AVAHO

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.

It’s estimated that half of all people in the world are infected with Helicobacter pylori, a bacterium associated with increased risk for gastric ulcers and gastric cancer.

However, only a small percentage of people with H. pylori infection will go on to develop gastric cancer.

Now a team from Japan reports that specific mutations in genes associated with DNA repair, when combined with the common bacterial infection H. pylori, appear to significantly increase the risk for gastric cancer.

The new findings imply that the hereditary contribution to the risk of gastric cancer is more important than previously believed, say editorialists commenting on the study.

The article and accompanying editorial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

For this study, Yoshiaki Usui, MD, PhD, of the RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences in Yokohama, Japan, and colleagues analyzed samples from 10,426 patients with gastric cancer as well as 38,153 control samples from a Japanese biobank.

First, they looked at the association between gastric cancer and germline pathogenic variants in 27 genes known to predispose carriers to cancers.

They also looked at the combined effects of pathogenic variants and H. pylori infection and calculated the cumulative risk among 1,433 patients with gastric cancer and 5,997 control samples from a cancer-center research database.

They found that germline pathogenic variants in nine genes were associated with the risk for gastric cancer. The genes were APC, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PALB2.

The pathogenic germline (inherited) variants in these nine genes were associated with homologous recombination, which involves an exchange of nucleotide sequences between two similar or identical DNA molecules that occurs during meiosis and during repair of double-strand DNA breaks.

The investigators calculated that the cumulative risk for gastric cancer at age 85 among carriers of the variants who were infected with H. pylori was 45.5%, compared with 14.4% for control persons who were infected but were not carriers of the germline pathogenic variants.

The risk for gastric cancer was less than 5% among those without H. pylori infections, regardless of their carrier status.

“Our results suggest that in persons known to carry a pathogenic variant in a homologous-recombination gene, evaluation and eradication of H. pylori infection may be particularly important,” Dr. Usui and colleagues wrote.

“It is remarkable that pathogenic variants in homologous-recombination genes drive tumorigenesis only in the context of H. pylori infection,” Anne Müller, PhD, and Jiazhuo He, MD, of the University of Zürich, wrote in the accompanying editorial.

“This observation has numerous implications, not only for the diagnosis, prevention, and possibly treatment of the fraction of cases of gastric cancer with pathogenic gene variants that arise due to H. pylori infection but also for a better understanding of the biology of other cancers arising on a background of homologous-recombination deficiency. It is quite conceivable that other DNA-damaging environmental factors contributing to human carcinogenesis have been overlooked.” they wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development; the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, Culture, and Technology of Japan; the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare of Japan; and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Usui, Dr. Müller, and Dr. He have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

It’s estimated that half of all people in the world are infected with Helicobacter pylori, a bacterium associated with increased risk for gastric ulcers and gastric cancer.

However, only a small percentage of people with H. pylori infection will go on to develop gastric cancer.

Now a team from Japan reports that specific mutations in genes associated with DNA repair, when combined with the common bacterial infection H. pylori, appear to significantly increase the risk for gastric cancer.

The new findings imply that the hereditary contribution to the risk of gastric cancer is more important than previously believed, say editorialists commenting on the study.

The article and accompanying editorial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

For this study, Yoshiaki Usui, MD, PhD, of the RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences in Yokohama, Japan, and colleagues analyzed samples from 10,426 patients with gastric cancer as well as 38,153 control samples from a Japanese biobank.

First, they looked at the association between gastric cancer and germline pathogenic variants in 27 genes known to predispose carriers to cancers.

They also looked at the combined effects of pathogenic variants and H. pylori infection and calculated the cumulative risk among 1,433 patients with gastric cancer and 5,997 control samples from a cancer-center research database.

They found that germline pathogenic variants in nine genes were associated with the risk for gastric cancer. The genes were APC, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PALB2.

The pathogenic germline (inherited) variants in these nine genes were associated with homologous recombination, which involves an exchange of nucleotide sequences between two similar or identical DNA molecules that occurs during meiosis and during repair of double-strand DNA breaks.

The investigators calculated that the cumulative risk for gastric cancer at age 85 among carriers of the variants who were infected with H. pylori was 45.5%, compared with 14.4% for control persons who were infected but were not carriers of the germline pathogenic variants.

The risk for gastric cancer was less than 5% among those without H. pylori infections, regardless of their carrier status.

“Our results suggest that in persons known to carry a pathogenic variant in a homologous-recombination gene, evaluation and eradication of H. pylori infection may be particularly important,” Dr. Usui and colleagues wrote.

“It is remarkable that pathogenic variants in homologous-recombination genes drive tumorigenesis only in the context of H. pylori infection,” Anne Müller, PhD, and Jiazhuo He, MD, of the University of Zürich, wrote in the accompanying editorial.

“This observation has numerous implications, not only for the diagnosis, prevention, and possibly treatment of the fraction of cases of gastric cancer with pathogenic gene variants that arise due to H. pylori infection but also for a better understanding of the biology of other cancers arising on a background of homologous-recombination deficiency. It is quite conceivable that other DNA-damaging environmental factors contributing to human carcinogenesis have been overlooked.” they wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development; the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, Culture, and Technology of Japan; the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare of Japan; and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Usui, Dr. Müller, and Dr. He have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

It’s estimated that half of all people in the world are infected with Helicobacter pylori, a bacterium associated with increased risk for gastric ulcers and gastric cancer.

However, only a small percentage of people with H. pylori infection will go on to develop gastric cancer.

Now a team from Japan reports that specific mutations in genes associated with DNA repair, when combined with the common bacterial infection H. pylori, appear to significantly increase the risk for gastric cancer.

The new findings imply that the hereditary contribution to the risk of gastric cancer is more important than previously believed, say editorialists commenting on the study.

The article and accompanying editorial were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

For this study, Yoshiaki Usui, MD, PhD, of the RIKEN Center for Integrative Medical Sciences in Yokohama, Japan, and colleagues analyzed samples from 10,426 patients with gastric cancer as well as 38,153 control samples from a Japanese biobank.

First, they looked at the association between gastric cancer and germline pathogenic variants in 27 genes known to predispose carriers to cancers.

They also looked at the combined effects of pathogenic variants and H. pylori infection and calculated the cumulative risk among 1,433 patients with gastric cancer and 5,997 control samples from a cancer-center research database.

They found that germline pathogenic variants in nine genes were associated with the risk for gastric cancer. The genes were APC, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PALB2.

The pathogenic germline (inherited) variants in these nine genes were associated with homologous recombination, which involves an exchange of nucleotide sequences between two similar or identical DNA molecules that occurs during meiosis and during repair of double-strand DNA breaks.

The investigators calculated that the cumulative risk for gastric cancer at age 85 among carriers of the variants who were infected with H. pylori was 45.5%, compared with 14.4% for control persons who were infected but were not carriers of the germline pathogenic variants.

The risk for gastric cancer was less than 5% among those without H. pylori infections, regardless of their carrier status.

“Our results suggest that in persons known to carry a pathogenic variant in a homologous-recombination gene, evaluation and eradication of H. pylori infection may be particularly important,” Dr. Usui and colleagues wrote.

“It is remarkable that pathogenic variants in homologous-recombination genes drive tumorigenesis only in the context of H. pylori infection,” Anne Müller, PhD, and Jiazhuo He, MD, of the University of Zürich, wrote in the accompanying editorial.

“This observation has numerous implications, not only for the diagnosis, prevention, and possibly treatment of the fraction of cases of gastric cancer with pathogenic gene variants that arise due to H. pylori infection but also for a better understanding of the biology of other cancers arising on a background of homologous-recombination deficiency. It is quite conceivable that other DNA-damaging environmental factors contributing to human carcinogenesis have been overlooked.” they wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development; the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, Culture, and Technology of Japan; the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare of Japan; and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Usui, Dr. Müller, and Dr. He have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

BOSTON – Women with breast cancer who have several tumors in one breast do not necessarily need to have a mastectomy, as new data show a low risk of recurrence at 5 years when they are treated with breast-conserving therapy and radiation.

“[The study] proves the oncologic safety of breast conservation in women with two or three sites of disease, making this a very reasonable option for (previously reluctant) surgeons to present to patients,” first author Kari Rosenkranz, MD, an associate professor at Dartmouth Health in Norwich, Vt., said in an interview.

The findings were presented here at the International Conference on Surgical Cancer Care (SSO 2023), and were published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Commenting on the study, Hiram S. Cody III, MD, an attending surgeon and professor of surgery at Weill Cornell Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, in New York, said the findings provide valuable new evidence on the issue.

“This is an important study confirming that breast conservation is feasible and safe for women with multiple ipsilateral breast cancers, with excellent results comparable to those for women with unifocal (single site) disease,” he said in an interview.

Although there have been as many as seven previous randomized trials that have shown identical outcomes in survival and local control of disease with breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy, all those studies excluded patients with more than one site of disease.

At present, many surgeons and guidelines continue to recommend mastectomy for women with multiple-site tumors, based on older data that showed higher recurrence rates.

That is why the new study is so important, Dr. Cody explained. “Here, we see in a prospective trial that breast-conserving therapy is feasible for those with more than one site of disease as well, with high survival and very low rates of local recurrence,” he emphasized.

Dr. Cody noted that “the ideal candidate would be a woman with relatively small tumor size and a breast large enough that the multiple excisions could be performed with a good cosmetic result.”

“We have followed this approach for some time and hope that with the publication of these results more surgeons will recommend this approach for suitable patients,” he said.

The new results were also highlighted in a press release from Mayo Clinic highlighting the Journal of Clinical Oncology publication. Lead author of the article, surgical oncologist Judy Boughey, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., commented: “I am excited about these findings because it will empower patients and the multidisciplinary care teams caring for patients to be thinking about this option for women who may want to preserve their breast.”

This study showed the rate of cancer local recurrence was 3.1%, she noted. This is an excellent outcome and is similar to the local recurrence rate for patients with a single tumor in a breast who had breast-conserving therapy, Dr. Boughey said.

Historically, women with multiple tumors in one breast have been advised to have a mastectomy. Now, patients can be offered a less invasive option with faster recovery, resulting in better patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcomes, she added.


 

Study details

This study, known as the ACOSOG (Alliance) Z11102 trial, was a phase 2 trial conducted in 204 patients enrolled between 2012 and 2016 who had two or three sites of biopsy-proven breast cancer (each site less rhan 5 cm in size, with cN0 or cN1 disease).

These patients were a median age of 61 years, and 83.5% were ER-positive/HER2-negative, 11.5% were HER2-positive, 5.0% were ER-negative/HER2-negative, and 77.5% were node-negative.

All patients were treated with breast conservation surgery, including lumpectomy resected to negative margins, followed by whole breast radiation with a cavity boost to all lumpectomy beds.

With a median follow-up of 66.4 months, six patients developed local recurrence, with five of the recurrences occurring in the ipsilateral breast and one in the chest wall.

For the primary endpoint, the six recurrences represented an estimated cumulative incidence of local recurrence of 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3-6.4), well below the cutoff of 8% that was determined to be the acceptable 5-year local recurrence rate based on historic recurrence rates for unifocal disease, Dr. Rosenkranz explained.

There were no cases of synchronous local and distant recurrences, six contralateral breast cancers, and three new primary nonbreast cancers. Eight patients died, including one related to breast cancer.

There were no significant associations between risk of local recurrence and factors including patient age, number of sites of preoperative biopsy-proven breast cancer, HER2 status, and pathologic T and N category.

In terms of secondary endpoints, 14 patients (7.1%) converted to mastectomy because of positive margins, while 67.6% achieved margin-negative excision in a single operation.

Regarding cosmesis, 70.6% of patients reported good or excellent cosmetic outcomes at 2 years.

In terms of adherence, the whole breast radiation therapy protocol was feasible in most patients.

Of note, among patients without a breast preoperative MRI, the 5-year rate of local recurrence was significantly higher, at 22.6% (n = 14) at 5 years, compared with 1.7% among the 180 patients who did have a preoperative MRI (P = .002). However, Dr. Rosenkranz said these differences should be interpreted with caution.

“We may look at these data and think we should consider preoperative breast MRI in patients who do have known multiple ipsilateral breast cancer, although I think this cohort was certainly much too small to draw definitive conclusions, and this was not a planned secondary endpoint of the trial,” she said during her presentation.
 

Most prefer breast conservation, when possible

Overall, the findings are important considering the array of known benefits of breast conservation over mastectomy, Dr. Rosenkranz concluded.

“The reason this is so important is that we know that patients who undergo breast conservation report improved quality of life, self-esteem, and body image, and therefore it’s incumbent on us as surgeons to expand the indications for breast conservation where we can,” she told the audience.

Speaking with this news organization, she added that the decision-making around breast conservation versus mastectomy can be complicated, and some women do opt for mastectomy because of a variety of factors; therefore, “tailoring therapy to the individual goals and priorities in addition to the disease characteristics is critical.”

That said, she added that “the majority of patients who are eligible for breast conservation do prefer this option.”

Dr. Rosenkranz and Dr. Cody have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Women with breast cancer who have several tumors in one breast do not necessarily need to have a mastectomy, as new data show a low risk of recurrence at 5 years when they are treated with breast-conserving therapy and radiation.

“[The study] proves the oncologic safety of breast conservation in women with two or three sites of disease, making this a very reasonable option for (previously reluctant) surgeons to present to patients,” first author Kari Rosenkranz, MD, an associate professor at Dartmouth Health in Norwich, Vt., said in an interview.

The findings were presented here at the International Conference on Surgical Cancer Care (SSO 2023), and were published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Commenting on the study, Hiram S. Cody III, MD, an attending surgeon and professor of surgery at Weill Cornell Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, in New York, said the findings provide valuable new evidence on the issue.

“This is an important study confirming that breast conservation is feasible and safe for women with multiple ipsilateral breast cancers, with excellent results comparable to those for women with unifocal (single site) disease,” he said in an interview.

Although there have been as many as seven previous randomized trials that have shown identical outcomes in survival and local control of disease with breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy, all those studies excluded patients with more than one site of disease.

At present, many surgeons and guidelines continue to recommend mastectomy for women with multiple-site tumors, based on older data that showed higher recurrence rates.

That is why the new study is so important, Dr. Cody explained. “Here, we see in a prospective trial that breast-conserving therapy is feasible for those with more than one site of disease as well, with high survival and very low rates of local recurrence,” he emphasized.

Dr. Cody noted that “the ideal candidate would be a woman with relatively small tumor size and a breast large enough that the multiple excisions could be performed with a good cosmetic result.”

“We have followed this approach for some time and hope that with the publication of these results more surgeons will recommend this approach for suitable patients,” he said.

The new results were also highlighted in a press release from Mayo Clinic highlighting the Journal of Clinical Oncology publication. Lead author of the article, surgical oncologist Judy Boughey, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., commented: “I am excited about these findings because it will empower patients and the multidisciplinary care teams caring for patients to be thinking about this option for women who may want to preserve their breast.”

This study showed the rate of cancer local recurrence was 3.1%, she noted. This is an excellent outcome and is similar to the local recurrence rate for patients with a single tumor in a breast who had breast-conserving therapy, Dr. Boughey said.

Historically, women with multiple tumors in one breast have been advised to have a mastectomy. Now, patients can be offered a less invasive option with faster recovery, resulting in better patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcomes, she added.


 

Study details

This study, known as the ACOSOG (Alliance) Z11102 trial, was a phase 2 trial conducted in 204 patients enrolled between 2012 and 2016 who had two or three sites of biopsy-proven breast cancer (each site less rhan 5 cm in size, with cN0 or cN1 disease).

These patients were a median age of 61 years, and 83.5% were ER-positive/HER2-negative, 11.5% were HER2-positive, 5.0% were ER-negative/HER2-negative, and 77.5% were node-negative.

All patients were treated with breast conservation surgery, including lumpectomy resected to negative margins, followed by whole breast radiation with a cavity boost to all lumpectomy beds.

With a median follow-up of 66.4 months, six patients developed local recurrence, with five of the recurrences occurring in the ipsilateral breast and one in the chest wall.

For the primary endpoint, the six recurrences represented an estimated cumulative incidence of local recurrence of 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3-6.4), well below the cutoff of 8% that was determined to be the acceptable 5-year local recurrence rate based on historic recurrence rates for unifocal disease, Dr. Rosenkranz explained.

There were no cases of synchronous local and distant recurrences, six contralateral breast cancers, and three new primary nonbreast cancers. Eight patients died, including one related to breast cancer.

There were no significant associations between risk of local recurrence and factors including patient age, number of sites of preoperative biopsy-proven breast cancer, HER2 status, and pathologic T and N category.

In terms of secondary endpoints, 14 patients (7.1%) converted to mastectomy because of positive margins, while 67.6% achieved margin-negative excision in a single operation.

Regarding cosmesis, 70.6% of patients reported good or excellent cosmetic outcomes at 2 years.

In terms of adherence, the whole breast radiation therapy protocol was feasible in most patients.

Of note, among patients without a breast preoperative MRI, the 5-year rate of local recurrence was significantly higher, at 22.6% (n = 14) at 5 years, compared with 1.7% among the 180 patients who did have a preoperative MRI (P = .002). However, Dr. Rosenkranz said these differences should be interpreted with caution.

“We may look at these data and think we should consider preoperative breast MRI in patients who do have known multiple ipsilateral breast cancer, although I think this cohort was certainly much too small to draw definitive conclusions, and this was not a planned secondary endpoint of the trial,” she said during her presentation.
 

Most prefer breast conservation, when possible

Overall, the findings are important considering the array of known benefits of breast conservation over mastectomy, Dr. Rosenkranz concluded.

“The reason this is so important is that we know that patients who undergo breast conservation report improved quality of life, self-esteem, and body image, and therefore it’s incumbent on us as surgeons to expand the indications for breast conservation where we can,” she told the audience.

Speaking with this news organization, she added that the decision-making around breast conservation versus mastectomy can be complicated, and some women do opt for mastectomy because of a variety of factors; therefore, “tailoring therapy to the individual goals and priorities in addition to the disease characteristics is critical.”

That said, she added that “the majority of patients who are eligible for breast conservation do prefer this option.”

Dr. Rosenkranz and Dr. Cody have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Women with breast cancer who have several tumors in one breast do not necessarily need to have a mastectomy, as new data show a low risk of recurrence at 5 years when they are treated with breast-conserving therapy and radiation.

“[The study] proves the oncologic safety of breast conservation in women with two or three sites of disease, making this a very reasonable option for (previously reluctant) surgeons to present to patients,” first author Kari Rosenkranz, MD, an associate professor at Dartmouth Health in Norwich, Vt., said in an interview.

The findings were presented here at the International Conference on Surgical Cancer Care (SSO 2023), and were published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Commenting on the study, Hiram S. Cody III, MD, an attending surgeon and professor of surgery at Weill Cornell Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, in New York, said the findings provide valuable new evidence on the issue.

“This is an important study confirming that breast conservation is feasible and safe for women with multiple ipsilateral breast cancers, with excellent results comparable to those for women with unifocal (single site) disease,” he said in an interview.

Although there have been as many as seven previous randomized trials that have shown identical outcomes in survival and local control of disease with breast-conserving therapy versus mastectomy, all those studies excluded patients with more than one site of disease.

At present, many surgeons and guidelines continue to recommend mastectomy for women with multiple-site tumors, based on older data that showed higher recurrence rates.

That is why the new study is so important, Dr. Cody explained. “Here, we see in a prospective trial that breast-conserving therapy is feasible for those with more than one site of disease as well, with high survival and very low rates of local recurrence,” he emphasized.

Dr. Cody noted that “the ideal candidate would be a woman with relatively small tumor size and a breast large enough that the multiple excisions could be performed with a good cosmetic result.”

“We have followed this approach for some time and hope that with the publication of these results more surgeons will recommend this approach for suitable patients,” he said.

The new results were also highlighted in a press release from Mayo Clinic highlighting the Journal of Clinical Oncology publication. Lead author of the article, surgical oncologist Judy Boughey, MD, from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., commented: “I am excited about these findings because it will empower patients and the multidisciplinary care teams caring for patients to be thinking about this option for women who may want to preserve their breast.”

This study showed the rate of cancer local recurrence was 3.1%, she noted. This is an excellent outcome and is similar to the local recurrence rate for patients with a single tumor in a breast who had breast-conserving therapy, Dr. Boughey said.

Historically, women with multiple tumors in one breast have been advised to have a mastectomy. Now, patients can be offered a less invasive option with faster recovery, resulting in better patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcomes, she added.


 

Study details

This study, known as the ACOSOG (Alliance) Z11102 trial, was a phase 2 trial conducted in 204 patients enrolled between 2012 and 2016 who had two or three sites of biopsy-proven breast cancer (each site less rhan 5 cm in size, with cN0 or cN1 disease).

These patients were a median age of 61 years, and 83.5% were ER-positive/HER2-negative, 11.5% were HER2-positive, 5.0% were ER-negative/HER2-negative, and 77.5% were node-negative.

All patients were treated with breast conservation surgery, including lumpectomy resected to negative margins, followed by whole breast radiation with a cavity boost to all lumpectomy beds.

With a median follow-up of 66.4 months, six patients developed local recurrence, with five of the recurrences occurring in the ipsilateral breast and one in the chest wall.

For the primary endpoint, the six recurrences represented an estimated cumulative incidence of local recurrence of 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3-6.4), well below the cutoff of 8% that was determined to be the acceptable 5-year local recurrence rate based on historic recurrence rates for unifocal disease, Dr. Rosenkranz explained.

There were no cases of synchronous local and distant recurrences, six contralateral breast cancers, and three new primary nonbreast cancers. Eight patients died, including one related to breast cancer.

There were no significant associations between risk of local recurrence and factors including patient age, number of sites of preoperative biopsy-proven breast cancer, HER2 status, and pathologic T and N category.

In terms of secondary endpoints, 14 patients (7.1%) converted to mastectomy because of positive margins, while 67.6% achieved margin-negative excision in a single operation.

Regarding cosmesis, 70.6% of patients reported good or excellent cosmetic outcomes at 2 years.

In terms of adherence, the whole breast radiation therapy protocol was feasible in most patients.

Of note, among patients without a breast preoperative MRI, the 5-year rate of local recurrence was significantly higher, at 22.6% (n = 14) at 5 years, compared with 1.7% among the 180 patients who did have a preoperative MRI (P = .002). However, Dr. Rosenkranz said these differences should be interpreted with caution.

“We may look at these data and think we should consider preoperative breast MRI in patients who do have known multiple ipsilateral breast cancer, although I think this cohort was certainly much too small to draw definitive conclusions, and this was not a planned secondary endpoint of the trial,” she said during her presentation.
 

Most prefer breast conservation, when possible

Overall, the findings are important considering the array of known benefits of breast conservation over mastectomy, Dr. Rosenkranz concluded.

“The reason this is so important is that we know that patients who undergo breast conservation report improved quality of life, self-esteem, and body image, and therefore it’s incumbent on us as surgeons to expand the indications for breast conservation where we can,” she told the audience.

Speaking with this news organization, she added that the decision-making around breast conservation versus mastectomy can be complicated, and some women do opt for mastectomy because of a variety of factors; therefore, “tailoring therapy to the individual goals and priorities in addition to the disease characteristics is critical.”

That said, she added that “the majority of patients who are eligible for breast conservation do prefer this option.”

Dr. Rosenkranz and Dr. Cody have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cases of acquired hypogammaglobulinemia are expected to rise, as patients live longer with such B-cell malignancies as chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. But there’s a striking shortage of research into the best prophylactic approaches to prevent infections, a new systematic review and meta-analysis showed.

Researchers found just 22 randomized controlled studies into prophylactic strategies, with several of them conducted prior to 2000. According to the report, published in Blood Advances, the studies together only evaluated a few thousand participants.

Reliable findings are so sparse that study coauthor Zoe McQuilten, MBBS, PhD, MD, a hematologist at Monash University, Melbourne, said “we simply don’t know” which preventive strategy is most effective. This is especially worrisome because more patients will survive their cancers and “be at risk of infection or have significant cytopenias and will experience impaired quality of life as a result,” she said in an interview.

The study authors launched the analysis to better understand the evidence regarding infection prevention and to guide the development of clinical trials, study coauthor Robert Weinkove, MBBS, PhD, a hematologist at Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, Wellington, New Zealand, said in an interview.

As he explained, targeted therapies have revolutionized the treatment of some B-cell cancers. They also have boosted the number of patients who survive the diseases yet still have profound hypogammaglobulinemia.

“Indeed, we may soon reach the point at which infection, and not tumor progression, is the leading cause of death for patients with certain B-cell cancers,” he said. “The evidence base for managing hypogammaglobulinemia is largely based on randomized trials of immunoglobulin replacement conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s, before the advent of B cell–targeted therapies. Immunoglobulin replacement is a costly intervention, and many countries are facing a shortage of immunoglobulin.”

The report authors identified 22 total randomized controlled trials, including one led by Dr. McQuilten: 8 studies into prophylactic immunoglobulin (n = 370; all but 1 study published prior to 2000), 5 into prophylactic antibiotics (n = 1,587), 7 into vaccination (n = 3,996), and 1 comparing immunoglobulin versus antibiotics (n = 60).

No evidence was found to support a lowering of risk by prophylactic antibiotics, although they caused adverse events.

Prophylactic immunoglobulin also caused adverse events, but a meta-analysis found that it reduced the risk of clinically documented infection by 28% (n = 2 trials; relative risk, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.96). Three trials reported adverse events and found a higher risk overall (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.67-2.99).

Varicella zoster virus vaccination reduced the risk of one or more infections by 63% (n = 5 trials, RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45, n = 3,515). Prophylactic antibiotics did not reduce the risk.

No intervention reduced all-cause mortality.

“Our findings should be interpreted with caution, Dr. McQuilten said, “because of the low number of patients, high risk of bias in the included studies, and lack of contemporary data applicable to the current standard of care for such patients.”

The lack of useful data is surprising, she said, especially considering “how commonly these interventions are used in current clinical practice and the cost and supply constraints for immunoglobulin. Given the variation in international guidelines, rising global demand and cost of immunoglobulin, and concerns regarding antimicrobial resistance, more evidence is needed to inform infection prevention strategies for this patient population.”

More data is expected soon. One ongoing study is examining intravenous immunoglobulin versus placebo in patients with CLL. It’s expected to be completed in September 2023.

What should clinicians do for now? “Given the lack of a proven survival benefit in favor of prophylactic immunoglobulin replacement, one strategy is to maximize use of vaccination and to educate both patients and clinicians regarding the need for early treatment of infections,” Dr. Weinkove said. “For people who have recurrent or severe infections despite these measures, both immunoglobulin replacement and prophylactic antibiotics are clinical options. It would be reasonable to take account of patient preference, logistical considerations, and reimbursement and availability in deciding between these options.”

He added that, “for people with severe hypogammaglobulinemia who experience recurrent or severe infections despite prophylactic antibiotics, switching to immunoglobulin replacement would be appropriate. We advocate enrollment in clinical trials, if possible.”

In an interview, Juthaporn Cowan, MD, PhD, an infectious disease physician with the University of Ottawa, said many patients with B-cell lymphomas develop acquired hypogammaglobulinemia. “Patients tend to get prolonged colds, frequent sinusitis, bronchitis, or pneumonia. Some can end up with severe infection. Many patients told me that, even though their cancer is cured or in remission, quality of life is still quite poor due to these infections and fatigue.”

Dr. Cowan said the new report is somewhat useful, although “concluding that vaccination reduces infection is misleading. Vaccination reduces the infection that patients were vaccinated against. Patients who received Shingrix will have less shingles but will continue to have bronchitis and other infections.”

As for advice for clinicians, she said preventing acquired hypogammaglobulinemia is difficult since it can be caused by the malignancies, by treatment, or both. “The other item to consider is that we do not know how long we should continue [immunoglobulin] treatment in these patients. I have a patient post CAR [chimeric antigen receptor] T therapy who still does not have B-cell 5-6 years after CAR T, while I have lymphoma patients who could safely discontinue [immunoglobulin] treatment in a few years.”

Dr. Cowan added that patients on immunoglobulin treatment can still get opportunistic infections from cytomegalovirus or herpes simplex virus “because the mechanism of host defense against these infections is different. Antimicrobial prophylaxis should still be considered as vaccination is not available for every single potential opportunistic infection.”

Australia funded the research through the National Blood Authority. Dr. McQuilten and Dr. Weinkove reported no disclosures. Other report authors disclosed ties with Aegros, CSL Behring, Janssen, AbbVie, and BeiGene. Monash University has received funding for unrelated projects from CSL Behring. Dr. Cowan reports honoraria from Takeda, CSL Behring, Octapharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and AstraZeneca.

Cases of acquired hypogammaglobulinemia are expected to rise, as patients live longer with such B-cell malignancies as chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. But there’s a striking shortage of research into the best prophylactic approaches to prevent infections, a new systematic review and meta-analysis showed.

Researchers found just 22 randomized controlled studies into prophylactic strategies, with several of them conducted prior to 2000. According to the report, published in Blood Advances, the studies together only evaluated a few thousand participants.

Reliable findings are so sparse that study coauthor Zoe McQuilten, MBBS, PhD, MD, a hematologist at Monash University, Melbourne, said “we simply don’t know” which preventive strategy is most effective. This is especially worrisome because more patients will survive their cancers and “be at risk of infection or have significant cytopenias and will experience impaired quality of life as a result,” she said in an interview.

The study authors launched the analysis to better understand the evidence regarding infection prevention and to guide the development of clinical trials, study coauthor Robert Weinkove, MBBS, PhD, a hematologist at Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, Wellington, New Zealand, said in an interview.

As he explained, targeted therapies have revolutionized the treatment of some B-cell cancers. They also have boosted the number of patients who survive the diseases yet still have profound hypogammaglobulinemia.

“Indeed, we may soon reach the point at which infection, and not tumor progression, is the leading cause of death for patients with certain B-cell cancers,” he said. “The evidence base for managing hypogammaglobulinemia is largely based on randomized trials of immunoglobulin replacement conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s, before the advent of B cell–targeted therapies. Immunoglobulin replacement is a costly intervention, and many countries are facing a shortage of immunoglobulin.”

The report authors identified 22 total randomized controlled trials, including one led by Dr. McQuilten: 8 studies into prophylactic immunoglobulin (n = 370; all but 1 study published prior to 2000), 5 into prophylactic antibiotics (n = 1,587), 7 into vaccination (n = 3,996), and 1 comparing immunoglobulin versus antibiotics (n = 60).

No evidence was found to support a lowering of risk by prophylactic antibiotics, although they caused adverse events.

Prophylactic immunoglobulin also caused adverse events, but a meta-analysis found that it reduced the risk of clinically documented infection by 28% (n = 2 trials; relative risk, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.96). Three trials reported adverse events and found a higher risk overall (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.67-2.99).

Varicella zoster virus vaccination reduced the risk of one or more infections by 63% (n = 5 trials, RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45, n = 3,515). Prophylactic antibiotics did not reduce the risk.

No intervention reduced all-cause mortality.

“Our findings should be interpreted with caution, Dr. McQuilten said, “because of the low number of patients, high risk of bias in the included studies, and lack of contemporary data applicable to the current standard of care for such patients.”

The lack of useful data is surprising, she said, especially considering “how commonly these interventions are used in current clinical practice and the cost and supply constraints for immunoglobulin. Given the variation in international guidelines, rising global demand and cost of immunoglobulin, and concerns regarding antimicrobial resistance, more evidence is needed to inform infection prevention strategies for this patient population.”

More data is expected soon. One ongoing study is examining intravenous immunoglobulin versus placebo in patients with CLL. It’s expected to be completed in September 2023.

What should clinicians do for now? “Given the lack of a proven survival benefit in favor of prophylactic immunoglobulin replacement, one strategy is to maximize use of vaccination and to educate both patients and clinicians regarding the need for early treatment of infections,” Dr. Weinkove said. “For people who have recurrent or severe infections despite these measures, both immunoglobulin replacement and prophylactic antibiotics are clinical options. It would be reasonable to take account of patient preference, logistical considerations, and reimbursement and availability in deciding between these options.”

He added that, “for people with severe hypogammaglobulinemia who experience recurrent or severe infections despite prophylactic antibiotics, switching to immunoglobulin replacement would be appropriate. We advocate enrollment in clinical trials, if possible.”

In an interview, Juthaporn Cowan, MD, PhD, an infectious disease physician with the University of Ottawa, said many patients with B-cell lymphomas develop acquired hypogammaglobulinemia. “Patients tend to get prolonged colds, frequent sinusitis, bronchitis, or pneumonia. Some can end up with severe infection. Many patients told me that, even though their cancer is cured or in remission, quality of life is still quite poor due to these infections and fatigue.”

Dr. Cowan said the new report is somewhat useful, although “concluding that vaccination reduces infection is misleading. Vaccination reduces the infection that patients were vaccinated against. Patients who received Shingrix will have less shingles but will continue to have bronchitis and other infections.”

As for advice for clinicians, she said preventing acquired hypogammaglobulinemia is difficult since it can be caused by the malignancies, by treatment, or both. “The other item to consider is that we do not know how long we should continue [immunoglobulin] treatment in these patients. I have a patient post CAR [chimeric antigen receptor] T therapy who still does not have B-cell 5-6 years after CAR T, while I have lymphoma patients who could safely discontinue [immunoglobulin] treatment in a few years.”

Dr. Cowan added that patients on immunoglobulin treatment can still get opportunistic infections from cytomegalovirus or herpes simplex virus “because the mechanism of host defense against these infections is different. Antimicrobial prophylaxis should still be considered as vaccination is not available for every single potential opportunistic infection.”

Australia funded the research through the National Blood Authority. Dr. McQuilten and Dr. Weinkove reported no disclosures. Other report authors disclosed ties with Aegros, CSL Behring, Janssen, AbbVie, and BeiGene. Monash University has received funding for unrelated projects from CSL Behring. Dr. Cowan reports honoraria from Takeda, CSL Behring, Octapharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and AstraZeneca.

Cases of acquired hypogammaglobulinemia are expected to rise, as patients live longer with such B-cell malignancies as chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. But there’s a striking shortage of research into the best prophylactic approaches to prevent infections, a new systematic review and meta-analysis showed.

Researchers found just 22 randomized controlled studies into prophylactic strategies, with several of them conducted prior to 2000. According to the report, published in Blood Advances, the studies together only evaluated a few thousand participants.

Reliable findings are so sparse that study coauthor Zoe McQuilten, MBBS, PhD, MD, a hematologist at Monash University, Melbourne, said “we simply don’t know” which preventive strategy is most effective. This is especially worrisome because more patients will survive their cancers and “be at risk of infection or have significant cytopenias and will experience impaired quality of life as a result,” she said in an interview.

The study authors launched the analysis to better understand the evidence regarding infection prevention and to guide the development of clinical trials, study coauthor Robert Weinkove, MBBS, PhD, a hematologist at Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, Wellington, New Zealand, said in an interview.

As he explained, targeted therapies have revolutionized the treatment of some B-cell cancers. They also have boosted the number of patients who survive the diseases yet still have profound hypogammaglobulinemia.

“Indeed, we may soon reach the point at which infection, and not tumor progression, is the leading cause of death for patients with certain B-cell cancers,” he said. “The evidence base for managing hypogammaglobulinemia is largely based on randomized trials of immunoglobulin replacement conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s, before the advent of B cell–targeted therapies. Immunoglobulin replacement is a costly intervention, and many countries are facing a shortage of immunoglobulin.”

The report authors identified 22 total randomized controlled trials, including one led by Dr. McQuilten: 8 studies into prophylactic immunoglobulin (n = 370; all but 1 study published prior to 2000), 5 into prophylactic antibiotics (n = 1,587), 7 into vaccination (n = 3,996), and 1 comparing immunoglobulin versus antibiotics (n = 60).

No evidence was found to support a lowering of risk by prophylactic antibiotics, although they caused adverse events.

Prophylactic immunoglobulin also caused adverse events, but a meta-analysis found that it reduced the risk of clinically documented infection by 28% (n = 2 trials; relative risk, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.96). Three trials reported adverse events and found a higher risk overall (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.67-2.99).

Varicella zoster virus vaccination reduced the risk of one or more infections by 63% (n = 5 trials, RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45, n = 3,515). Prophylactic antibiotics did not reduce the risk.

No intervention reduced all-cause mortality.

“Our findings should be interpreted with caution, Dr. McQuilten said, “because of the low number of patients, high risk of bias in the included studies, and lack of contemporary data applicable to the current standard of care for such patients.”

The lack of useful data is surprising, she said, especially considering “how commonly these interventions are used in current clinical practice and the cost and supply constraints for immunoglobulin. Given the variation in international guidelines, rising global demand and cost of immunoglobulin, and concerns regarding antimicrobial resistance, more evidence is needed to inform infection prevention strategies for this patient population.”

More data is expected soon. One ongoing study is examining intravenous immunoglobulin versus placebo in patients with CLL. It’s expected to be completed in September 2023.

What should clinicians do for now? “Given the lack of a proven survival benefit in favor of prophylactic immunoglobulin replacement, one strategy is to maximize use of vaccination and to educate both patients and clinicians regarding the need for early treatment of infections,” Dr. Weinkove said. “For people who have recurrent or severe infections despite these measures, both immunoglobulin replacement and prophylactic antibiotics are clinical options. It would be reasonable to take account of patient preference, logistical considerations, and reimbursement and availability in deciding between these options.”

He added that, “for people with severe hypogammaglobulinemia who experience recurrent or severe infections despite prophylactic antibiotics, switching to immunoglobulin replacement would be appropriate. We advocate enrollment in clinical trials, if possible.”

In an interview, Juthaporn Cowan, MD, PhD, an infectious disease physician with the University of Ottawa, said many patients with B-cell lymphomas develop acquired hypogammaglobulinemia. “Patients tend to get prolonged colds, frequent sinusitis, bronchitis, or pneumonia. Some can end up with severe infection. Many patients told me that, even though their cancer is cured or in remission, quality of life is still quite poor due to these infections and fatigue.”

Dr. Cowan said the new report is somewhat useful, although “concluding that vaccination reduces infection is misleading. Vaccination reduces the infection that patients were vaccinated against. Patients who received Shingrix will have less shingles but will continue to have bronchitis and other infections.”

As for advice for clinicians, she said preventing acquired hypogammaglobulinemia is difficult since it can be caused by the malignancies, by treatment, or both. “The other item to consider is that we do not know how long we should continue [immunoglobulin] treatment in these patients. I have a patient post CAR [chimeric antigen receptor] T therapy who still does not have B-cell 5-6 years after CAR T, while I have lymphoma patients who could safely discontinue [immunoglobulin] treatment in a few years.”

Dr. Cowan added that patients on immunoglobulin treatment can still get opportunistic infections from cytomegalovirus or herpes simplex virus “because the mechanism of host defense against these infections is different. Antimicrobial prophylaxis should still be considered as vaccination is not available for every single potential opportunistic infection.”

Australia funded the research through the National Blood Authority. Dr. McQuilten and Dr. Weinkove reported no disclosures. Other report authors disclosed ties with Aegros, CSL Behring, Janssen, AbbVie, and BeiGene. Monash University has received funding for unrelated projects from CSL Behring. Dr. Cowan reports honoraria from Takeda, CSL Behring, Octapharma, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and AstraZeneca.

Targeting cancer screenings based on idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM) subtype, autoantibodies, and age may help to maximize cancer detection while limiting false positives.

In a retrospective, single-center study conducted at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, researchers found that when screening patients with IIM for cancer via CT imaging, the diagnostic yield (number of cancers detected/tests performed) was highest in patients with dermatomyositis and the autoantibody anti–TIF1-gamma. Screening patients below age 40 years was associated with lower diagnostic yields and higher false positives, regardless of subtype.

Because of the well-known association between IIM and contemporaneous cancer, newly diagnosed patients with IIM often undergo screening. Yet, there is little research on the most efficient assessment approaches, Christopher Mecoli, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at John Hopkins University School of Medicine and lead author of the study, told this news organization. “There has been a lot written about how these patients should be evaluated for cancer. Unfortunately, the majority of literature is based on eminence,” he said. This study is “one of the first pieces of real data to inform that conversation,” he added.

The research was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

In the study, Dr. Mecoli and colleagues looked at 1,086 patients enrolled in the center’s Myositis Research Registry from 2003 through 2020. The analysis included patients with a diagnosis of dermatomyositis, polymyositis, immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM), and antisynthetase syndrome (ASyS). The researchers also looked at myositis-specific autoantibodies, including anti–TIF1-gamma, –Jo1, and –HMGCR. Patients were excluded from the analysis if they had a cancer diagnosis prior to their IIM onset.

Among patients included in the analysis, the average age of IIM onset was 49 years, and median follow-up duration was 5.3 years. Most patients were female (71%), 68% were white, 21% were Black, 3.6% were Asian, and 7.4% had a listed race of other or unknown. About 66% of all patients received a chest CT scan within 3 years of IIM onset, and 51% received an abdomen/pelvis CT in that same time frame. False positives were defined as the percentage of scans that led to a noncancerous biopsy.

During the study period, 62 patients had a cancer diagnosis within the first 3 years of IIM onset, with the most common cancers being breast (19%), melanoma (13%), and cervical/uterine (10%). Of 1,011 chest scans performed, 9 led to a cancer diagnosis (0.9%), compared with 12 of the 657 abdomen/pelvis (a/p) CT scans (1.8%). Patients with the dermatomyositis-specific autoantibody anti–TIF1-gamma had the highest diagnostic yield (2.9% in chest CT and 2.4% in a/p CT). Regardless of autoantibodies, dermatomyositis patients above 40 years of age had a diagnostic yield of 1.4% in chest CT and 2.7% in a/p CT. For patients under the age of 40 with polymyositis, IMNM, and ASyS, the diagnostic yield for all CT scans was 0.0%. The diagnostic yield in patients under 40 with dermatomyositis was also low (0.0% in chest CT, 0.8% in a/p CT).

The false-positive rate for all chest CT scans was 2.8%, with patients with IMNM and ASyS having the highest frequency of false positivity (both 4.4%). “Based on our data, CT chest imaging in ASyS and IMNM patients are associated with the most harm from a cancer screening perspective,” the authors write. In a/p CT, patients with dermatomyositis under 40 and patients with ASyS had the highest false-positive rates (4.9% and 3.8%, respectively).

“Age was a really big deal in terms of predicting diagnostic yield and false-positivity rate,” Dr. Mecoli said, particularly in patients with dermatomyositis. “This subgroup has historically been thought to have the biggest dissociation with cancer,” he said, but in patients under 40, “it doesn’t look like CT scans were that helpful. They were not picking up a lot of cancers, and they were leading to a lot of false-positive results.”

Still, Rohit Aggarwal, MD, of the division of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, noted that the diagnostic yields of 1%-2% and even 2%-4% in higher-risk populations were high. By comparison, lung cancer screening trials had a diagnostic yield of about 1%, and trials examining CT screening for colorectal cancers had diagnostic yields of 0.5%, the authors write.

“The key message for me is that we should definitely perform CT scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis within 3 years of diagnosis – typically at presentation – if the patient has any risk factor for increased risk of cancer, which include dermatomyositis and age above 40,” Dr. Aggarwal toldthis news organization. He was not involved with the research. There are also other clinical factors to consider that were not included in the study, he added, such as severe dysphagia, patients with refractory treatment, and male sex.

Both Dr. Aggarwal and Dr. Mecoli agreed that there are limitations to this single-center, retrospective study that make it difficult to generalize the results. Similar studies should be conducted at other institutions to see if these associations hold true, Dr. Mecoli said. A prospective study could also help control for factors such as selection bias, Dr. Aggarwal added. “I don’t think these are definitive data, but I think these data were needed at retrospective levels” to plan future research, he said.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Jerome L. Greene Foundation, the Donald B. and Dorothy L. Stabler Foundation, the Huayi and Siuling Zhang Discovery Fund, and Dr. Peter Buck. Dr. Mecoli and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Targeting cancer screenings based on idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM) subtype, autoantibodies, and age may help to maximize cancer detection while limiting false positives.

In a retrospective, single-center study conducted at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, researchers found that when screening patients with IIM for cancer via CT imaging, the diagnostic yield (number of cancers detected/tests performed) was highest in patients with dermatomyositis and the autoantibody anti–TIF1-gamma. Screening patients below age 40 years was associated with lower diagnostic yields and higher false positives, regardless of subtype.

Because of the well-known association between IIM and contemporaneous cancer, newly diagnosed patients with IIM often undergo screening. Yet, there is little research on the most efficient assessment approaches, Christopher Mecoli, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at John Hopkins University School of Medicine and lead author of the study, told this news organization. “There has been a lot written about how these patients should be evaluated for cancer. Unfortunately, the majority of literature is based on eminence,” he said. This study is “one of the first pieces of real data to inform that conversation,” he added.

The research was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

In the study, Dr. Mecoli and colleagues looked at 1,086 patients enrolled in the center’s Myositis Research Registry from 2003 through 2020. The analysis included patients with a diagnosis of dermatomyositis, polymyositis, immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM), and antisynthetase syndrome (ASyS). The researchers also looked at myositis-specific autoantibodies, including anti–TIF1-gamma, –Jo1, and –HMGCR. Patients were excluded from the analysis if they had a cancer diagnosis prior to their IIM onset.

Among patients included in the analysis, the average age of IIM onset was 49 years, and median follow-up duration was 5.3 years. Most patients were female (71%), 68% were white, 21% were Black, 3.6% were Asian, and 7.4% had a listed race of other or unknown. About 66% of all patients received a chest CT scan within 3 years of IIM onset, and 51% received an abdomen/pelvis CT in that same time frame. False positives were defined as the percentage of scans that led to a noncancerous biopsy.

During the study period, 62 patients had a cancer diagnosis within the first 3 years of IIM onset, with the most common cancers being breast (19%), melanoma (13%), and cervical/uterine (10%). Of 1,011 chest scans performed, 9 led to a cancer diagnosis (0.9%), compared with 12 of the 657 abdomen/pelvis (a/p) CT scans (1.8%). Patients with the dermatomyositis-specific autoantibody anti–TIF1-gamma had the highest diagnostic yield (2.9% in chest CT and 2.4% in a/p CT). Regardless of autoantibodies, dermatomyositis patients above 40 years of age had a diagnostic yield of 1.4% in chest CT and 2.7% in a/p CT. For patients under the age of 40 with polymyositis, IMNM, and ASyS, the diagnostic yield for all CT scans was 0.0%. The diagnostic yield in patients under 40 with dermatomyositis was also low (0.0% in chest CT, 0.8% in a/p CT).

The false-positive rate for all chest CT scans was 2.8%, with patients with IMNM and ASyS having the highest frequency of false positivity (both 4.4%). “Based on our data, CT chest imaging in ASyS and IMNM patients are associated with the most harm from a cancer screening perspective,” the authors write. In a/p CT, patients with dermatomyositis under 40 and patients with ASyS had the highest false-positive rates (4.9% and 3.8%, respectively).

“Age was a really big deal in terms of predicting diagnostic yield and false-positivity rate,” Dr. Mecoli said, particularly in patients with dermatomyositis. “This subgroup has historically been thought to have the biggest dissociation with cancer,” he said, but in patients under 40, “it doesn’t look like CT scans were that helpful. They were not picking up a lot of cancers, and they were leading to a lot of false-positive results.”

Still, Rohit Aggarwal, MD, of the division of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, noted that the diagnostic yields of 1%-2% and even 2%-4% in higher-risk populations were high. By comparison, lung cancer screening trials had a diagnostic yield of about 1%, and trials examining CT screening for colorectal cancers had diagnostic yields of 0.5%, the authors write.

“The key message for me is that we should definitely perform CT scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis within 3 years of diagnosis – typically at presentation – if the patient has any risk factor for increased risk of cancer, which include dermatomyositis and age above 40,” Dr. Aggarwal toldthis news organization. He was not involved with the research. There are also other clinical factors to consider that were not included in the study, he added, such as severe dysphagia, patients with refractory treatment, and male sex.

Both Dr. Aggarwal and Dr. Mecoli agreed that there are limitations to this single-center, retrospective study that make it difficult to generalize the results. Similar studies should be conducted at other institutions to see if these associations hold true, Dr. Mecoli said. A prospective study could also help control for factors such as selection bias, Dr. Aggarwal added. “I don’t think these are definitive data, but I think these data were needed at retrospective levels” to plan future research, he said.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Jerome L. Greene Foundation, the Donald B. and Dorothy L. Stabler Foundation, the Huayi and Siuling Zhang Discovery Fund, and Dr. Peter Buck. Dr. Mecoli and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Targeting cancer screenings based on idiopathic inflammatory myositis (IIM) subtype, autoantibodies, and age may help to maximize cancer detection while limiting false positives.

In a retrospective, single-center study conducted at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, researchers found that when screening patients with IIM for cancer via CT imaging, the diagnostic yield (number of cancers detected/tests performed) was highest in patients with dermatomyositis and the autoantibody anti–TIF1-gamma. Screening patients below age 40 years was associated with lower diagnostic yields and higher false positives, regardless of subtype.

Because of the well-known association between IIM and contemporaneous cancer, newly diagnosed patients with IIM often undergo screening. Yet, there is little research on the most efficient assessment approaches, Christopher Mecoli, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at John Hopkins University School of Medicine and lead author of the study, told this news organization. “There has been a lot written about how these patients should be evaluated for cancer. Unfortunately, the majority of literature is based on eminence,” he said. This study is “one of the first pieces of real data to inform that conversation,” he added.

The research was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

In the study, Dr. Mecoli and colleagues looked at 1,086 patients enrolled in the center’s Myositis Research Registry from 2003 through 2020. The analysis included patients with a diagnosis of dermatomyositis, polymyositis, immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM), and antisynthetase syndrome (ASyS). The researchers also looked at myositis-specific autoantibodies, including anti–TIF1-gamma, –Jo1, and –HMGCR. Patients were excluded from the analysis if they had a cancer diagnosis prior to their IIM onset.

Among patients included in the analysis, the average age of IIM onset was 49 years, and median follow-up duration was 5.3 years. Most patients were female (71%), 68% were white, 21% were Black, 3.6% were Asian, and 7.4% had a listed race of other or unknown. About 66% of all patients received a chest CT scan within 3 years of IIM onset, and 51% received an abdomen/pelvis CT in that same time frame. False positives were defined as the percentage of scans that led to a noncancerous biopsy.

During the study period, 62 patients had a cancer diagnosis within the first 3 years of IIM onset, with the most common cancers being breast (19%), melanoma (13%), and cervical/uterine (10%). Of 1,011 chest scans performed, 9 led to a cancer diagnosis (0.9%), compared with 12 of the 657 abdomen/pelvis (a/p) CT scans (1.8%). Patients with the dermatomyositis-specific autoantibody anti–TIF1-gamma had the highest diagnostic yield (2.9% in chest CT and 2.4% in a/p CT). Regardless of autoantibodies, dermatomyositis patients above 40 years of age had a diagnostic yield of 1.4% in chest CT and 2.7% in a/p CT. For patients under the age of 40 with polymyositis, IMNM, and ASyS, the diagnostic yield for all CT scans was 0.0%. The diagnostic yield in patients under 40 with dermatomyositis was also low (0.0% in chest CT, 0.8% in a/p CT).

The false-positive rate for all chest CT scans was 2.8%, with patients with IMNM and ASyS having the highest frequency of false positivity (both 4.4%). “Based on our data, CT chest imaging in ASyS and IMNM patients are associated with the most harm from a cancer screening perspective,” the authors write. In a/p CT, patients with dermatomyositis under 40 and patients with ASyS had the highest false-positive rates (4.9% and 3.8%, respectively).

“Age was a really big deal in terms of predicting diagnostic yield and false-positivity rate,” Dr. Mecoli said, particularly in patients with dermatomyositis. “This subgroup has historically been thought to have the biggest dissociation with cancer,” he said, but in patients under 40, “it doesn’t look like CT scans were that helpful. They were not picking up a lot of cancers, and they were leading to a lot of false-positive results.”

Still, Rohit Aggarwal, MD, of the division of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, noted that the diagnostic yields of 1%-2% and even 2%-4% in higher-risk populations were high. By comparison, lung cancer screening trials had a diagnostic yield of about 1%, and trials examining CT screening for colorectal cancers had diagnostic yields of 0.5%, the authors write.

“The key message for me is that we should definitely perform CT scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis within 3 years of diagnosis – typically at presentation – if the patient has any risk factor for increased risk of cancer, which include dermatomyositis and age above 40,” Dr. Aggarwal toldthis news organization. He was not involved with the research. There are also other clinical factors to consider that were not included in the study, he added, such as severe dysphagia, patients with refractory treatment, and male sex.

Both Dr. Aggarwal and Dr. Mecoli agreed that there are limitations to this single-center, retrospective study that make it difficult to generalize the results. Similar studies should be conducted at other institutions to see if these associations hold true, Dr. Mecoli said. A prospective study could also help control for factors such as selection bias, Dr. Aggarwal added. “I don’t think these are definitive data, but I think these data were needed at retrospective levels” to plan future research, he said.

The study was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Jerome L. Greene Foundation, the Donald B. and Dorothy L. Stabler Foundation, the Huayi and Siuling Zhang Discovery Fund, and Dr. Peter Buck. Dr. Mecoli and Dr. Aggarwal have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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