IIIA NSCLC, and patients experienced measurably lower reports of pain and dyspnea as well.

Though postoperative systemic therapy has been our general approach for resectable NSCLC for nearly 2 decades, there are several reasons to focus on neoadjuvant therapy.

First, immunotherapy may work more effectively when the tumor antigens as well as lymph nodes and lymphatic system are present in situ at the time.

Second, patients may be eager to complete their treatment within a 3-month period of just three cycles of systemic therapy followed by surgery rather than receiving their treatment over a prolonged chapter of their lives, starting with surgery followed by four cycles of chemotherapy and 1 year of immunotherapy. 

Finally, we can’t ignore the fact that most neoadjuvant therapy is delivered exactly as intended, whereas planned adjuvant therapy is often not started or rarely completed as designed. At most, only about half of appropriate patients for adjuvant chemotherapy even start it, and far less complete a full four cycles or go on to complete prolonged adjuvant immunotherapy.

We also can’t underestimate the value of imaging and pathology findings after patients have completed neoadjuvant therapy. The pathologic complete response rate in CheckMate 816 is predictive of improved event-free survival over time.

And that isn’t just a binary variable of achieving a pathologic complete response or not. The degree of residual, viable tumor after surgery is a continuous variable associated along a spectrum with event-free survival. Our colleagues who treat breast cancer have been able to customize postoperative therapy to improve outcomes on the basis of the results achieved with neoadjuvant therapy. Multidisciplinary gastrointestinal oncology teams have revolutionized outcomes with rectal cancer by transitioning to total neoadjuvant therapy that makes it possible to deliver treatment more reliably and pursue organ-sparing approaches while achieving better survival.

Putting all of this together, I appreciate arguments against the generalizability or the maturity of the data supporting neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for resectable NSCLC. However, sidestepping our most promising advances will harm our patients. Plus, what’s the point of generating practice-changing results if we don’t accept and implement them?

We owe it to our patients to follow the evolving evidence and not just stick to what we’ve always done.

Dr. West is an associate professor at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., and vice president of network strategy at AccessHope in Los Angeles. Dr. West serves as web editor for JAMA Oncology, edits and writes several sections on lung cancer for UpToDate, and leads a wide range of continuing medical education and other educational programs.

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

Despite federal legislation doing away with cost-sharing for initial breast cancer screening, out-of-pocket costs for needed follow-up tests remain significant financial barriers for many women.

An analysis of claims data found that women with higher cost-sharing undergo fewer subsequent breast diagnostic tests after an abnormal screening mammogram, compared with peers with lower cost-sharing.

“The chief clinical implication is that women with abnormal mammograms – that is, potentially at risk for cancer – are deciding not to follow-up on diagnostic imaging because of high out-of-pocket costs,” Danny Hughes, PhD, professor, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University in Phoenix, told this news organization.

One course of action for radiologists is to “strongly communicate the importance of adhering to recommended follow-on testing,” Dr. Hughes said.

Another is to “work to pass national and state legislation, such as recently passed [legislation] in Connecticut, that removes out-of-pocket costs for follow-on diagnostic breast imaging and biopsy in the same way that these patient costs are prohibited for screening mammography,” he suggested.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.


 

‘Worrisome’ findings

The Affordable Care Act removed out-of-pocket costs for preventive health care, such as screening mammograms in women aged 40 and over.

However, lingering cost barriers remain for some individuals who have a positive initial screening mammogram and need follow-up tests. For instance, research shows that women in high-deductible plans, which often have higher out-of-pocket costs than other plans, may experience delays in follow-on care, including diagnostic breast imaging.

Dr. Hughes and colleagues examined the association between the degree of patient cost-sharing across different health plans – those dominated by copays, coinsurance, or deductibles as well as those classified as balanced across the three categories – and the use of diagnostic breast cancer imaging after a screening mammogram.

The data came from Optum’s database of administrative health claims for members of large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans. The team used a machine learning algorithm to rank patient insurance plans by type of cost-sharing.

The sample included 230,845 mostly White (71%) women 40 years and older with no prior history of breast cancer who underwent screening mammography. These women were covered by 22,828 distinct insurance plans associated with roughly 6 million enrollees and nearly 45 million distinct medical claims.

Plans dominated by coinsurance had the lowest average out-of-pocket costs ($945), followed by plans balanced across the three cost-sharing categories ($1,017), plans dominated by copays ($1,020), and plans dominated by deductibles ($1,186).

Compared with women with coinsurance plans, those with copay- and deductible-dominated plans underwent significantly fewer subsequent breast-imaging procedures – 24 and 16 fewer procedures per 1,000 women, respectively.

Use of follow-on breast MRI was nearly 24% lower among women in plans with the highest cost-sharing versus those in plans with the lowest cost-sharing.

The team found no statistically significant difference in breast biopsy use between plan types.

Considering the risks posed by an unconfirmed positive mammogram result, these findings are “startling” and question the efficacy of legislation that eliminated cost-sharing from many preventive services, including screening mammograms, Dr. Hughes and colleagues write.

“Additional policy changes, such as removing cost-sharing for subsequent tests after abnormal screening results or bundling all breast cancer diagnostic testing into a single reimbursement, may provide avenues to mitigate these financial barriers to care,” the authors add.

The authors of an accompanying editorial found the study’s main finding – that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost – is “worrisome.” 

“From a population health perspective, failure to complete the screening process limits the program’s effectiveness and likely exacerbates health disparities,” write Ilana Richman, MD, with Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and A. Mark Fendrick, MD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent,” Dr. Richman and Dr. Fendrick add. And “the removal of financial barriers for the entire breast cancer screening process has potential to improve total screening uptake and follow-up rates.”

Support for the study was provided by the Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute. Dr. Hughes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Richman has reported receiving salary support from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop health care quality measures outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick has reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, CareFirst, BlueCross BlueShield, Centivo, Community Oncology Association, Covered California, EmblemHealth, Exact Sciences, GRAIL, Harvard University, HealthCorum, Hygieia, Johnson & Johnson, MedZed, Merck, Mercer, Montana Health Cooperative, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Proton Intelligence, RA Capital, Teladoc Health, U.S. Department of Defense, Virginia Center for Health Innovation, Washington Health Benefit Exchange, Wildflower Health, and Yale-New Haven Health System; and serving as a consultant for and holding equity in Health at Scale Technologies, Pair Team, Sempre Health, Silver Fern Health, and Wellth.

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

Despite federal legislation doing away with cost-sharing for initial breast cancer screening, out-of-pocket costs for needed follow-up tests remain significant financial barriers for many women.

An analysis of claims data found that women with higher cost-sharing undergo fewer subsequent breast diagnostic tests after an abnormal screening mammogram, compared with peers with lower cost-sharing.

“The chief clinical implication is that women with abnormal mammograms – that is, potentially at risk for cancer – are deciding not to follow-up on diagnostic imaging because of high out-of-pocket costs,” Danny Hughes, PhD, professor, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University in Phoenix, told this news organization.

One course of action for radiologists is to “strongly communicate the importance of adhering to recommended follow-on testing,” Dr. Hughes said.

Another is to “work to pass national and state legislation, such as recently passed [legislation] in Connecticut, that removes out-of-pocket costs for follow-on diagnostic breast imaging and biopsy in the same way that these patient costs are prohibited for screening mammography,” he suggested.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.


 

‘Worrisome’ findings

The Affordable Care Act removed out-of-pocket costs for preventive health care, such as screening mammograms in women aged 40 and over.

However, lingering cost barriers remain for some individuals who have a positive initial screening mammogram and need follow-up tests. For instance, research shows that women in high-deductible plans, which often have higher out-of-pocket costs than other plans, may experience delays in follow-on care, including diagnostic breast imaging.

Dr. Hughes and colleagues examined the association between the degree of patient cost-sharing across different health plans – those dominated by copays, coinsurance, or deductibles as well as those classified as balanced across the three categories – and the use of diagnostic breast cancer imaging after a screening mammogram.

The data came from Optum’s database of administrative health claims for members of large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans. The team used a machine learning algorithm to rank patient insurance plans by type of cost-sharing.

The sample included 230,845 mostly White (71%) women 40 years and older with no prior history of breast cancer who underwent screening mammography. These women were covered by 22,828 distinct insurance plans associated with roughly 6 million enrollees and nearly 45 million distinct medical claims.

Plans dominated by coinsurance had the lowest average out-of-pocket costs ($945), followed by plans balanced across the three cost-sharing categories ($1,017), plans dominated by copays ($1,020), and plans dominated by deductibles ($1,186).

Compared with women with coinsurance plans, those with copay- and deductible-dominated plans underwent significantly fewer subsequent breast-imaging procedures – 24 and 16 fewer procedures per 1,000 women, respectively.

Use of follow-on breast MRI was nearly 24% lower among women in plans with the highest cost-sharing versus those in plans with the lowest cost-sharing.

The team found no statistically significant difference in breast biopsy use between plan types.

Considering the risks posed by an unconfirmed positive mammogram result, these findings are “startling” and question the efficacy of legislation that eliminated cost-sharing from many preventive services, including screening mammograms, Dr. Hughes and colleagues write.

“Additional policy changes, such as removing cost-sharing for subsequent tests after abnormal screening results or bundling all breast cancer diagnostic testing into a single reimbursement, may provide avenues to mitigate these financial barriers to care,” the authors add.

The authors of an accompanying editorial found the study’s main finding – that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost – is “worrisome.” 

“From a population health perspective, failure to complete the screening process limits the program’s effectiveness and likely exacerbates health disparities,” write Ilana Richman, MD, with Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and A. Mark Fendrick, MD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent,” Dr. Richman and Dr. Fendrick add. And “the removal of financial barriers for the entire breast cancer screening process has potential to improve total screening uptake and follow-up rates.”

Support for the study was provided by the Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute. Dr. Hughes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Richman has reported receiving salary support from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop health care quality measures outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick has reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, CareFirst, BlueCross BlueShield, Centivo, Community Oncology Association, Covered California, EmblemHealth, Exact Sciences, GRAIL, Harvard University, HealthCorum, Hygieia, Johnson & Johnson, MedZed, Merck, Mercer, Montana Health Cooperative, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Proton Intelligence, RA Capital, Teladoc Health, U.S. Department of Defense, Virginia Center for Health Innovation, Washington Health Benefit Exchange, Wildflower Health, and Yale-New Haven Health System; and serving as a consultant for and holding equity in Health at Scale Technologies, Pair Team, Sempre Health, Silver Fern Health, and Wellth.

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

Despite federal legislation doing away with cost-sharing for initial breast cancer screening, out-of-pocket costs for needed follow-up tests remain significant financial barriers for many women.

An analysis of claims data found that women with higher cost-sharing undergo fewer subsequent breast diagnostic tests after an abnormal screening mammogram, compared with peers with lower cost-sharing.

“The chief clinical implication is that women with abnormal mammograms – that is, potentially at risk for cancer – are deciding not to follow-up on diagnostic imaging because of high out-of-pocket costs,” Danny Hughes, PhD, professor, College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University in Phoenix, told this news organization.

One course of action for radiologists is to “strongly communicate the importance of adhering to recommended follow-on testing,” Dr. Hughes said.

Another is to “work to pass national and state legislation, such as recently passed [legislation] in Connecticut, that removes out-of-pocket costs for follow-on diagnostic breast imaging and biopsy in the same way that these patient costs are prohibited for screening mammography,” he suggested.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.


 

‘Worrisome’ findings

The Affordable Care Act removed out-of-pocket costs for preventive health care, such as screening mammograms in women aged 40 and over.

However, lingering cost barriers remain for some individuals who have a positive initial screening mammogram and need follow-up tests. For instance, research shows that women in high-deductible plans, which often have higher out-of-pocket costs than other plans, may experience delays in follow-on care, including diagnostic breast imaging.

Dr. Hughes and colleagues examined the association between the degree of patient cost-sharing across different health plans – those dominated by copays, coinsurance, or deductibles as well as those classified as balanced across the three categories – and the use of diagnostic breast cancer imaging after a screening mammogram.

The data came from Optum’s database of administrative health claims for members of large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans. The team used a machine learning algorithm to rank patient insurance plans by type of cost-sharing.

The sample included 230,845 mostly White (71%) women 40 years and older with no prior history of breast cancer who underwent screening mammography. These women were covered by 22,828 distinct insurance plans associated with roughly 6 million enrollees and nearly 45 million distinct medical claims.

Plans dominated by coinsurance had the lowest average out-of-pocket costs ($945), followed by plans balanced across the three cost-sharing categories ($1,017), plans dominated by copays ($1,020), and plans dominated by deductibles ($1,186).

Compared with women with coinsurance plans, those with copay- and deductible-dominated plans underwent significantly fewer subsequent breast-imaging procedures – 24 and 16 fewer procedures per 1,000 women, respectively.

Use of follow-on breast MRI was nearly 24% lower among women in plans with the highest cost-sharing versus those in plans with the lowest cost-sharing.

The team found no statistically significant difference in breast biopsy use between plan types.

Considering the risks posed by an unconfirmed positive mammogram result, these findings are “startling” and question the efficacy of legislation that eliminated cost-sharing from many preventive services, including screening mammograms, Dr. Hughes and colleagues write.

“Additional policy changes, such as removing cost-sharing for subsequent tests after abnormal screening results or bundling all breast cancer diagnostic testing into a single reimbursement, may provide avenues to mitigate these financial barriers to care,” the authors add.

The authors of an accompanying editorial found the study’s main finding – that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost – is “worrisome.” 

“From a population health perspective, failure to complete the screening process limits the program’s effectiveness and likely exacerbates health disparities,” write Ilana Richman, MD, with Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and A. Mark Fendrick, MD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent,” Dr. Richman and Dr. Fendrick add. And “the removal of financial barriers for the entire breast cancer screening process has potential to improve total screening uptake and follow-up rates.”

Support for the study was provided by the Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute. Dr. Hughes has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Richman has reported receiving salary support from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to develop health care quality measures outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick has reported serving as a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, CareFirst, BlueCross BlueShield, Centivo, Community Oncology Association, Covered California, EmblemHealth, Exact Sciences, GRAIL, Harvard University, HealthCorum, Hygieia, Johnson & Johnson, MedZed, Merck, Mercer, Montana Health Cooperative, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Proton Intelligence, RA Capital, Teladoc Health, U.S. Department of Defense, Virginia Center for Health Innovation, Washington Health Benefit Exchange, Wildflower Health, and Yale-New Haven Health System; and serving as a consultant for and holding equity in Health at Scale Technologies, Pair Team, Sempre Health, Silver Fern Health, and Wellth.

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