AVAHO

Long-course radiation therapy for rectal cancer is more likely to spare organs than short-course therapy, including when chemotherapy is provided first as part of a total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) strategy, shows new research presented at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

“When we looked at the 2-year organ preservation rates, they were numerically higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group,” said study author J. Joshua Smith, MD, PhD,FACS, a colorectal surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “Our study will be the first, to our knowledge, that examines a significant proportion of patients treated with the induction total neoadjuvant therapy approach – chemo first.”

An ideal outcome in rectal cancer is no need for surgery, Dr. Smith said. “If you can avoid surgery altogether and preserve the organ [the rectum], that’s a big win for the patient as they are usually able to avoid having a permanent or temporary ostomy.”

Long-course and short-course radiation have similar outcomes in terms of patients going on to need surgery, but it’s not clear which is superior in terms of organ sparing, toxicity, and side effects, said Paul Romesser, MD, a radiation oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who served as first author of the study.

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cancer center embraced short-course radiation in rectal cancer, Dr. Romesser said. “Once we emerged from the cloud of COVID, we said: ‘Well, what do we do now? Where do we go? Do we go back to what we did before? Or, do we go stick with the same? And what does that mean for organ preservation?’ ”

The researchers retrospectively identified 563 consecutive patients treated with TNT from 2018 to 2021. They focused on 332 who didn’t have metastatic disease, synchronous/metachronous malignancies, or nonadenocarcinoma histology (long course = 256, short course = 76). The groups had similar high-risk features, and about 82% were clinical stage III).

Patients most commonly received induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative radiation (78% long course, 70% short course).

The 2-year survival rates were similar, but organ preservation was higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group (40%; 95% confidence interval, 35%-47% vs. 29%; 95% CI, 20%-42%). And the 2-year local regrowth rate was also better in the long-course group versus the short-course group (20%; 95% CI, 12%-27% vs. 36%; 95% CI, 16%-52%).

Why might long-course therapy be better? “It’s probably just coming down to the biologically equivalent dose,” which is likely lower in short-course radiation, Dr. Romesser said.

Going forward, Dr. Romesser said he’ll tell patients about the findings of this study and a previous report published in 2022 that determined that “organ preservation is achievable in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy, without an apparent detriment in survival, compared with historical controls treated with chemoradiotherapy, TME [total mesorectal excision], and postoperative chemotherapy.” Dr. Smith is a coauthor of that study.

“Generally, I’ll steer patients toward long course, assuming all else is equal, and it’s not an undue burden on them financially and socially to come in for 5-6 weeks of chemoradiation,” Dr. Romesser said. He added that, “generally, the insurance companies recognize [short-course and long-course radiation] as both acceptable and standard treatment options for patients. We haven’t found that insurances will approve one, but not the other.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Romesser disclosed consulting/advisory roles (EMD Serono, Faeth, Natera), research funding (XRad), and travel/accommodations/expenses (Elekta). Dr. Smith disclosed consulting/advisory roles (Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health). The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Long-course radiation therapy for rectal cancer is more likely to spare organs than short-course therapy, including when chemotherapy is provided first as part of a total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) strategy, shows new research presented at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

“When we looked at the 2-year organ preservation rates, they were numerically higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group,” said study author J. Joshua Smith, MD, PhD,FACS, a colorectal surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “Our study will be the first, to our knowledge, that examines a significant proportion of patients treated with the induction total neoadjuvant therapy approach – chemo first.”

An ideal outcome in rectal cancer is no need for surgery, Dr. Smith said. “If you can avoid surgery altogether and preserve the organ [the rectum], that’s a big win for the patient as they are usually able to avoid having a permanent or temporary ostomy.”

Long-course and short-course radiation have similar outcomes in terms of patients going on to need surgery, but it’s not clear which is superior in terms of organ sparing, toxicity, and side effects, said Paul Romesser, MD, a radiation oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who served as first author of the study.

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cancer center embraced short-course radiation in rectal cancer, Dr. Romesser said. “Once we emerged from the cloud of COVID, we said: ‘Well, what do we do now? Where do we go? Do we go back to what we did before? Or, do we go stick with the same? And what does that mean for organ preservation?’ ”

The researchers retrospectively identified 563 consecutive patients treated with TNT from 2018 to 2021. They focused on 332 who didn’t have metastatic disease, synchronous/metachronous malignancies, or nonadenocarcinoma histology (long course = 256, short course = 76). The groups had similar high-risk features, and about 82% were clinical stage III).

Patients most commonly received induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative radiation (78% long course, 70% short course).

The 2-year survival rates were similar, but organ preservation was higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group (40%; 95% confidence interval, 35%-47% vs. 29%; 95% CI, 20%-42%). And the 2-year local regrowth rate was also better in the long-course group versus the short-course group (20%; 95% CI, 12%-27% vs. 36%; 95% CI, 16%-52%).

Why might long-course therapy be better? “It’s probably just coming down to the biologically equivalent dose,” which is likely lower in short-course radiation, Dr. Romesser said.

Going forward, Dr. Romesser said he’ll tell patients about the findings of this study and a previous report published in 2022 that determined that “organ preservation is achievable in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy, without an apparent detriment in survival, compared with historical controls treated with chemoradiotherapy, TME [total mesorectal excision], and postoperative chemotherapy.” Dr. Smith is a coauthor of that study.

“Generally, I’ll steer patients toward long course, assuming all else is equal, and it’s not an undue burden on them financially and socially to come in for 5-6 weeks of chemoradiation,” Dr. Romesser said. He added that, “generally, the insurance companies recognize [short-course and long-course radiation] as both acceptable and standard treatment options for patients. We haven’t found that insurances will approve one, but not the other.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Romesser disclosed consulting/advisory roles (EMD Serono, Faeth, Natera), research funding (XRad), and travel/accommodations/expenses (Elekta). Dr. Smith disclosed consulting/advisory roles (Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health). The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Long-course radiation therapy for rectal cancer is more likely to spare organs than short-course therapy, including when chemotherapy is provided first as part of a total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) strategy, shows new research presented at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

“When we looked at the 2-year organ preservation rates, they were numerically higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group,” said study author J. Joshua Smith, MD, PhD,FACS, a colorectal surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. “Our study will be the first, to our knowledge, that examines a significant proportion of patients treated with the induction total neoadjuvant therapy approach – chemo first.”

An ideal outcome in rectal cancer is no need for surgery, Dr. Smith said. “If you can avoid surgery altogether and preserve the organ [the rectum], that’s a big win for the patient as they are usually able to avoid having a permanent or temporary ostomy.”

Long-course and short-course radiation have similar outcomes in terms of patients going on to need surgery, but it’s not clear which is superior in terms of organ sparing, toxicity, and side effects, said Paul Romesser, MD, a radiation oncologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who served as first author of the study.

During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cancer center embraced short-course radiation in rectal cancer, Dr. Romesser said. “Once we emerged from the cloud of COVID, we said: ‘Well, what do we do now? Where do we go? Do we go back to what we did before? Or, do we go stick with the same? And what does that mean for organ preservation?’ ”

The researchers retrospectively identified 563 consecutive patients treated with TNT from 2018 to 2021. They focused on 332 who didn’t have metastatic disease, synchronous/metachronous malignancies, or nonadenocarcinoma histology (long course = 256, short course = 76). The groups had similar high-risk features, and about 82% were clinical stage III).

Patients most commonly received induction chemotherapy followed by consolidative radiation (78% long course, 70% short course).

The 2-year survival rates were similar, but organ preservation was higher in the long-course group versus the short-course group (40%; 95% confidence interval, 35%-47% vs. 29%; 95% CI, 20%-42%). And the 2-year local regrowth rate was also better in the long-course group versus the short-course group (20%; 95% CI, 12%-27% vs. 36%; 95% CI, 16%-52%).

Why might long-course therapy be better? “It’s probably just coming down to the biologically equivalent dose,” which is likely lower in short-course radiation, Dr. Romesser said.

Going forward, Dr. Romesser said he’ll tell patients about the findings of this study and a previous report published in 2022 that determined that “organ preservation is achievable in half of the patients with rectal cancer treated with total neoadjuvant therapy, without an apparent detriment in survival, compared with historical controls treated with chemoradiotherapy, TME [total mesorectal excision], and postoperative chemotherapy.” Dr. Smith is a coauthor of that study.

“Generally, I’ll steer patients toward long course, assuming all else is equal, and it’s not an undue burden on them financially and socially to come in for 5-6 weeks of chemoradiation,” Dr. Romesser said. He added that, “generally, the insurance companies recognize [short-course and long-course radiation] as both acceptable and standard treatment options for patients. We haven’t found that insurances will approve one, but not the other.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Romesser disclosed consulting/advisory roles (EMD Serono, Faeth, Natera), research funding (XRad), and travel/accommodations/expenses (Elekta). Dr. Smith disclosed consulting/advisory roles (Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health). The other study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A pair of new studies suggest limitations of adjuvant chemotherapy among older adults with stage 3 colorectal cancer. A phase 2, multi-institutional feasibility study found a completion rate of 67.3%, while a prospective study found that completion was associated with improved disease-free survival.

Both studies were presented in January at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

In HiSCO-04, Japanese researchers found that of 64 older patients with stage 3A colorectal cancer who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy, 53% completed the treatment with an improvement in disease-free survival. Patients who completed adjuvant chemotherapy had better disease-free survival (P = .03), while the survival was lower among those who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, and lowest among those who discontinued adjuvant chemotherapy.

“The results showed that adjuvant chemotherapy is not always recommended for elderly patients, and that patients who are able to complete treatment may have a better prognosis for survival. However, the results do not indicate which patients are unable to complete chemotherapy, and it will be necessary to identify patients who are intolerant of chemotherapy,” said the study’s lead author Manabu Shimomura, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of gastroenterological and transplant surgery at the Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences in Japan.

The study, which was conducted between 2013 and 2021, enrolled 214 patients (99 men, 115 women, 80-101 years old) who were in stage 3 cancer (27 cases 3A, 158 cases 3B, and 29 cases 3C). A total of 41 patients were ineligible for chemotherapy. Of the remaining patients, 65 received adjuvant chemotherapy and 108 did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy.

The 3-year disease-free survival was 63.6%, the 3-year overall survival was 76.9%, and the 3-year relapse-free survival was 63.1%. Thirty-six patients died because of colorectal cancer, and 30 patients died of other causes. There was recurrence in 58 cases and secondary cancers were observed in 17 cases during the 42.5 months–long follow-up period.

There were few reports of serious adverse events, but some cases of treatment discontinuation were because of adverse events.

In a second study presented by Dr. Shimomura’s group, called HiSCO-03, 65 patients (33 female) underwent curative resection and received five courses of uracil-tegafur and leucovorin (UFT/LV).

The completion rate of 67.3% had a 95% lower bound of 54.9%, which were lower than the predefined thresholds of 75% completion and a lower bound of 60%. “Based on the results of a previous (ACTS-CC phase III) study, we set the expected value of UFT/LV therapy in patients over 80 years of age at 75% and the threshold at 60%. Since the target age group of previous study was 75 years or younger, we concluded from the results of the current study that UFT/LV therapy is less well tolerated in patients 80 years of age and older than in patients 75 years of age and younger,” Dr. Shimomura said.

The treatment completion rate trended higher in males than females (77.6% versus 57.2%; P = .06) and performance status of 0 versus 1 or 2 (74.3% versus 58.9%; P = .10). The most common adverse events were anorexia (33.8%), diarrhea (30.8%), and anemia (24.6%). The median relative dose intensity was 84% for UFT and 100% for LV.

The challenges of treating older patients

If and how older patients with colorectal cancer should be treated is not clear cut. While 20% of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer are over 80 years old, each case should be evaluated individually, experts say.

Writing in a 2015 review of colorectal cancer treatment in older adults, Monica Millan, MD, PhD, of Joan XXIII University Hospital, Tarragona, Spain, and colleagues, wrote that physiological heterogeneity and coexisting medical conditions make treating older patients with colorectal cancer challenging.

“Age in itself should not be an exclusion criterion for radical treatment, but there will be many elderly patients that will not tolerate or respond well to standard therapies. These patients need to be properly assessed before proposing treatment, and a tailored, individualized approach should be offered in a multidisciplinary setting,” wrote Dr. Millan, who is a colorectal surgeon.

The authors suggest that older patients who are fit could be treated similarly to younger patients, but there remain uncertainties about how to proceed in frail older adults with comorbidities.

“Most elderly patients with cancer will have priorities besides simply prolonging their lives. Surveys have found that their top concerns include avoiding suffering, strengthening relationships with family and friends, being mentally aware, not being a burden on others, and achieving a sense that their life is complete. The treatment plan should be comprehensive: cancer-specific treatment, symptom-specific treatment, supportive treatment modalities, and end-of-life care,” they wrote.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends colorectal cancer screening for men and women who are between 45 and 75 years old; however, screening for patients between 76 and 85 years old should be done on a case-by-case basis based on a patient’s overall health, screening history, and the patient’s preferences.

Colorectal cancer incidence rates have been declining since the mid-1980s because of an increase in screening among adults 50 years and older, according to the American Cancer Society. Likewise, mortality rates have dropped from 29.2% in 1970 to 12.6% in 2020 – mostly because of screening.

Dr. Shimomura has no relevant financial disclosures.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A pair of new studies suggest limitations of adjuvant chemotherapy among older adults with stage 3 colorectal cancer. A phase 2, multi-institutional feasibility study found a completion rate of 67.3%, while a prospective study found that completion was associated with improved disease-free survival.

Both studies were presented in January at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

In HiSCO-04, Japanese researchers found that of 64 older patients with stage 3A colorectal cancer who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy, 53% completed the treatment with an improvement in disease-free survival. Patients who completed adjuvant chemotherapy had better disease-free survival (P = .03), while the survival was lower among those who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, and lowest among those who discontinued adjuvant chemotherapy.

“The results showed that adjuvant chemotherapy is not always recommended for elderly patients, and that patients who are able to complete treatment may have a better prognosis for survival. However, the results do not indicate which patients are unable to complete chemotherapy, and it will be necessary to identify patients who are intolerant of chemotherapy,” said the study’s lead author Manabu Shimomura, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of gastroenterological and transplant surgery at the Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences in Japan.

The study, which was conducted between 2013 and 2021, enrolled 214 patients (99 men, 115 women, 80-101 years old) who were in stage 3 cancer (27 cases 3A, 158 cases 3B, and 29 cases 3C). A total of 41 patients were ineligible for chemotherapy. Of the remaining patients, 65 received adjuvant chemotherapy and 108 did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy.

The 3-year disease-free survival was 63.6%, the 3-year overall survival was 76.9%, and the 3-year relapse-free survival was 63.1%. Thirty-six patients died because of colorectal cancer, and 30 patients died of other causes. There was recurrence in 58 cases and secondary cancers were observed in 17 cases during the 42.5 months–long follow-up period.

There were few reports of serious adverse events, but some cases of treatment discontinuation were because of adverse events.

In a second study presented by Dr. Shimomura’s group, called HiSCO-03, 65 patients (33 female) underwent curative resection and received five courses of uracil-tegafur and leucovorin (UFT/LV).

The completion rate of 67.3% had a 95% lower bound of 54.9%, which were lower than the predefined thresholds of 75% completion and a lower bound of 60%. “Based on the results of a previous (ACTS-CC phase III) study, we set the expected value of UFT/LV therapy in patients over 80 years of age at 75% and the threshold at 60%. Since the target age group of previous study was 75 years or younger, we concluded from the results of the current study that UFT/LV therapy is less well tolerated in patients 80 years of age and older than in patients 75 years of age and younger,” Dr. Shimomura said.

The treatment completion rate trended higher in males than females (77.6% versus 57.2%; P = .06) and performance status of 0 versus 1 or 2 (74.3% versus 58.9%; P = .10). The most common adverse events were anorexia (33.8%), diarrhea (30.8%), and anemia (24.6%). The median relative dose intensity was 84% for UFT and 100% for LV.

The challenges of treating older patients

If and how older patients with colorectal cancer should be treated is not clear cut. While 20% of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer are over 80 years old, each case should be evaluated individually, experts say.

Writing in a 2015 review of colorectal cancer treatment in older adults, Monica Millan, MD, PhD, of Joan XXIII University Hospital, Tarragona, Spain, and colleagues, wrote that physiological heterogeneity and coexisting medical conditions make treating older patients with colorectal cancer challenging.

“Age in itself should not be an exclusion criterion for radical treatment, but there will be many elderly patients that will not tolerate or respond well to standard therapies. These patients need to be properly assessed before proposing treatment, and a tailored, individualized approach should be offered in a multidisciplinary setting,” wrote Dr. Millan, who is a colorectal surgeon.

The authors suggest that older patients who are fit could be treated similarly to younger patients, but there remain uncertainties about how to proceed in frail older adults with comorbidities.

“Most elderly patients with cancer will have priorities besides simply prolonging their lives. Surveys have found that their top concerns include avoiding suffering, strengthening relationships with family and friends, being mentally aware, not being a burden on others, and achieving a sense that their life is complete. The treatment plan should be comprehensive: cancer-specific treatment, symptom-specific treatment, supportive treatment modalities, and end-of-life care,” they wrote.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends colorectal cancer screening for men and women who are between 45 and 75 years old; however, screening for patients between 76 and 85 years old should be done on a case-by-case basis based on a patient’s overall health, screening history, and the patient’s preferences.

Colorectal cancer incidence rates have been declining since the mid-1980s because of an increase in screening among adults 50 years and older, according to the American Cancer Society. Likewise, mortality rates have dropped from 29.2% in 1970 to 12.6% in 2020 – mostly because of screening.

Dr. Shimomura has no relevant financial disclosures.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A pair of new studies suggest limitations of adjuvant chemotherapy among older adults with stage 3 colorectal cancer. A phase 2, multi-institutional feasibility study found a completion rate of 67.3%, while a prospective study found that completion was associated with improved disease-free survival.

Both studies were presented in January at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

In HiSCO-04, Japanese researchers found that of 64 older patients with stage 3A colorectal cancer who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy, 53% completed the treatment with an improvement in disease-free survival. Patients who completed adjuvant chemotherapy had better disease-free survival (P = .03), while the survival was lower among those who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, and lowest among those who discontinued adjuvant chemotherapy.

“The results showed that adjuvant chemotherapy is not always recommended for elderly patients, and that patients who are able to complete treatment may have a better prognosis for survival. However, the results do not indicate which patients are unable to complete chemotherapy, and it will be necessary to identify patients who are intolerant of chemotherapy,” said the study’s lead author Manabu Shimomura, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of gastroenterological and transplant surgery at the Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences in Japan.

The study, which was conducted between 2013 and 2021, enrolled 214 patients (99 men, 115 women, 80-101 years old) who were in stage 3 cancer (27 cases 3A, 158 cases 3B, and 29 cases 3C). A total of 41 patients were ineligible for chemotherapy. Of the remaining patients, 65 received adjuvant chemotherapy and 108 did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy.

The 3-year disease-free survival was 63.6%, the 3-year overall survival was 76.9%, and the 3-year relapse-free survival was 63.1%. Thirty-six patients died because of colorectal cancer, and 30 patients died of other causes. There was recurrence in 58 cases and secondary cancers were observed in 17 cases during the 42.5 months–long follow-up period.

There were few reports of serious adverse events, but some cases of treatment discontinuation were because of adverse events.

In a second study presented by Dr. Shimomura’s group, called HiSCO-03, 65 patients (33 female) underwent curative resection and received five courses of uracil-tegafur and leucovorin (UFT/LV).

The completion rate of 67.3% had a 95% lower bound of 54.9%, which were lower than the predefined thresholds of 75% completion and a lower bound of 60%. “Based on the results of a previous (ACTS-CC phase III) study, we set the expected value of UFT/LV therapy in patients over 80 years of age at 75% and the threshold at 60%. Since the target age group of previous study was 75 years or younger, we concluded from the results of the current study that UFT/LV therapy is less well tolerated in patients 80 years of age and older than in patients 75 years of age and younger,” Dr. Shimomura said.

The treatment completion rate trended higher in males than females (77.6% versus 57.2%; P = .06) and performance status of 0 versus 1 or 2 (74.3% versus 58.9%; P = .10). The most common adverse events were anorexia (33.8%), diarrhea (30.8%), and anemia (24.6%). The median relative dose intensity was 84% for UFT and 100% for LV.

The challenges of treating older patients

If and how older patients with colorectal cancer should be treated is not clear cut. While 20% of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer are over 80 years old, each case should be evaluated individually, experts say.

Writing in a 2015 review of colorectal cancer treatment in older adults, Monica Millan, MD, PhD, of Joan XXIII University Hospital, Tarragona, Spain, and colleagues, wrote that physiological heterogeneity and coexisting medical conditions make treating older patients with colorectal cancer challenging.

“Age in itself should not be an exclusion criterion for radical treatment, but there will be many elderly patients that will not tolerate or respond well to standard therapies. These patients need to be properly assessed before proposing treatment, and a tailored, individualized approach should be offered in a multidisciplinary setting,” wrote Dr. Millan, who is a colorectal surgeon.

The authors suggest that older patients who are fit could be treated similarly to younger patients, but there remain uncertainties about how to proceed in frail older adults with comorbidities.

“Most elderly patients with cancer will have priorities besides simply prolonging their lives. Surveys have found that their top concerns include avoiding suffering, strengthening relationships with family and friends, being mentally aware, not being a burden on others, and achieving a sense that their life is complete. The treatment plan should be comprehensive: cancer-specific treatment, symptom-specific treatment, supportive treatment modalities, and end-of-life care,” they wrote.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends colorectal cancer screening for men and women who are between 45 and 75 years old; however, screening for patients between 76 and 85 years old should be done on a case-by-case basis based on a patient’s overall health, screening history, and the patient’s preferences.

Colorectal cancer incidence rates have been declining since the mid-1980s because of an increase in screening among adults 50 years and older, according to the American Cancer Society. Likewise, mortality rates have dropped from 29.2% in 1970 to 12.6% in 2020 – mostly because of screening.

Dr. Shimomura has no relevant financial disclosures.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new indication for sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead Sciences) on Feb. 3 for patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer after endocrine-based therapy and at least two additional systemic therapies for metastatic disease.

Label expansion for the Trop-2–directed antibody-drug conjugate was based on the TROPICS-02 trial, which randomized 543 adults 1:1 to either sacituzumab govitecan 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or single agent chemotherapy, most often eribulin but also vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine.

Median progression free survival was 5.5 months with sacituzumab govitecan versus 4 months with single agent chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.66; P = .0003). Median overall survival was 14.4 months in the sacituzumab govitecan group versus 11.2 months with chemotherapy (HR, 0.79), according to an FDA press release announcing the approval.

In a Gilead press release, Hope Rugo, MD, a breast cancer specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, and principal investigator for TROPICS-02, said the approval “is significant for the breast cancer community. We have had limited options to offer patients after endocrine-based therapy and chemotherapy, and to see a clinically meaningful survival benefit of more than 3 months with a quality-of-life benefit for these women is exceptional.”

The most common adverse events associated with sacituzumab govitecan in the trial, occurring in a quarter or more of participants, were decreased leukocyte count, decreased neutrophil count, decreased hemoglobin, decreased lymphocyte count, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, alopecia, glucose elevation, constipation, and decreased albumin.

Labeling for the agent carries a boxedwarning of severe or life-threatening neutropenia and severe diarrhea.

The recommended dose is the trial dose: 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sacituzumab govitecan was previously approved for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer after two or more prior systemic therapies and locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy and either a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new indication for sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead Sciences) on Feb. 3 for patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer after endocrine-based therapy and at least two additional systemic therapies for metastatic disease.

Label expansion for the Trop-2–directed antibody-drug conjugate was based on the TROPICS-02 trial, which randomized 543 adults 1:1 to either sacituzumab govitecan 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or single agent chemotherapy, most often eribulin but also vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine.

Median progression free survival was 5.5 months with sacituzumab govitecan versus 4 months with single agent chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.66; P = .0003). Median overall survival was 14.4 months in the sacituzumab govitecan group versus 11.2 months with chemotherapy (HR, 0.79), according to an FDA press release announcing the approval.

In a Gilead press release, Hope Rugo, MD, a breast cancer specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, and principal investigator for TROPICS-02, said the approval “is significant for the breast cancer community. We have had limited options to offer patients after endocrine-based therapy and chemotherapy, and to see a clinically meaningful survival benefit of more than 3 months with a quality-of-life benefit for these women is exceptional.”

The most common adverse events associated with sacituzumab govitecan in the trial, occurring in a quarter or more of participants, were decreased leukocyte count, decreased neutrophil count, decreased hemoglobin, decreased lymphocyte count, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, alopecia, glucose elevation, constipation, and decreased albumin.

Labeling for the agent carries a boxedwarning of severe or life-threatening neutropenia and severe diarrhea.

The recommended dose is the trial dose: 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sacituzumab govitecan was previously approved for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer after two or more prior systemic therapies and locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy and either a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new indication for sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead Sciences) on Feb. 3 for patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer after endocrine-based therapy and at least two additional systemic therapies for metastatic disease.

Label expansion for the Trop-2–directed antibody-drug conjugate was based on the TROPICS-02 trial, which randomized 543 adults 1:1 to either sacituzumab govitecan 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or single agent chemotherapy, most often eribulin but also vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine.

Median progression free survival was 5.5 months with sacituzumab govitecan versus 4 months with single agent chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.66; P = .0003). Median overall survival was 14.4 months in the sacituzumab govitecan group versus 11.2 months with chemotherapy (HR, 0.79), according to an FDA press release announcing the approval.

In a Gilead press release, Hope Rugo, MD, a breast cancer specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, and principal investigator for TROPICS-02, said the approval “is significant for the breast cancer community. We have had limited options to offer patients after endocrine-based therapy and chemotherapy, and to see a clinically meaningful survival benefit of more than 3 months with a quality-of-life benefit for these women is exceptional.”

The most common adverse events associated with sacituzumab govitecan in the trial, occurring in a quarter or more of participants, were decreased leukocyte count, decreased neutrophil count, decreased hemoglobin, decreased lymphocyte count, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, alopecia, glucose elevation, constipation, and decreased albumin.

Labeling for the agent carries a boxedwarning of severe or life-threatening neutropenia and severe diarrhea.

The recommended dose is the trial dose: 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sacituzumab govitecan was previously approved for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer after two or more prior systemic therapies and locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy and either a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor.

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

Both race and place of residence affect how soon a woman in North Carolina receives treatment for breast cancer, suggesting the need to target high-risk geographic regions and patient groups to ensure timely care, new research suggests.

Among nearly 33,000 women from North Carolina with stage I-III breast cancer, Black patients were nearly twice as likely has non-Black patients to experience treatment delays of more than 60 days, researchers found.

“Our findings suggest that treatment delays are alarmingly common in patients at high risk for breast cancer death, including young Black women and patients with stage III disease,” the authors note in their article, which was published online in Cancer.

Research shows that breast cancer treatment delays of 30-60 days can lower survival, and Black patients face a “disproportionate risk of treatment delays across the breast cancer care delivery spectrum,” the authors explain.

However, studies exploring whether or how racial disparities in treatment delays relate to geography are more limited.

In the current analysis, researchers amassed a retrospective cohort of all patients with stage I-III breast cancer between 2004 and 2015 in the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and explored the risk of treatment delay by race and geographic subregion.

The cohort included 32,626 women, 6,190 (19.0%) of whom were Black. Counties were divided into the nine Area Health Education Center regions for North Carolina.

Compared with non‐Black patients, Black patients were more likely to have stage III disease (15.2% vs. 9.3%), hormone receptor–negative tumors (29.3% vs. 15.6%), Medicaid insurance (46.7% vs. 14.9%), and to live within 5 miles of their treatment site (30.6% vs. 25.2%).

Overall, Black patients were almost two times more likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 60 days (15% vs. 8%).

On average, about one in seven Black women experienced a lengthy delay, but the risk varied depending on geographic location. Patients living in certain regions of the state were more likely to experience delays; those in the highest-risk region were about twice as likely to experience a delay as those in the lowest-risk region (relative risk, 2.1 among Black patients; and RR, 1.9 among non-Black patients).

The magnitude of the racial gap in treatment delay varied by region – from 0% to 9.4%. But overall, of patients who experienced treatment delays, a significantly greater proportion were Black patients in every region except region 2, where only 2.7% (93 of 3,362) of patients were Black.

Notably, two regions with the greatest disparities in treatment delay, as well as the highest absolute risk of treatment delay for Black patients, surround large cities.

“These delays weren’t explained by the patients’ distance from cancer treatment facilities, their specific stage of cancer or type of treatment, or what insurance they had,” lead author Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, with the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.

Instead, Dr. Reeder-Hayes said, the findings suggest that the structure of local health care systems, rather than patient characteristics, may better explain why some patients experience treatment delays.

In other words, “if cancer care teams in certain areas say, ‘Oh, it’s particularly hard to treat breast cancer in our area because people are poor or have really advanced stages of cancer when they come in,’ our research does not bear out that explanation,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said in email to this news organization.

This study “highlights the persistent disparities in treatment delays Black women encounter, which often lead to worse outcomes,” said Kathie-Ann Joseph, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research.

“Interestingly, the authors could not attribute these delays in treatment to patient-level factors,” said Dr. Joseph, a breast cancer surgeon at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York. But the authors “did find substantial geographic variation, which suggests the need to address structural barriers contributing to treatment delays in Black women.”

Sara P. Cate, MD, who was not involved with the research, also noted that the study highlights a known issue – “that racial minorities have longer delays in cancer treatment.” And notably, she said, the findings reveal that this disparity persists in areas where access to care is better and more robust.

“The nuances of the delays to care are multifactorial,” said Dr. Cate, a breast cancer surgeon and director of the Breast Surgery Quality Program at Mount Sinai in New York. “We need to do better with this population, and it is a multilevel solution of financial assistance, social work, and patient navigation.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the NC State Employees’ Credit Union. Dr. Reeder-Hayes, Dr. Cate, and Dr. Joseph have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both race and place of residence affect how soon a woman in North Carolina receives treatment for breast cancer, suggesting the need to target high-risk geographic regions and patient groups to ensure timely care, new research suggests.

Among nearly 33,000 women from North Carolina with stage I-III breast cancer, Black patients were nearly twice as likely has non-Black patients to experience treatment delays of more than 60 days, researchers found.

“Our findings suggest that treatment delays are alarmingly common in patients at high risk for breast cancer death, including young Black women and patients with stage III disease,” the authors note in their article, which was published online in Cancer.

Research shows that breast cancer treatment delays of 30-60 days can lower survival, and Black patients face a “disproportionate risk of treatment delays across the breast cancer care delivery spectrum,” the authors explain.

However, studies exploring whether or how racial disparities in treatment delays relate to geography are more limited.

In the current analysis, researchers amassed a retrospective cohort of all patients with stage I-III breast cancer between 2004 and 2015 in the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and explored the risk of treatment delay by race and geographic subregion.

The cohort included 32,626 women, 6,190 (19.0%) of whom were Black. Counties were divided into the nine Area Health Education Center regions for North Carolina.

Compared with non‐Black patients, Black patients were more likely to have stage III disease (15.2% vs. 9.3%), hormone receptor–negative tumors (29.3% vs. 15.6%), Medicaid insurance (46.7% vs. 14.9%), and to live within 5 miles of their treatment site (30.6% vs. 25.2%).

Overall, Black patients were almost two times more likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 60 days (15% vs. 8%).

On average, about one in seven Black women experienced a lengthy delay, but the risk varied depending on geographic location. Patients living in certain regions of the state were more likely to experience delays; those in the highest-risk region were about twice as likely to experience a delay as those in the lowest-risk region (relative risk, 2.1 among Black patients; and RR, 1.9 among non-Black patients).

The magnitude of the racial gap in treatment delay varied by region – from 0% to 9.4%. But overall, of patients who experienced treatment delays, a significantly greater proportion were Black patients in every region except region 2, where only 2.7% (93 of 3,362) of patients were Black.

Notably, two regions with the greatest disparities in treatment delay, as well as the highest absolute risk of treatment delay for Black patients, surround large cities.

“These delays weren’t explained by the patients’ distance from cancer treatment facilities, their specific stage of cancer or type of treatment, or what insurance they had,” lead author Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, with the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.

Instead, Dr. Reeder-Hayes said, the findings suggest that the structure of local health care systems, rather than patient characteristics, may better explain why some patients experience treatment delays.

In other words, “if cancer care teams in certain areas say, ‘Oh, it’s particularly hard to treat breast cancer in our area because people are poor or have really advanced stages of cancer when they come in,’ our research does not bear out that explanation,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said in email to this news organization.

This study “highlights the persistent disparities in treatment delays Black women encounter, which often lead to worse outcomes,” said Kathie-Ann Joseph, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research.

“Interestingly, the authors could not attribute these delays in treatment to patient-level factors,” said Dr. Joseph, a breast cancer surgeon at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York. But the authors “did find substantial geographic variation, which suggests the need to address structural barriers contributing to treatment delays in Black women.”

Sara P. Cate, MD, who was not involved with the research, also noted that the study highlights a known issue – “that racial minorities have longer delays in cancer treatment.” And notably, she said, the findings reveal that this disparity persists in areas where access to care is better and more robust.

“The nuances of the delays to care are multifactorial,” said Dr. Cate, a breast cancer surgeon and director of the Breast Surgery Quality Program at Mount Sinai in New York. “We need to do better with this population, and it is a multilevel solution of financial assistance, social work, and patient navigation.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the NC State Employees’ Credit Union. Dr. Reeder-Hayes, Dr. Cate, and Dr. Joseph have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both race and place of residence affect how soon a woman in North Carolina receives treatment for breast cancer, suggesting the need to target high-risk geographic regions and patient groups to ensure timely care, new research suggests.

Among nearly 33,000 women from North Carolina with stage I-III breast cancer, Black patients were nearly twice as likely has non-Black patients to experience treatment delays of more than 60 days, researchers found.

“Our findings suggest that treatment delays are alarmingly common in patients at high risk for breast cancer death, including young Black women and patients with stage III disease,” the authors note in their article, which was published online in Cancer.

Research shows that breast cancer treatment delays of 30-60 days can lower survival, and Black patients face a “disproportionate risk of treatment delays across the breast cancer care delivery spectrum,” the authors explain.

However, studies exploring whether or how racial disparities in treatment delays relate to geography are more limited.

In the current analysis, researchers amassed a retrospective cohort of all patients with stage I-III breast cancer between 2004 and 2015 in the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and explored the risk of treatment delay by race and geographic subregion.

The cohort included 32,626 women, 6,190 (19.0%) of whom were Black. Counties were divided into the nine Area Health Education Center regions for North Carolina.

Compared with non‐Black patients, Black patients were more likely to have stage III disease (15.2% vs. 9.3%), hormone receptor–negative tumors (29.3% vs. 15.6%), Medicaid insurance (46.7% vs. 14.9%), and to live within 5 miles of their treatment site (30.6% vs. 25.2%).

Overall, Black patients were almost two times more likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 60 days (15% vs. 8%).

On average, about one in seven Black women experienced a lengthy delay, but the risk varied depending on geographic location. Patients living in certain regions of the state were more likely to experience delays; those in the highest-risk region were about twice as likely to experience a delay as those in the lowest-risk region (relative risk, 2.1 among Black patients; and RR, 1.9 among non-Black patients).

The magnitude of the racial gap in treatment delay varied by region – from 0% to 9.4%. But overall, of patients who experienced treatment delays, a significantly greater proportion were Black patients in every region except region 2, where only 2.7% (93 of 3,362) of patients were Black.

Notably, two regions with the greatest disparities in treatment delay, as well as the highest absolute risk of treatment delay for Black patients, surround large cities.

“These delays weren’t explained by the patients’ distance from cancer treatment facilities, their specific stage of cancer or type of treatment, or what insurance they had,” lead author Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, with the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.

Instead, Dr. Reeder-Hayes said, the findings suggest that the structure of local health care systems, rather than patient characteristics, may better explain why some patients experience treatment delays.

In other words, “if cancer care teams in certain areas say, ‘Oh, it’s particularly hard to treat breast cancer in our area because people are poor or have really advanced stages of cancer when they come in,’ our research does not bear out that explanation,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said in email to this news organization.

This study “highlights the persistent disparities in treatment delays Black women encounter, which often lead to worse outcomes,” said Kathie-Ann Joseph, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research.

“Interestingly, the authors could not attribute these delays in treatment to patient-level factors,” said Dr. Joseph, a breast cancer surgeon at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York. But the authors “did find substantial geographic variation, which suggests the need to address structural barriers contributing to treatment delays in Black women.”

Sara P. Cate, MD, who was not involved with the research, also noted that the study highlights a known issue – “that racial minorities have longer delays in cancer treatment.” And notably, she said, the findings reveal that this disparity persists in areas where access to care is better and more robust.

“The nuances of the delays to care are multifactorial,” said Dr. Cate, a breast cancer surgeon and director of the Breast Surgery Quality Program at Mount Sinai in New York. “We need to do better with this population, and it is a multilevel solution of financial assistance, social work, and patient navigation.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the NC State Employees’ Credit Union. Dr. Reeder-Hayes, Dr. Cate, and Dr. Joseph have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

While it’s well known that COVID-19 vaccines are less effective in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who take immunity-lowering drugs, a new study offers fresh insight into what’s happening inside the body. In these patients, the vaccines often don’t boost B cells, which produce antibodies, but they do strengthen T cells, potentially providing crucial protection against severe illness and death.

These findings don’t reveal whether the T-cell boost actually provides extra protection against COVID-19. Still, the study suggests that patients with CLL should be vaccinated no matter which medications they’re taking, coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Clemens-Martin Wendtner, MD, of the Munich (Germany) Clinic, said in an interview.

“Do not defer or pause treatment,” said Dr. Wendtner, whose study was published in Blood Advances.

Patients with CLL appear to have among the weakest responses to the COVID-19 vaccine among people with various types of blood cancer. A meta-analysis published in 2022 found that seropositivity rates following vaccination were just 51% in patients with CLL, compared with 80%-90% in those with acute leukemia and 76%-80% of those with myeloma.

“Usually, the response rate to vaccination among the nonimmunocompromised would be 95%,” Dr. Wendtner said.

Research has also suggested that patients treated with B-cell pathway inhibitors and anti-CD20 antibodies are especially likely to have poorer responses to COVID-19 vaccines, no surprise considering that their job is to dampen the immune system. But there’s an unanswered question, according to Dr. Wendtner: Does “just measuring B-cell response tell us everything about the immune response?”

The new prospective, single-institution study aims to answer that question in patients who each received two types of vaccines. Researchers compared peripheral blood mononuclear cell transcriptional response with antibody and T-cell response rates in 15 patients with CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma following vaccination with both the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines.

The average antibody response was limited. “Overall, 7/15 of patients failed to mount a humoral response even after three-dose vaccination,” the researchers reported. All of the patients were “heavily pretreated” with CLL medications such as venetoclax, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody.

By contrast, the T-cell response was much stronger: 80% of patients (12/15) had a robust response, a number that grew to 90% (14/15) after a booster. This response is “almost ideal” considering that the response in a nonimmunocompromised person would be about 99%, Dr. Wendtner said.

The study also revealed that vaccine responses were weaker in patients who took a combination of a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor and venetoclax within a year.

Four patients developed COVID-19 infections with the Omicron variant about 6 months after vaccination. All had mild symptoms. A lone patient had a history of COVID-19 infection prior to vaccination.

The researchers noted that the study had several limitations, including its small size, its reliance on a single institution, and the differences in treatments and vaccination protocols among the patient population.

Broadly speaking, the study showed that “a vaccine is not in vain” in patients with CLL, “although the doctor might not detect an antibody response,” Dr. Wendtner said. He added that mixing vaccine types should provide more protection. Start with a viral vector vaccine followed by an mRNA vaccine or vice versa, he suggested.

In an interview, infectious disease physician Joshua A. Hill, MD, from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the study, said it makes “important and interesting observations to reinforce other studies with similar findings.”

Specifically, Dr. Hill said, “despite the absence of a robust antibody response some of these patients who are on active treatment, patients can still generate robust cellular immune responses in the form of T-cell immunity. Our understanding is that having T cell immunity will provide important additional protection for developing severe disease, although is less easily tested.”

As for the best vaccination strategies, Dr. Hill said “patients should get vaccinated as soon as they are eligible, according to standard guidelines. If patients have not yet started therapy, they should get their indicated vaccines before starting treatment whenever possible.”

The German study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Bavarian State Ministry of Science and Art. Dr. Wendtner disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca and BioNTech, and another author disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca. The other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Hill disclosed consultant fees from Moderna, Pfizer, and Gilead.

While it’s well known that COVID-19 vaccines are less effective in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who take immunity-lowering drugs, a new study offers fresh insight into what’s happening inside the body. In these patients, the vaccines often don’t boost B cells, which produce antibodies, but they do strengthen T cells, potentially providing crucial protection against severe illness and death.

These findings don’t reveal whether the T-cell boost actually provides extra protection against COVID-19. Still, the study suggests that patients with CLL should be vaccinated no matter which medications they’re taking, coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Clemens-Martin Wendtner, MD, of the Munich (Germany) Clinic, said in an interview.

“Do not defer or pause treatment,” said Dr. Wendtner, whose study was published in Blood Advances.

Patients with CLL appear to have among the weakest responses to the COVID-19 vaccine among people with various types of blood cancer. A meta-analysis published in 2022 found that seropositivity rates following vaccination were just 51% in patients with CLL, compared with 80%-90% in those with acute leukemia and 76%-80% of those with myeloma.

“Usually, the response rate to vaccination among the nonimmunocompromised would be 95%,” Dr. Wendtner said.

Research has also suggested that patients treated with B-cell pathway inhibitors and anti-CD20 antibodies are especially likely to have poorer responses to COVID-19 vaccines, no surprise considering that their job is to dampen the immune system. But there’s an unanswered question, according to Dr. Wendtner: Does “just measuring B-cell response tell us everything about the immune response?”

The new prospective, single-institution study aims to answer that question in patients who each received two types of vaccines. Researchers compared peripheral blood mononuclear cell transcriptional response with antibody and T-cell response rates in 15 patients with CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma following vaccination with both the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines.

The average antibody response was limited. “Overall, 7/15 of patients failed to mount a humoral response even after three-dose vaccination,” the researchers reported. All of the patients were “heavily pretreated” with CLL medications such as venetoclax, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody.

By contrast, the T-cell response was much stronger: 80% of patients (12/15) had a robust response, a number that grew to 90% (14/15) after a booster. This response is “almost ideal” considering that the response in a nonimmunocompromised person would be about 99%, Dr. Wendtner said.

The study also revealed that vaccine responses were weaker in patients who took a combination of a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor and venetoclax within a year.

Four patients developed COVID-19 infections with the Omicron variant about 6 months after vaccination. All had mild symptoms. A lone patient had a history of COVID-19 infection prior to vaccination.

The researchers noted that the study had several limitations, including its small size, its reliance on a single institution, and the differences in treatments and vaccination protocols among the patient population.

Broadly speaking, the study showed that “a vaccine is not in vain” in patients with CLL, “although the doctor might not detect an antibody response,” Dr. Wendtner said. He added that mixing vaccine types should provide more protection. Start with a viral vector vaccine followed by an mRNA vaccine or vice versa, he suggested.

In an interview, infectious disease physician Joshua A. Hill, MD, from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the study, said it makes “important and interesting observations to reinforce other studies with similar findings.”

Specifically, Dr. Hill said, “despite the absence of a robust antibody response some of these patients who are on active treatment, patients can still generate robust cellular immune responses in the form of T-cell immunity. Our understanding is that having T cell immunity will provide important additional protection for developing severe disease, although is less easily tested.”

As for the best vaccination strategies, Dr. Hill said “patients should get vaccinated as soon as they are eligible, according to standard guidelines. If patients have not yet started therapy, they should get their indicated vaccines before starting treatment whenever possible.”

The German study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Bavarian State Ministry of Science and Art. Dr. Wendtner disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca and BioNTech, and another author disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca. The other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Hill disclosed consultant fees from Moderna, Pfizer, and Gilead.

While it’s well known that COVID-19 vaccines are less effective in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who take immunity-lowering drugs, a new study offers fresh insight into what’s happening inside the body. In these patients, the vaccines often don’t boost B cells, which produce antibodies, but they do strengthen T cells, potentially providing crucial protection against severe illness and death.

These findings don’t reveal whether the T-cell boost actually provides extra protection against COVID-19. Still, the study suggests that patients with CLL should be vaccinated no matter which medications they’re taking, coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Clemens-Martin Wendtner, MD, of the Munich (Germany) Clinic, said in an interview.

“Do not defer or pause treatment,” said Dr. Wendtner, whose study was published in Blood Advances.

Patients with CLL appear to have among the weakest responses to the COVID-19 vaccine among people with various types of blood cancer. A meta-analysis published in 2022 found that seropositivity rates following vaccination were just 51% in patients with CLL, compared with 80%-90% in those with acute leukemia and 76%-80% of those with myeloma.

“Usually, the response rate to vaccination among the nonimmunocompromised would be 95%,” Dr. Wendtner said.

Research has also suggested that patients treated with B-cell pathway inhibitors and anti-CD20 antibodies are especially likely to have poorer responses to COVID-19 vaccines, no surprise considering that their job is to dampen the immune system. But there’s an unanswered question, according to Dr. Wendtner: Does “just measuring B-cell response tell us everything about the immune response?”

The new prospective, single-institution study aims to answer that question in patients who each received two types of vaccines. Researchers compared peripheral blood mononuclear cell transcriptional response with antibody and T-cell response rates in 15 patients with CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma following vaccination with both the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines.

The average antibody response was limited. “Overall, 7/15 of patients failed to mount a humoral response even after three-dose vaccination,” the researchers reported. All of the patients were “heavily pretreated” with CLL medications such as venetoclax, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody.

By contrast, the T-cell response was much stronger: 80% of patients (12/15) had a robust response, a number that grew to 90% (14/15) after a booster. This response is “almost ideal” considering that the response in a nonimmunocompromised person would be about 99%, Dr. Wendtner said.

The study also revealed that vaccine responses were weaker in patients who took a combination of a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor and venetoclax within a year.

Four patients developed COVID-19 infections with the Omicron variant about 6 months after vaccination. All had mild symptoms. A lone patient had a history of COVID-19 infection prior to vaccination.

The researchers noted that the study had several limitations, including its small size, its reliance on a single institution, and the differences in treatments and vaccination protocols among the patient population.

Broadly speaking, the study showed that “a vaccine is not in vain” in patients with CLL, “although the doctor might not detect an antibody response,” Dr. Wendtner said. He added that mixing vaccine types should provide more protection. Start with a viral vector vaccine followed by an mRNA vaccine or vice versa, he suggested.

In an interview, infectious disease physician Joshua A. Hill, MD, from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the study, said it makes “important and interesting observations to reinforce other studies with similar findings.”

Specifically, Dr. Hill said, “despite the absence of a robust antibody response some of these patients who are on active treatment, patients can still generate robust cellular immune responses in the form of T-cell immunity. Our understanding is that having T cell immunity will provide important additional protection for developing severe disease, although is less easily tested.”

As for the best vaccination strategies, Dr. Hill said “patients should get vaccinated as soon as they are eligible, according to standard guidelines. If patients have not yet started therapy, they should get their indicated vaccines before starting treatment whenever possible.”

The German study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Bavarian State Ministry of Science and Art. Dr. Wendtner disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca and BioNTech, and another author disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca. The other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Hill disclosed consultant fees from Moderna, Pfizer, and Gilead.

Opioids are widely regarded as a linchpin in the treatment of moderate to severe cancer-related pain and end-of-life symptoms; however, there are persistent racial and ethnic inequities in opioid access among older cancer patients, with Black patients being disproportionately affected, a new study suggests.

Black patients were more likely to undergo urine drug screening (UDS) despite being less likely to receive any opioids for pain management and receiving lower daily doses of opioids in comparison with White patients, the study found.

The inequities were particularly stark for Black men. “We found that Black men were far less likely to be prescribed reasonable doses than White men were,” said the study’s senior author, Alexi Wright, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist and a researcher in the division of population sciences at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “And Black men were less likely to receive long-acting opioids, which are essential for many patients dying of cancer. Our findings are startling because everyone should agree that cancer patients should have equal access to pain relief at the end of life.”

The study was published on in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The researchers gathered data on 318,549 Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years with poor-prognosis cancers who died between 2007 and 2019. During this time frame, for all groups, access to opioids declined and urine drug testing expanded, owing to the overall opioid epidemic in the United States. Overall, the proportion of patients near end of life (EOL) who received any opioid or long-acting opioids decreased from 42.2% to 32.7% and from 17.9% to 9.4%, respectively.

The investigators used National Drug Codes to identify all Medicare Part D claims for outpatient opioid prescriptions, excluding addiction treatments, cough suppressants, and parenteral opioids. They focused on prescriptions that were filled at least 30 days before death or hospice enrollment.

Among the study participants, the majority (85.5%) of patients were White, 29,555 patients (9.3%) were Black, and 16,636 patients (5.2%) were Hispanic.

Black and Hispanic patients were statistically less likely than White patients to receive opioid prescriptions near EOL (Black, –4.3 percentage points; Hispanic, –3.6 percentage points). They were also less likely to receive long-acting opioid prescriptions (Black, –3.1 percentage points; Hispanic, –2.2 percentage points).

“It’s not just that patients of color are less likely to get opioids, but when they do get them, they get lower doses, and they also are less likely to get long-acting opioids, which a lot of people view as sort of more potential for addiction, which isn’t necessarily true but kind of viewed with heightened concern or suspicion,” the study’s lead author, Andrea Enzinger, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist and a researcher in Dana-Farber’s division of population sciences, said in an interview.

Dr. Enzinger added that she believes systemic racism and preconceived biases toward minorities and drug addiction may be contributing to these trends.

When Black patients did receive at least one opioid prescription, they received daily doses that were 10.5 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) lower than doses given to White patients. Compared with the total opioid dose filled per White decedent near EOL, the total dose filled per Black decedent was 210 MMEs lower.

“We all need to be worried about the potential for misuse or addiction, but this is the one setting that is very low on my priority list when somebody is dying. I mean, we’re looking at the last month of life, so nobody has the potential to become addicted,” Dr. Enzinger commented.

The team also evaluated rates or urine drug screening (UDS), but as these rates were relatively low, they expanded the time frame to 180 days before death or hospice. They found that disparities in UDS disproportionately affected Black men.

From 2007 to 2019, the proportion of patients who underwent UDS increased from 0.6% to 6.7% in the 180 days before death or hospice; however, Black decedents were tested more often than White or Hispanic decedents.

Black decedents were 0.5 percentage points more likely than White decedents to undergo UDS near EOL.

“The disparities in urine drug screening are modest but important, because they hint at underlying systematic racism in recommending patients for screening,” Dr. Wright said. “Screening needs to either be applied uniformly or not at all for patients in this situation.”

The researchers acknowledged that their findings likely do not represent the full spectrum of prescribing disparities and believe that the work should be expanded among younger populations. Nevertheless, the investigators believe the work highlights the persistent racial and ethnic disparities in opioid access.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Policy.

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

Opioids are widely regarded as a linchpin in the treatment of moderate to severe cancer-related pain and end-of-life symptoms; however, there are persistent racial and ethnic inequities in opioid access among older cancer patients, with Black patients being disproportionately affected, a new study suggests.

Black patients were more likely to undergo urine drug screening (UDS) despite being less likely to receive any opioids for pain management and receiving lower daily doses of opioids in comparison with White patients, the study found.

The inequities were particularly stark for Black men. “We found that Black men were far less likely to be prescribed reasonable doses than White men were,” said the study’s senior author, Alexi Wright, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist and a researcher in the division of population sciences at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “And Black men were less likely to receive long-acting opioids, which are essential for many patients dying of cancer. Our findings are startling because everyone should agree that cancer patients should have equal access to pain relief at the end of life.”

The study was published on in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The researchers gathered data on 318,549 Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years with poor-prognosis cancers who died between 2007 and 2019. During this time frame, for all groups, access to opioids declined and urine drug testing expanded, owing to the overall opioid epidemic in the United States. Overall, the proportion of patients near end of life (EOL) who received any opioid or long-acting opioids decreased from 42.2% to 32.7% and from 17.9% to 9.4%, respectively.

The investigators used National Drug Codes to identify all Medicare Part D claims for outpatient opioid prescriptions, excluding addiction treatments, cough suppressants, and parenteral opioids. They focused on prescriptions that were filled at least 30 days before death or hospice enrollment.

Among the study participants, the majority (85.5%) of patients were White, 29,555 patients (9.3%) were Black, and 16,636 patients (5.2%) were Hispanic.

Black and Hispanic patients were statistically less likely than White patients to receive opioid prescriptions near EOL (Black, –4.3 percentage points; Hispanic, –3.6 percentage points). They were also less likely to receive long-acting opioid prescriptions (Black, –3.1 percentage points; Hispanic, –2.2 percentage points).

“It’s not just that patients of color are less likely to get opioids, but when they do get them, they get lower doses, and they also are less likely to get long-acting opioids, which a lot of people view as sort of more potential for addiction, which isn’t necessarily true but kind of viewed with heightened concern or suspicion,” the study’s lead author, Andrea Enzinger, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist and a researcher in Dana-Farber’s division of population sciences, said in an interview.

Dr. Enzinger added that she believes systemic racism and preconceived biases toward minorities and drug addiction may be contributing to these trends.

When Black patients did receive at least one opioid prescription, they received daily doses that were 10.5 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) lower than doses given to White patients. Compared with the total opioid dose filled per White decedent near EOL, the total dose filled per Black decedent was 210 MMEs lower.

“We all need to be worried about the potential for misuse or addiction, but this is the one setting that is very low on my priority list when somebody is dying. I mean, we’re looking at the last month of life, so nobody has the potential to become addicted,” Dr. Enzinger commented.

The team also evaluated rates or urine drug screening (UDS), but as these rates were relatively low, they expanded the time frame to 180 days before death or hospice. They found that disparities in UDS disproportionately affected Black men.

From 2007 to 2019, the proportion of patients who underwent UDS increased from 0.6% to 6.7% in the 180 days before death or hospice; however, Black decedents were tested more often than White or Hispanic decedents.

Black decedents were 0.5 percentage points more likely than White decedents to undergo UDS near EOL.

“The disparities in urine drug screening are modest but important, because they hint at underlying systematic racism in recommending patients for screening,” Dr. Wright said. “Screening needs to either be applied uniformly or not at all for patients in this situation.”

The researchers acknowledged that their findings likely do not represent the full spectrum of prescribing disparities and believe that the work should be expanded among younger populations. Nevertheless, the investigators believe the work highlights the persistent racial and ethnic disparities in opioid access.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Policy.

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

Opioids are widely regarded as a linchpin in the treatment of moderate to severe cancer-related pain and end-of-life symptoms; however, there are persistent racial and ethnic inequities in opioid access among older cancer patients, with Black patients being disproportionately affected, a new study suggests.

Black patients were more likely to undergo urine drug screening (UDS) despite being less likely to receive any opioids for pain management and receiving lower daily doses of opioids in comparison with White patients, the study found.

The inequities were particularly stark for Black men. “We found that Black men were far less likely to be prescribed reasonable doses than White men were,” said the study’s senior author, Alexi Wright, MD, MPH, a gynecologic oncologist and a researcher in the division of population sciences at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “And Black men were less likely to receive long-acting opioids, which are essential for many patients dying of cancer. Our findings are startling because everyone should agree that cancer patients should have equal access to pain relief at the end of life.”

The study was published on in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The researchers gathered data on 318,549 Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years with poor-prognosis cancers who died between 2007 and 2019. During this time frame, for all groups, access to opioids declined and urine drug testing expanded, owing to the overall opioid epidemic in the United States. Overall, the proportion of patients near end of life (EOL) who received any opioid or long-acting opioids decreased from 42.2% to 32.7% and from 17.9% to 9.4%, respectively.

The investigators used National Drug Codes to identify all Medicare Part D claims for outpatient opioid prescriptions, excluding addiction treatments, cough suppressants, and parenteral opioids. They focused on prescriptions that were filled at least 30 days before death or hospice enrollment.

Among the study participants, the majority (85.5%) of patients were White, 29,555 patients (9.3%) were Black, and 16,636 patients (5.2%) were Hispanic.

Black and Hispanic patients were statistically less likely than White patients to receive opioid prescriptions near EOL (Black, –4.3 percentage points; Hispanic, –3.6 percentage points). They were also less likely to receive long-acting opioid prescriptions (Black, –3.1 percentage points; Hispanic, –2.2 percentage points).

“It’s not just that patients of color are less likely to get opioids, but when they do get them, they get lower doses, and they also are less likely to get long-acting opioids, which a lot of people view as sort of more potential for addiction, which isn’t necessarily true but kind of viewed with heightened concern or suspicion,” the study’s lead author, Andrea Enzinger, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist and a researcher in Dana-Farber’s division of population sciences, said in an interview.

Dr. Enzinger added that she believes systemic racism and preconceived biases toward minorities and drug addiction may be contributing to these trends.

When Black patients did receive at least one opioid prescription, they received daily doses that were 10.5 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) lower than doses given to White patients. Compared with the total opioid dose filled per White decedent near EOL, the total dose filled per Black decedent was 210 MMEs lower.

“We all need to be worried about the potential for misuse or addiction, but this is the one setting that is very low on my priority list when somebody is dying. I mean, we’re looking at the last month of life, so nobody has the potential to become addicted,” Dr. Enzinger commented.

The team also evaluated rates or urine drug screening (UDS), but as these rates were relatively low, they expanded the time frame to 180 days before death or hospice. They found that disparities in UDS disproportionately affected Black men.

From 2007 to 2019, the proportion of patients who underwent UDS increased from 0.6% to 6.7% in the 180 days before death or hospice; however, Black decedents were tested more often than White or Hispanic decedents.

Black decedents were 0.5 percentage points more likely than White decedents to undergo UDS near EOL.

“The disparities in urine drug screening are modest but important, because they hint at underlying systematic racism in recommending patients for screening,” Dr. Wright said. “Screening needs to either be applied uniformly or not at all for patients in this situation.”

The researchers acknowledged that their findings likely do not represent the full spectrum of prescribing disparities and believe that the work should be expanded among younger populations. Nevertheless, the investigators believe the work highlights the persistent racial and ethnic disparities in opioid access.

The study was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Policy.

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

Young adults who survive cancer are more likely than cancer-free siblings to be lonely and to develop emotional distress, risky behaviors, and new chronic conditions as a result, findings from a large retrospective study suggest.

Young cancer survivors were more than twice as likely to report loneliness at study baseline and follow-up. Loneliness at these times was associated with an almost 10-fold increased risk for anxiety and a nearly 18-fold increased risk for depression.

“We observed an elevated prevalence of loneliness in survivors, compared to sibling controls, and found that loneliness was associated with emotional, behavioral, and physical health morbidities,” lead study author Chiara Papini, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and her colleagues write. “Our results highlight the importance of identifying and screening young adult survivors of childhood cancer for loneliness and the need for targeted interventions to reduce loneliness.”

The article was published online in the journal Cancer.

Most young cancer survivors in the United States reach adulthood and need to play catch-up: make up for missed school and work, become reacquainted with old friends, and develop new friendships, social networks, and intimate relationships. Meeting these needs may be hindered by adverse physical and psychosocial problems that linger or develop after treatment, which may leave cancer survivors feeling isolated.

“Young adult survivors of childhood cancer are navigating a developmental period marked by increased social expectations, during which loneliness may have significant impact on physical and mental health,” Dr. Papini and colleagues say.

To better understand the risks for loneliness among young cancer survivors, Dr. Papini and her colleagues analyzed data from the retrospective Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, which followed young survivors who had been diagnosed with a range of cancers before age 21 years. Study participants had been treated at one of 31 study sites in North America and had survived 5 years or longer after diagnosis.

The 9,664 survivors and 2,221 randomly sampled siblings ranged in age from 19 to 39 years at the time they completed a survey that assessed emotional distress at baseline and at follow‐up a median of 6.6 years. At baseline, the median age of the survivors was 27 years, and a median of 17.5 years had passed from the time of their diagnosis.

The most common diagnoses were leukemia (35%), Hodgkin lymphoma (15%), central nervous system (CNS) tumors (14%), and bone tumors (10%). More than half (56%) had received radiation therapy.

Using multivariable models, the researchers found that survivors were more likely than siblings to report moderate to extreme loneliness at either baseline or follow‐up (prevalence ratio, 1.04) and were more than two times more likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up (PR, 2.21).

Loneliness at baseline and follow‐up was associated with a much greater risk for anxiety (relative risk, 9.75) and depression (RR, 17.86). Loneliness at follow‐up was linked with increased risks for suicidal ideation (RR, 1.52), heavy or risky alcohol consumption (RR, 1.27), and any grade 2-4 new‐onset chronic health condition (RR, 1.29), especially those that were neurologic (RR, 4.37).

Survivors of CNS tumors (odds ratio, 2.59) and leukemia (OR, 2.52) were most likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up, though survivors of four other cancer types also faced an elevated risk for loneliness: neuroblastoma (OR, 2.32), bone tumor (OR, 2.12), soft tissue sarcoma (OR, 1.78), and Hodgkin lymphoma (OR, 1.69).

Treatment type appeared to matter as well. Survivors who underwent amputation (OR, 1.82) or were treated with cranial radiation greater than or equal to 20 Gy (OR, 1.56) or corticosteroids (OR, 1.31) were more likely to report loneliness at baseline and follow‐up, compared with those who reported no loneliness at both time points.

The authors acknowledge limitations to the study, including the fact that roughly 90% of survivors and siblings were White, which limits the applicability of their results to diverse groups. In addition, the responses were self-reported without external validation.

Overall, though, the findings provide a framework for clinicians to understand and identify loneliness among young cancer survivors and help them cope with their emotions.

“The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study provides the largest and the most comprehensive dataset on childhood cancer survivors and healthy-sibling comparisons, giving us powerful data on survivorship, late effects, and psychosocial and health outcomes,” Rachel M. Moore, PhD, child psychologist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview.

Asking a simple question – “Are you feeling lonely?” – can identify at-risk survivors and enable health care teams to provide timely interventions that address young patients’ physical and psychological needs, said Dr. Moore, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Moore noted that within her clinical practice, “adolescent and young adult survivors frequently discuss loneliness in their daily lives. They feel different from their peers and misunderstood. Having a conversation early in survivorship care about the experience of loneliness as a product of cancer treatment can open the door to regular screening and destigmatizing mental health services.”

Supporting young people throughout their survivorship journey is important, said Rusha Bhandari, MD, medical director of the Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer Survivorship Program at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif. This study can help ensure that clinicians “provide comprehensive care, including psychosocial screening and support, to meet the unique needs of our young adult survivors,” said Dr. Bhandari, who also was not involved in the research.

The National Cancer Institute and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities supported the study. One co-author reported receiving corporate consulting fees. Dr. Papini, the remaining co-authors, Dr. Moore, and Dr. Bhandari report no relevant financial involvements.

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

Young adults who survive cancer are more likely than cancer-free siblings to be lonely and to develop emotional distress, risky behaviors, and new chronic conditions as a result, findings from a large retrospective study suggest.

Young cancer survivors were more than twice as likely to report loneliness at study baseline and follow-up. Loneliness at these times was associated with an almost 10-fold increased risk for anxiety and a nearly 18-fold increased risk for depression.

“We observed an elevated prevalence of loneliness in survivors, compared to sibling controls, and found that loneliness was associated with emotional, behavioral, and physical health morbidities,” lead study author Chiara Papini, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and her colleagues write. “Our results highlight the importance of identifying and screening young adult survivors of childhood cancer for loneliness and the need for targeted interventions to reduce loneliness.”

The article was published online in the journal Cancer.

Most young cancer survivors in the United States reach adulthood and need to play catch-up: make up for missed school and work, become reacquainted with old friends, and develop new friendships, social networks, and intimate relationships. Meeting these needs may be hindered by adverse physical and psychosocial problems that linger or develop after treatment, which may leave cancer survivors feeling isolated.

“Young adult survivors of childhood cancer are navigating a developmental period marked by increased social expectations, during which loneliness may have significant impact on physical and mental health,” Dr. Papini and colleagues say.

To better understand the risks for loneliness among young cancer survivors, Dr. Papini and her colleagues analyzed data from the retrospective Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, which followed young survivors who had been diagnosed with a range of cancers before age 21 years. Study participants had been treated at one of 31 study sites in North America and had survived 5 years or longer after diagnosis.

The 9,664 survivors and 2,221 randomly sampled siblings ranged in age from 19 to 39 years at the time they completed a survey that assessed emotional distress at baseline and at follow‐up a median of 6.6 years. At baseline, the median age of the survivors was 27 years, and a median of 17.5 years had passed from the time of their diagnosis.

The most common diagnoses were leukemia (35%), Hodgkin lymphoma (15%), central nervous system (CNS) tumors (14%), and bone tumors (10%). More than half (56%) had received radiation therapy.

Using multivariable models, the researchers found that survivors were more likely than siblings to report moderate to extreme loneliness at either baseline or follow‐up (prevalence ratio, 1.04) and were more than two times more likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up (PR, 2.21).

Loneliness at baseline and follow‐up was associated with a much greater risk for anxiety (relative risk, 9.75) and depression (RR, 17.86). Loneliness at follow‐up was linked with increased risks for suicidal ideation (RR, 1.52), heavy or risky alcohol consumption (RR, 1.27), and any grade 2-4 new‐onset chronic health condition (RR, 1.29), especially those that were neurologic (RR, 4.37).

Survivors of CNS tumors (odds ratio, 2.59) and leukemia (OR, 2.52) were most likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up, though survivors of four other cancer types also faced an elevated risk for loneliness: neuroblastoma (OR, 2.32), bone tumor (OR, 2.12), soft tissue sarcoma (OR, 1.78), and Hodgkin lymphoma (OR, 1.69).

Treatment type appeared to matter as well. Survivors who underwent amputation (OR, 1.82) or were treated with cranial radiation greater than or equal to 20 Gy (OR, 1.56) or corticosteroids (OR, 1.31) were more likely to report loneliness at baseline and follow‐up, compared with those who reported no loneliness at both time points.

The authors acknowledge limitations to the study, including the fact that roughly 90% of survivors and siblings were White, which limits the applicability of their results to diverse groups. In addition, the responses were self-reported without external validation.

Overall, though, the findings provide a framework for clinicians to understand and identify loneliness among young cancer survivors and help them cope with their emotions.

“The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study provides the largest and the most comprehensive dataset on childhood cancer survivors and healthy-sibling comparisons, giving us powerful data on survivorship, late effects, and psychosocial and health outcomes,” Rachel M. Moore, PhD, child psychologist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview.

Asking a simple question – “Are you feeling lonely?” – can identify at-risk survivors and enable health care teams to provide timely interventions that address young patients’ physical and psychological needs, said Dr. Moore, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Moore noted that within her clinical practice, “adolescent and young adult survivors frequently discuss loneliness in their daily lives. They feel different from their peers and misunderstood. Having a conversation early in survivorship care about the experience of loneliness as a product of cancer treatment can open the door to regular screening and destigmatizing mental health services.”

Supporting young people throughout their survivorship journey is important, said Rusha Bhandari, MD, medical director of the Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer Survivorship Program at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif. This study can help ensure that clinicians “provide comprehensive care, including psychosocial screening and support, to meet the unique needs of our young adult survivors,” said Dr. Bhandari, who also was not involved in the research.

The National Cancer Institute and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities supported the study. One co-author reported receiving corporate consulting fees. Dr. Papini, the remaining co-authors, Dr. Moore, and Dr. Bhandari report no relevant financial involvements.

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

Young adults who survive cancer are more likely than cancer-free siblings to be lonely and to develop emotional distress, risky behaviors, and new chronic conditions as a result, findings from a large retrospective study suggest.

Young cancer survivors were more than twice as likely to report loneliness at study baseline and follow-up. Loneliness at these times was associated with an almost 10-fold increased risk for anxiety and a nearly 18-fold increased risk for depression.

“We observed an elevated prevalence of loneliness in survivors, compared to sibling controls, and found that loneliness was associated with emotional, behavioral, and physical health morbidities,” lead study author Chiara Papini, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and her colleagues write. “Our results highlight the importance of identifying and screening young adult survivors of childhood cancer for loneliness and the need for targeted interventions to reduce loneliness.”

The article was published online in the journal Cancer.

Most young cancer survivors in the United States reach adulthood and need to play catch-up: make up for missed school and work, become reacquainted with old friends, and develop new friendships, social networks, and intimate relationships. Meeting these needs may be hindered by adverse physical and psychosocial problems that linger or develop after treatment, which may leave cancer survivors feeling isolated.

“Young adult survivors of childhood cancer are navigating a developmental period marked by increased social expectations, during which loneliness may have significant impact on physical and mental health,” Dr. Papini and colleagues say.

To better understand the risks for loneliness among young cancer survivors, Dr. Papini and her colleagues analyzed data from the retrospective Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, which followed young survivors who had been diagnosed with a range of cancers before age 21 years. Study participants had been treated at one of 31 study sites in North America and had survived 5 years or longer after diagnosis.

The 9,664 survivors and 2,221 randomly sampled siblings ranged in age from 19 to 39 years at the time they completed a survey that assessed emotional distress at baseline and at follow‐up a median of 6.6 years. At baseline, the median age of the survivors was 27 years, and a median of 17.5 years had passed from the time of their diagnosis.

The most common diagnoses were leukemia (35%), Hodgkin lymphoma (15%), central nervous system (CNS) tumors (14%), and bone tumors (10%). More than half (56%) had received radiation therapy.

Using multivariable models, the researchers found that survivors were more likely than siblings to report moderate to extreme loneliness at either baseline or follow‐up (prevalence ratio, 1.04) and were more than two times more likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up (PR, 2.21).

Loneliness at baseline and follow‐up was associated with a much greater risk for anxiety (relative risk, 9.75) and depression (RR, 17.86). Loneliness at follow‐up was linked with increased risks for suicidal ideation (RR, 1.52), heavy or risky alcohol consumption (RR, 1.27), and any grade 2-4 new‐onset chronic health condition (RR, 1.29), especially those that were neurologic (RR, 4.37).

Survivors of CNS tumors (odds ratio, 2.59) and leukemia (OR, 2.52) were most likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up, though survivors of four other cancer types also faced an elevated risk for loneliness: neuroblastoma (OR, 2.32), bone tumor (OR, 2.12), soft tissue sarcoma (OR, 1.78), and Hodgkin lymphoma (OR, 1.69).

Treatment type appeared to matter as well. Survivors who underwent amputation (OR, 1.82) or were treated with cranial radiation greater than or equal to 20 Gy (OR, 1.56) or corticosteroids (OR, 1.31) were more likely to report loneliness at baseline and follow‐up, compared with those who reported no loneliness at both time points.

The authors acknowledge limitations to the study, including the fact that roughly 90% of survivors and siblings were White, which limits the applicability of their results to diverse groups. In addition, the responses were self-reported without external validation.

Overall, though, the findings provide a framework for clinicians to understand and identify loneliness among young cancer survivors and help them cope with their emotions.

“The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study provides the largest and the most comprehensive dataset on childhood cancer survivors and healthy-sibling comparisons, giving us powerful data on survivorship, late effects, and psychosocial and health outcomes,” Rachel M. Moore, PhD, child psychologist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview.

Asking a simple question – “Are you feeling lonely?” – can identify at-risk survivors and enable health care teams to provide timely interventions that address young patients’ physical and psychological needs, said Dr. Moore, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Moore noted that within her clinical practice, “adolescent and young adult survivors frequently discuss loneliness in their daily lives. They feel different from their peers and misunderstood. Having a conversation early in survivorship care about the experience of loneliness as a product of cancer treatment can open the door to regular screening and destigmatizing mental health services.”

Supporting young people throughout their survivorship journey is important, said Rusha Bhandari, MD, medical director of the Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer Survivorship Program at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif. This study can help ensure that clinicians “provide comprehensive care, including psychosocial screening and support, to meet the unique needs of our young adult survivors,” said Dr. Bhandari, who also was not involved in the research.

The National Cancer Institute and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities supported the study. One co-author reported receiving corporate consulting fees. Dr. Papini, the remaining co-authors, Dr. Moore, and Dr. Bhandari report no relevant financial involvements.

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

Female physicians often spend their child-bearing years in medical training and developing their careers, and this can create problems.  

In a survey of just over 1,000 female oncologists, 95% said their career plans were at least somewhat associated with the timing of when to start a family.

The most striking finding was that one third of respondents had miscarried and another one third reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

One third reported experiencing discrimination during pregnancy, and another third said they experienced discrimination for taking maternity leave, and having more than one child increased the likelihood of this.

The most common negative factor associated with family planning was long work hours and heavy workload (66.6%),

These findings suggest there are systemic changes needed not only in the healthcare setting but in society as a whole around women in the workplace and their choices of childbearing, say the authors.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open and led by Anna Lee MD, MPH, from the department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 

In an invited commentary, Mona Saleh, MD, and Stephanie Blank, MD, from the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, suggest that cultural changes are needed that go beyond women in medicine.

“These cultural values are so deeply pervasive (one could also say invasive) that they affect even these most educated and wealthy professional women, such as those who participated in this survey,” the editorialists write.

“[The researchers] advocate for early education on assisted reproductive technology (ART) risks, benefits, and success rates, but this is not getting at the underlying issue: Pregnancy discrimination and unfair distribution of childbearing responsibilities are a reflection of a larger problematic culture rather than an issue specific to women in medicine,” they add.
 

Survey details

The survey comprised a novel 39-item questionnaire distributed to 1,004 U.S. female oncologists from May 7 to June 30, 2020, via email and social media channels.

Most respondents (84.4%) were married, and 71% were currently working full-time.

About one-third (35%) worked in radiation oncology, another third (34.3%) in medical oncology, 18.4% in surgical oncology, and 9.1% in pediatric oncology.

A total of 768 respondents (76.5%) had children, and of these, 415 (41.3%) first gave birth during postgraduate training and 275 (27.4%) gave birth in years 1-5 as an attending physician.

Of all respondents who had been pregnant, approximately two-thirds (65.7%) had some type of pregnancy complication. About one-third of respondents (31.7%) reported having experienced a miscarriage after a confirmed pregnancy; of those, 61.6% reported one miscarriage, while the remainder had two or more miscarriages (38.4%).

Approximately one-third (31.4%) of respondents reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

The questionnaire also asked about assisted reproductive technology, and 164 participants (16.3%) reported the use of fertility medications, and 53 (5.3%) reported cryopreservation of eggs. Nearly 13% reported the use of intrauterine insemination and 13.2% reported the use of in vivo fertilization. Among those who experienced fertility concerns, 36.6% (232 of 634) reported facing financial burdens because of fertility or pregnancy that was in some way associated with their career choice.

When asked on the survey if fertility preservation should be discussed with women during medical school and/or residency, 65.7% of respondents stated that it should.

However, the editorialists suggest that “encouraging formal and directed education regarding the infertility risks specifically toward female physicians (which Lee et al. recommend) could be perceived as a blanket recommendation that it is best for women in medicine to delay childbearing and pursue ART.”

“Medical schools and residency and fellowship training programs should instead focus their energy on creating a framework and culture that normalizes conception during these points in training while also subsidizing and supporting trainees and physicians who prefer to use ART and delay fertility until after training,” they suggest.

The editorialists also emphasized that women may choose to become pregnant at any point during the years that it takes to go from being a medical student to resident/fellow to attending physician, and they should be supported by their workplace on their decisions.

The study was funded by grants from National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

Dr. Lee and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blank reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Akesobio, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Seattle Genetics outside the submitted work. Dr. Saleh reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Female physicians often spend their child-bearing years in medical training and developing their careers, and this can create problems.  

In a survey of just over 1,000 female oncologists, 95% said their career plans were at least somewhat associated with the timing of when to start a family.

The most striking finding was that one third of respondents had miscarried and another one third reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

One third reported experiencing discrimination during pregnancy, and another third said they experienced discrimination for taking maternity leave, and having more than one child increased the likelihood of this.

The most common negative factor associated with family planning was long work hours and heavy workload (66.6%),

These findings suggest there are systemic changes needed not only in the healthcare setting but in society as a whole around women in the workplace and their choices of childbearing, say the authors.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open and led by Anna Lee MD, MPH, from the department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 

In an invited commentary, Mona Saleh, MD, and Stephanie Blank, MD, from the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, suggest that cultural changes are needed that go beyond women in medicine.

“These cultural values are so deeply pervasive (one could also say invasive) that they affect even these most educated and wealthy professional women, such as those who participated in this survey,” the editorialists write.

“[The researchers] advocate for early education on assisted reproductive technology (ART) risks, benefits, and success rates, but this is not getting at the underlying issue: Pregnancy discrimination and unfair distribution of childbearing responsibilities are a reflection of a larger problematic culture rather than an issue specific to women in medicine,” they add.
 

Survey details

The survey comprised a novel 39-item questionnaire distributed to 1,004 U.S. female oncologists from May 7 to June 30, 2020, via email and social media channels.

Most respondents (84.4%) were married, and 71% were currently working full-time.

About one-third (35%) worked in radiation oncology, another third (34.3%) in medical oncology, 18.4% in surgical oncology, and 9.1% in pediatric oncology.

A total of 768 respondents (76.5%) had children, and of these, 415 (41.3%) first gave birth during postgraduate training and 275 (27.4%) gave birth in years 1-5 as an attending physician.

Of all respondents who had been pregnant, approximately two-thirds (65.7%) had some type of pregnancy complication. About one-third of respondents (31.7%) reported having experienced a miscarriage after a confirmed pregnancy; of those, 61.6% reported one miscarriage, while the remainder had two or more miscarriages (38.4%).

Approximately one-third (31.4%) of respondents reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

The questionnaire also asked about assisted reproductive technology, and 164 participants (16.3%) reported the use of fertility medications, and 53 (5.3%) reported cryopreservation of eggs. Nearly 13% reported the use of intrauterine insemination and 13.2% reported the use of in vivo fertilization. Among those who experienced fertility concerns, 36.6% (232 of 634) reported facing financial burdens because of fertility or pregnancy that was in some way associated with their career choice.

When asked on the survey if fertility preservation should be discussed with women during medical school and/or residency, 65.7% of respondents stated that it should.

However, the editorialists suggest that “encouraging formal and directed education regarding the infertility risks specifically toward female physicians (which Lee et al. recommend) could be perceived as a blanket recommendation that it is best for women in medicine to delay childbearing and pursue ART.”

“Medical schools and residency and fellowship training programs should instead focus their energy on creating a framework and culture that normalizes conception during these points in training while also subsidizing and supporting trainees and physicians who prefer to use ART and delay fertility until after training,” they suggest.

The editorialists also emphasized that women may choose to become pregnant at any point during the years that it takes to go from being a medical student to resident/fellow to attending physician, and they should be supported by their workplace on their decisions.

The study was funded by grants from National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

Dr. Lee and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blank reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Akesobio, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Seattle Genetics outside the submitted work. Dr. Saleh reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Female physicians often spend their child-bearing years in medical training and developing their careers, and this can create problems.  

In a survey of just over 1,000 female oncologists, 95% said their career plans were at least somewhat associated with the timing of when to start a family.

The most striking finding was that one third of respondents had miscarried and another one third reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

One third reported experiencing discrimination during pregnancy, and another third said they experienced discrimination for taking maternity leave, and having more than one child increased the likelihood of this.

The most common negative factor associated with family planning was long work hours and heavy workload (66.6%),

These findings suggest there are systemic changes needed not only in the healthcare setting but in society as a whole around women in the workplace and their choices of childbearing, say the authors.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open and led by Anna Lee MD, MPH, from the department of radiation oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 

In an invited commentary, Mona Saleh, MD, and Stephanie Blank, MD, from the department of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, suggest that cultural changes are needed that go beyond women in medicine.

“These cultural values are so deeply pervasive (one could also say invasive) that they affect even these most educated and wealthy professional women, such as those who participated in this survey,” the editorialists write.

“[The researchers] advocate for early education on assisted reproductive technology (ART) risks, benefits, and success rates, but this is not getting at the underlying issue: Pregnancy discrimination and unfair distribution of childbearing responsibilities are a reflection of a larger problematic culture rather than an issue specific to women in medicine,” they add.
 

Survey details

The survey comprised a novel 39-item questionnaire distributed to 1,004 U.S. female oncologists from May 7 to June 30, 2020, via email and social media channels.

Most respondents (84.4%) were married, and 71% were currently working full-time.

About one-third (35%) worked in radiation oncology, another third (34.3%) in medical oncology, 18.4% in surgical oncology, and 9.1% in pediatric oncology.

A total of 768 respondents (76.5%) had children, and of these, 415 (41.3%) first gave birth during postgraduate training and 275 (27.4%) gave birth in years 1-5 as an attending physician.

Of all respondents who had been pregnant, approximately two-thirds (65.7%) had some type of pregnancy complication. About one-third of respondents (31.7%) reported having experienced a miscarriage after a confirmed pregnancy; of those, 61.6% reported one miscarriage, while the remainder had two or more miscarriages (38.4%).

Approximately one-third (31.4%) of respondents reported difficulty with infertility that required fertility counseling and/or treatment.

The questionnaire also asked about assisted reproductive technology, and 164 participants (16.3%) reported the use of fertility medications, and 53 (5.3%) reported cryopreservation of eggs. Nearly 13% reported the use of intrauterine insemination and 13.2% reported the use of in vivo fertilization. Among those who experienced fertility concerns, 36.6% (232 of 634) reported facing financial burdens because of fertility or pregnancy that was in some way associated with their career choice.

When asked on the survey if fertility preservation should be discussed with women during medical school and/or residency, 65.7% of respondents stated that it should.

However, the editorialists suggest that “encouraging formal and directed education regarding the infertility risks specifically toward female physicians (which Lee et al. recommend) could be perceived as a blanket recommendation that it is best for women in medicine to delay childbearing and pursue ART.”

“Medical schools and residency and fellowship training programs should instead focus their energy on creating a framework and culture that normalizes conception during these points in training while also subsidizing and supporting trainees and physicians who prefer to use ART and delay fertility until after training,” they suggest.

The editorialists also emphasized that women may choose to become pregnant at any point during the years that it takes to go from being a medical student to resident/fellow to attending physician, and they should be supported by their workplace on their decisions.

The study was funded by grants from National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

Dr. Lee and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Blank reported receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Aravive, Akesobio, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Seattle Genetics outside the submitted work. Dr. Saleh reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The two national emergency declarations dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic will end May 11, President Joe Biden said on Jan. 30.

Doing so will have many effects, including the end of free vaccines and health services to fight the pandemic. The public health emergency has been renewed every 90 days since it was declared by the Trump administration in January 2020.

The declaration allowed major changes throughout the health care system to deal with the pandemic, including the free distribution of vaccines, testing, and treatments. In addition, telehealth services were expanded, and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program were extended to millions more Americans.

Biden said the COVID-19 national emergency is set to expire March 1 while the declared public health emergency would currently expire on April 11. The president said both will be extended to end May 11.

There were nearly 300,000 newly reported COVID-19 cases in the United States for the week ending Jan. 25, according to CDC data, as well as more than 3,750 deaths.

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

The two national emergency declarations dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic will end May 11, President Joe Biden said on Jan. 30.

Doing so will have many effects, including the end of free vaccines and health services to fight the pandemic. The public health emergency has been renewed every 90 days since it was declared by the Trump administration in January 2020.

The declaration allowed major changes throughout the health care system to deal with the pandemic, including the free distribution of vaccines, testing, and treatments. In addition, telehealth services were expanded, and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program were extended to millions more Americans.

Biden said the COVID-19 national emergency is set to expire March 1 while the declared public health emergency would currently expire on April 11. The president said both will be extended to end May 11.

There were nearly 300,000 newly reported COVID-19 cases in the United States for the week ending Jan. 25, according to CDC data, as well as more than 3,750 deaths.

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

The two national emergency declarations dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic will end May 11, President Joe Biden said on Jan. 30.

Doing so will have many effects, including the end of free vaccines and health services to fight the pandemic. The public health emergency has been renewed every 90 days since it was declared by the Trump administration in January 2020.

The declaration allowed major changes throughout the health care system to deal with the pandemic, including the free distribution of vaccines, testing, and treatments. In addition, telehealth services were expanded, and Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program were extended to millions more Americans.

Biden said the COVID-19 national emergency is set to expire March 1 while the declared public health emergency would currently expire on April 11. The president said both will be extended to end May 11.

There were nearly 300,000 newly reported COVID-19 cases in the United States for the week ending Jan. 25, according to CDC data, as well as more than 3,750 deaths.

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

Newly released figures showing a rise in the number of men with advanced prostate cancer have laid bare long-simmering resentment among patient advocates who feel the nation’s leading cancer group has largely ignored their concerns for years.

The American Cancer Society on Jan. 13 revealed what it called “alarming” news about prostate cancer: After 2 decades of decline, the number of men diagnosed with the disease in the United States rose by 15% from 2014 to 2019.

“Most concerning,” according to the group’s CEO Karen Knudsen, PhD, MBA, is that the increase is being driven by diagnoses of advanced disease.

“Since 2011, the diagnosis of advanced-stage (regional- or distant-stage) prostate cancer has increased by 4%-5% annually and the proportion of men diagnosed with distant-stage disease has doubled,” said Dr. Knudsen at a press conference concerning the figures. “These findings underscore the importance of understanding and reducing this trend.”

The increase, which works out to be an additional 99,000 cases of prostate cancer, did not take the ACS by surprise; the group has been predicting a jump in diagnoses of the disease, which is the most common cancer in men after skin cancer, and the second most common cause of cancer death for that group.

The ACS announced a new action plan, “Improving Mortality from Prostate Cancer Together” – or IMPACT – to address the rise, especially in Black men, and to curb the increasing rate of advanced, difficult-to-treat cases.

“We must address these shifts in prostate cancer, especially in the Black community, since the incidence of prostate cancer in Black men is 70% higher than in White men and prostate cancer mortality rates in Black men are approximately two to four times higher than those in every other racial and ethnic group,” William Dahut, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer for the ACS, said at the press conference.

A study published in JAMA Network Open challenged that claim, finding that, after controlling for socioeconomic factors, race does not appear to be a significant predictor of mortality for prostate cancer.

Dr. Dahut said in an interview that IMPACT “is still [in the] early days for this initiative and more details will be coming out soon.”

Charles Ryan, MD, CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the world’s largest prostate cancer research charity, called IMPACT “extremely important work. Highlighting the disparities can only serve to benefit all men with prostate cancer, especially Black men.”
 

Bold action ... or passivity?

Overall cancer mortality has dropped 33% since 1991, averting an estimated 3.8 million deaths, according to ACS. But the story for prostate cancer is different.

The society and advocates had warned as recently as 2 years ago that prostate cancer was poised to rise again, especially advanced cases that may be too late to treat.

Leaders in the prostate cancer advocacy community praised the ACS plan for IMPACT, but some expressed frustration over what they said was ACS’ passivity in the face of long-anticipated increases in cases of the disease.

“I think prostate cancer was not high on their agenda,” said Rick Davis, founder of AnCan, which offers several support groups for patients with prostate cancer.  “It’s good to see ACS get back into the prostate cancer game.”

Mr. Davis and patient advocate Darryl Mitteldorf, LCSW, founder of Malecare, another prostate support organization, said ACS dropped patient services for prostate cancer patients a decade ago and has not been a vocal supporter of screening for levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to detect prostate cancer early.

“Early detection is supposed to be their goal,” Mr. Davis said.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against PSA screening, giving it a D-rating. The move prompted attacks on the task force from most advocates and many urologists.

Following this criticism, the task force recommended shared decision-making between patient and doctor, while giving PSA screening a C-rating. Now, the ACS recommends men in general at age 50 discuss prostate cancer screening with their doctor and that Black men do the same at age 45.

Mr. Mitteldorf said ACS “owes prostate cancer patients an explanation and analysis of its response to the USPTF’s downgrade of PSA testing and how that response might be related to death and instance rates.”

Mr. Mitteldorf added that male patients lost key support from ACS when the group dismantled its Man to Man group for prostate cancer patients and its Brother to Brother group for Blacks in particular.

Dr. Dahut said Man to Man “sunsetted” and was turned over to any local organization that chose to offer it. He said longtime staff didn’t have “a lot of information about [the demise of] Brother to Brother.”

For Mr. Davis, those smaller cuts add up to a much larger insult.

“Today, in 2023, ACS continues to poke a finger in the eyes of prostate cancer patients,” he said. “Since 2010, they have not given us any respect. ACS dumped its support.”

He pointed to the group’s funding priorities, noting that outlays for prostate cancer have consistently lagged behind those for breast cancer.

The ACS spent $25.3 million on breast cancer research and $6.7 million for prostate cancer in 2018, and in 2023 will designate $126.5 for breast cancer research and $43.9 million for prostate cancer.

ACS has earmarked $62 million this year for lung cancer programs and $61 million for colorectal cancer.

“Parity between breast cancer and prostate cancer would be a good start in sizing the IMPACT program,” Mr. Davis said. “After all, breast cancer and prostate cancer are hardly different in numbers today.”

Dr. Dahut denied any gender bias in research funding. He said the group makes funding decisions “based on finding the most impactful science regardless of tumor type. Our mission includes funding every cancer, every day; thus, we generally do not go into our funding cycle with any set-asides for a particular cancer.”

Mr. Davis also said the ACS data suggest the growing number of prostate cancer cases is even worse than the group has said. Although the society cites a 3% annual increase in prostate cancer diagnoses from 2014 to 2019, since 2019 the annual increase is a much more dramatic 16%. Meanwhile, the number of new cases of the disease is projected to rise from 175,000 per year in 2019 to 288,000 this year.

Dr. Dahut said the society used the 2014-2019 time frame for technical reasons, separating confirmed cases in the earlier period from estimated cases in recent years.

“We discourage comparing projected cases over time because these cases are model-based and subject to fluctuations,” Dr. Dahut said.

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

Newly released figures showing a rise in the number of men with advanced prostate cancer have laid bare long-simmering resentment among patient advocates who feel the nation’s leading cancer group has largely ignored their concerns for years.

The American Cancer Society on Jan. 13 revealed what it called “alarming” news about prostate cancer: After 2 decades of decline, the number of men diagnosed with the disease in the United States rose by 15% from 2014 to 2019.

“Most concerning,” according to the group’s CEO Karen Knudsen, PhD, MBA, is that the increase is being driven by diagnoses of advanced disease.

“Since 2011, the diagnosis of advanced-stage (regional- or distant-stage) prostate cancer has increased by 4%-5% annually and the proportion of men diagnosed with distant-stage disease has doubled,” said Dr. Knudsen at a press conference concerning the figures. “These findings underscore the importance of understanding and reducing this trend.”

The increase, which works out to be an additional 99,000 cases of prostate cancer, did not take the ACS by surprise; the group has been predicting a jump in diagnoses of the disease, which is the most common cancer in men after skin cancer, and the second most common cause of cancer death for that group.

The ACS announced a new action plan, “Improving Mortality from Prostate Cancer Together” – or IMPACT – to address the rise, especially in Black men, and to curb the increasing rate of advanced, difficult-to-treat cases.

“We must address these shifts in prostate cancer, especially in the Black community, since the incidence of prostate cancer in Black men is 70% higher than in White men and prostate cancer mortality rates in Black men are approximately two to four times higher than those in every other racial and ethnic group,” William Dahut, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer for the ACS, said at the press conference.

A study published in JAMA Network Open challenged that claim, finding that, after controlling for socioeconomic factors, race does not appear to be a significant predictor of mortality for prostate cancer.

Dr. Dahut said in an interview that IMPACT “is still [in the] early days for this initiative and more details will be coming out soon.”

Charles Ryan, MD, CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the world’s largest prostate cancer research charity, called IMPACT “extremely important work. Highlighting the disparities can only serve to benefit all men with prostate cancer, especially Black men.”
 

Bold action ... or passivity?

Overall cancer mortality has dropped 33% since 1991, averting an estimated 3.8 million deaths, according to ACS. But the story for prostate cancer is different.

The society and advocates had warned as recently as 2 years ago that prostate cancer was poised to rise again, especially advanced cases that may be too late to treat.

Leaders in the prostate cancer advocacy community praised the ACS plan for IMPACT, but some expressed frustration over what they said was ACS’ passivity in the face of long-anticipated increases in cases of the disease.

“I think prostate cancer was not high on their agenda,” said Rick Davis, founder of AnCan, which offers several support groups for patients with prostate cancer.  “It’s good to see ACS get back into the prostate cancer game.”

Mr. Davis and patient advocate Darryl Mitteldorf, LCSW, founder of Malecare, another prostate support organization, said ACS dropped patient services for prostate cancer patients a decade ago and has not been a vocal supporter of screening for levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to detect prostate cancer early.

“Early detection is supposed to be their goal,” Mr. Davis said.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against PSA screening, giving it a D-rating. The move prompted attacks on the task force from most advocates and many urologists.

Following this criticism, the task force recommended shared decision-making between patient and doctor, while giving PSA screening a C-rating. Now, the ACS recommends men in general at age 50 discuss prostate cancer screening with their doctor and that Black men do the same at age 45.

Mr. Mitteldorf said ACS “owes prostate cancer patients an explanation and analysis of its response to the USPTF’s downgrade of PSA testing and how that response might be related to death and instance rates.”

Mr. Mitteldorf added that male patients lost key support from ACS when the group dismantled its Man to Man group for prostate cancer patients and its Brother to Brother group for Blacks in particular.

Dr. Dahut said Man to Man “sunsetted” and was turned over to any local organization that chose to offer it. He said longtime staff didn’t have “a lot of information about [the demise of] Brother to Brother.”

For Mr. Davis, those smaller cuts add up to a much larger insult.

“Today, in 2023, ACS continues to poke a finger in the eyes of prostate cancer patients,” he said. “Since 2010, they have not given us any respect. ACS dumped its support.”

He pointed to the group’s funding priorities, noting that outlays for prostate cancer have consistently lagged behind those for breast cancer.

The ACS spent $25.3 million on breast cancer research and $6.7 million for prostate cancer in 2018, and in 2023 will designate $126.5 for breast cancer research and $43.9 million for prostate cancer.

ACS has earmarked $62 million this year for lung cancer programs and $61 million for colorectal cancer.

“Parity between breast cancer and prostate cancer would be a good start in sizing the IMPACT program,” Mr. Davis said. “After all, breast cancer and prostate cancer are hardly different in numbers today.”

Dr. Dahut denied any gender bias in research funding. He said the group makes funding decisions “based on finding the most impactful science regardless of tumor type. Our mission includes funding every cancer, every day; thus, we generally do not go into our funding cycle with any set-asides for a particular cancer.”

Mr. Davis also said the ACS data suggest the growing number of prostate cancer cases is even worse than the group has said. Although the society cites a 3% annual increase in prostate cancer diagnoses from 2014 to 2019, since 2019 the annual increase is a much more dramatic 16%. Meanwhile, the number of new cases of the disease is projected to rise from 175,000 per year in 2019 to 288,000 this year.

Dr. Dahut said the society used the 2014-2019 time frame for technical reasons, separating confirmed cases in the earlier period from estimated cases in recent years.

“We discourage comparing projected cases over time because these cases are model-based and subject to fluctuations,” Dr. Dahut said.

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

Newly released figures showing a rise in the number of men with advanced prostate cancer have laid bare long-simmering resentment among patient advocates who feel the nation’s leading cancer group has largely ignored their concerns for years.

The American Cancer Society on Jan. 13 revealed what it called “alarming” news about prostate cancer: After 2 decades of decline, the number of men diagnosed with the disease in the United States rose by 15% from 2014 to 2019.

“Most concerning,” according to the group’s CEO Karen Knudsen, PhD, MBA, is that the increase is being driven by diagnoses of advanced disease.

“Since 2011, the diagnosis of advanced-stage (regional- or distant-stage) prostate cancer has increased by 4%-5% annually and the proportion of men diagnosed with distant-stage disease has doubled,” said Dr. Knudsen at a press conference concerning the figures. “These findings underscore the importance of understanding and reducing this trend.”

The increase, which works out to be an additional 99,000 cases of prostate cancer, did not take the ACS by surprise; the group has been predicting a jump in diagnoses of the disease, which is the most common cancer in men after skin cancer, and the second most common cause of cancer death for that group.

The ACS announced a new action plan, “Improving Mortality from Prostate Cancer Together” – or IMPACT – to address the rise, especially in Black men, and to curb the increasing rate of advanced, difficult-to-treat cases.

“We must address these shifts in prostate cancer, especially in the Black community, since the incidence of prostate cancer in Black men is 70% higher than in White men and prostate cancer mortality rates in Black men are approximately two to four times higher than those in every other racial and ethnic group,” William Dahut, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer for the ACS, said at the press conference.

A study published in JAMA Network Open challenged that claim, finding that, after controlling for socioeconomic factors, race does not appear to be a significant predictor of mortality for prostate cancer.

Dr. Dahut said in an interview that IMPACT “is still [in the] early days for this initiative and more details will be coming out soon.”

Charles Ryan, MD, CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, the world’s largest prostate cancer research charity, called IMPACT “extremely important work. Highlighting the disparities can only serve to benefit all men with prostate cancer, especially Black men.”
 

Bold action ... or passivity?

Overall cancer mortality has dropped 33% since 1991, averting an estimated 3.8 million deaths, according to ACS. But the story for prostate cancer is different.

The society and advocates had warned as recently as 2 years ago that prostate cancer was poised to rise again, especially advanced cases that may be too late to treat.

Leaders in the prostate cancer advocacy community praised the ACS plan for IMPACT, but some expressed frustration over what they said was ACS’ passivity in the face of long-anticipated increases in cases of the disease.

“I think prostate cancer was not high on their agenda,” said Rick Davis, founder of AnCan, which offers several support groups for patients with prostate cancer.  “It’s good to see ACS get back into the prostate cancer game.”

Mr. Davis and patient advocate Darryl Mitteldorf, LCSW, founder of Malecare, another prostate support organization, said ACS dropped patient services for prostate cancer patients a decade ago and has not been a vocal supporter of screening for levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) to detect prostate cancer early.

“Early detection is supposed to be their goal,” Mr. Davis said.

In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against PSA screening, giving it a D-rating. The move prompted attacks on the task force from most advocates and many urologists.

Following this criticism, the task force recommended shared decision-making between patient and doctor, while giving PSA screening a C-rating. Now, the ACS recommends men in general at age 50 discuss prostate cancer screening with their doctor and that Black men do the same at age 45.

Mr. Mitteldorf said ACS “owes prostate cancer patients an explanation and analysis of its response to the USPTF’s downgrade of PSA testing and how that response might be related to death and instance rates.”

Mr. Mitteldorf added that male patients lost key support from ACS when the group dismantled its Man to Man group for prostate cancer patients and its Brother to Brother group for Blacks in particular.

Dr. Dahut said Man to Man “sunsetted” and was turned over to any local organization that chose to offer it. He said longtime staff didn’t have “a lot of information about [the demise of] Brother to Brother.”

For Mr. Davis, those smaller cuts add up to a much larger insult.

“Today, in 2023, ACS continues to poke a finger in the eyes of prostate cancer patients,” he said. “Since 2010, they have not given us any respect. ACS dumped its support.”

He pointed to the group’s funding priorities, noting that outlays for prostate cancer have consistently lagged behind those for breast cancer.

The ACS spent $25.3 million on breast cancer research and $6.7 million for prostate cancer in 2018, and in 2023 will designate $126.5 for breast cancer research and $43.9 million for prostate cancer.

ACS has earmarked $62 million this year for lung cancer programs and $61 million for colorectal cancer.

“Parity between breast cancer and prostate cancer would be a good start in sizing the IMPACT program,” Mr. Davis said. “After all, breast cancer and prostate cancer are hardly different in numbers today.”

Dr. Dahut denied any gender bias in research funding. He said the group makes funding decisions “based on finding the most impactful science regardless of tumor type. Our mission includes funding every cancer, every day; thus, we generally do not go into our funding cycle with any set-asides for a particular cancer.”

Mr. Davis also said the ACS data suggest the growing number of prostate cancer cases is even worse than the group has said. Although the society cites a 3% annual increase in prostate cancer diagnoses from 2014 to 2019, since 2019 the annual increase is a much more dramatic 16%. Meanwhile, the number of new cases of the disease is projected to rise from 175,000 per year in 2019 to 288,000 this year.

Dr. Dahut said the society used the 2014-2019 time frame for technical reasons, separating confirmed cases in the earlier period from estimated cases in recent years.

“We discourage comparing projected cases over time because these cases are model-based and subject to fluctuations,” Dr. Dahut said.

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