AVAHO

Signs of pancreatic cancer that were missed on earlier imaging scans represent a “huge window of lost opportunity,” say United Kingdom researchers who report a novel analysis. 

The study set out to identify the incidence and root causes of missed pancreatic cancer diagnoses on CT and MRI scans, the investigators explained at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2022.

The team studied 600 pancreatic cancer cases, including 46 cases (7.7%) categorized as postimaging pancreatic cancer (PIPC) – cases not detected on imaging performed 3-18 months prior to diagnosis.

They also reviewed 46 CT scans and 4 MRI scans performed in PIPC patients.

The detailed analysis showed that 36% of cases of PIPC were potentially avoidable, reported first author Nosheen Umar, MD, a gastroenterology research fellow at the University of Birmingham (England).

In 10% of PIPC patients, imaging signs associated with pancreatic cancer, such as dilated bile or pancreatic ducts, were not recognized as such and were not investigated further. In 26% of scans, the signs of a mass lesion were not picked up by the radiologist.

The findings are notable as the time window for curative PC surgery is often short, and missing the diagnosis on cross-sectional imaging can result in worse clinical outcomes for patients already dealing with a challenging cancer that has generally poor outcomes, Dr. Umar said in an interview.

In fact, pancreatic cancer has the lowest survival rate of all cancers in Europe, the UEG noted in a press release. Life expectancy at the time of diagnosis is just 4.6 months, and 5-year survival is less than 10%, Dr. Umar said.

Pancreatic cancer causes 95,000 deaths in the European Union each year, the UEG noted, adding that by 2035 the number of cases is predicted to rise by almost 40%.
 

Details of missed imaging signs

The aim of this study was to establish the most plausible explanations for missed imaging signs of PC, Dr. Umar explained, adding that early diagnosis is vitally important for offering patients the best chance of survival.

Cases analyzed for the study were identified from electronic medical records of adults diagnosed with PC between 2016 and 2021 at two National Health Service providers. An algorithm was developed to categorize PIPC and assess potential causes of the missed diagnoses.

The PIPC cases were categorized by type:

• Type 1 – A focal lesion on previous imaging reported in the same pancreatic segment as PIPC (0% of cases)
• Type 2 – Imaging changes that can be associated with PC reported on previous imaging (20% of cases)
• Type 3 – No lesion or imaging changes that can be associated with PC reported on previous imaging in the same pancreatic segment as PIPC, but lesion or imaging changes noted on review after PIPC diagnosis (26% of cases)
• Type 4 – No lesion or imaging changes that can be associated with PC reported on previous imaging in the same pancreatic segment as PIPC and no lesion or imaging changes on review after PIPC diagnosis (54% of cases)

“We hope this study will raise awareness of the issue of postimaging pancreatic cancer and common reasons why pancreatic cancer can be initially missed,” Dr. Umar stated in the UEG press release. “This will help to standardize future studies of this issue and guide quality improvement efforts so we can increase the likelihood of an early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, increase the chances of patient survival and, ultimately, save lives.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Signs of pancreatic cancer that were missed on earlier imaging scans represent a “huge window of lost opportunity,” say United Kingdom researchers who report a novel analysis. 

The study set out to identify the incidence and root causes of missed pancreatic cancer diagnoses on CT and MRI scans, the investigators explained at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2022.

The team studied 600 pancreatic cancer cases, including 46 cases (7.7%) categorized as postimaging pancreatic cancer (PIPC) – cases not detected on imaging performed 3-18 months prior to diagnosis.

They also reviewed 46 CT scans and 4 MRI scans performed in PIPC patients.

The detailed analysis showed that 36% of cases of PIPC were potentially avoidable, reported first author Nosheen Umar, MD, a gastroenterology research fellow at the University of Birmingham (England).

In 10% of PIPC patients, imaging signs associated with pancreatic cancer, such as dilated bile or pancreatic ducts, were not recognized as such and were not investigated further. In 26% of scans, the signs of a mass lesion were not picked up by the radiologist.

The findings are notable as the time window for curative PC surgery is often short, and missing the diagnosis on cross-sectional imaging can result in worse clinical outcomes for patients already dealing with a challenging cancer that has generally poor outcomes, Dr. Umar said in an interview.

In fact, pancreatic cancer has the lowest survival rate of all cancers in Europe, the UEG noted in a press release. Life expectancy at the time of diagnosis is just 4.6 months, and 5-year survival is less than 10%, Dr. Umar said.

Pancreatic cancer causes 95,000 deaths in the European Union each year, the UEG noted, adding that by 2035 the number of cases is predicted to rise by almost 40%.
 

Details of missed imaging signs

The aim of this study was to establish the most plausible explanations for missed imaging signs of PC, Dr. Umar explained, adding that early diagnosis is vitally important for offering patients the best chance of survival.

Cases analyzed for the study were identified from electronic medical records of adults diagnosed with PC between 2016 and 2021 at two National Health Service providers. An algorithm was developed to categorize PIPC and assess potential causes of the missed diagnoses.

The PIPC cases were categorized by type:

• Type 1 – A focal lesion on previous imaging reported in the same pancreatic segment as PIPC (0% of cases)
• Type 2 – Imaging changes that can be associated with PC reported on previous imaging (20% of cases)
• Type 3 – No lesion or imaging changes that can be associated with PC reported on previous imaging in the same pancreatic segment as PIPC, but lesion or imaging changes noted on review after PIPC diagnosis (26% of cases)
• Type 4 – No lesion or imaging changes that can be associated with PC reported on previous imaging in the same pancreatic segment as PIPC and no lesion or imaging changes on review after PIPC diagnosis (54% of cases)

“We hope this study will raise awareness of the issue of postimaging pancreatic cancer and common reasons why pancreatic cancer can be initially missed,” Dr. Umar stated in the UEG press release. “This will help to standardize future studies of this issue and guide quality improvement efforts so we can increase the likelihood of an early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, increase the chances of patient survival and, ultimately, save lives.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Signs of pancreatic cancer that were missed on earlier imaging scans represent a “huge window of lost opportunity,” say United Kingdom researchers who report a novel analysis. 

The study set out to identify the incidence and root causes of missed pancreatic cancer diagnoses on CT and MRI scans, the investigators explained at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2022.

The team studied 600 pancreatic cancer cases, including 46 cases (7.7%) categorized as postimaging pancreatic cancer (PIPC) – cases not detected on imaging performed 3-18 months prior to diagnosis.

They also reviewed 46 CT scans and 4 MRI scans performed in PIPC patients.

The detailed analysis showed that 36% of cases of PIPC were potentially avoidable, reported first author Nosheen Umar, MD, a gastroenterology research fellow at the University of Birmingham (England).

In 10% of PIPC patients, imaging signs associated with pancreatic cancer, such as dilated bile or pancreatic ducts, were not recognized as such and were not investigated further. In 26% of scans, the signs of a mass lesion were not picked up by the radiologist.

The findings are notable as the time window for curative PC surgery is often short, and missing the diagnosis on cross-sectional imaging can result in worse clinical outcomes for patients already dealing with a challenging cancer that has generally poor outcomes, Dr. Umar said in an interview.

In fact, pancreatic cancer has the lowest survival rate of all cancers in Europe, the UEG noted in a press release. Life expectancy at the time of diagnosis is just 4.6 months, and 5-year survival is less than 10%, Dr. Umar said.

Pancreatic cancer causes 95,000 deaths in the European Union each year, the UEG noted, adding that by 2035 the number of cases is predicted to rise by almost 40%.
 

Details of missed imaging signs

The aim of this study was to establish the most plausible explanations for missed imaging signs of PC, Dr. Umar explained, adding that early diagnosis is vitally important for offering patients the best chance of survival.

Cases analyzed for the study were identified from electronic medical records of adults diagnosed with PC between 2016 and 2021 at two National Health Service providers. An algorithm was developed to categorize PIPC and assess potential causes of the missed diagnoses.

The PIPC cases were categorized by type:

• Type 1 – A focal lesion on previous imaging reported in the same pancreatic segment as PIPC (0% of cases)
• Type 2 – Imaging changes that can be associated with PC reported on previous imaging (20% of cases)
• Type 3 – No lesion or imaging changes that can be associated with PC reported on previous imaging in the same pancreatic segment as PIPC, but lesion or imaging changes noted on review after PIPC diagnosis (26% of cases)
• Type 4 – No lesion or imaging changes that can be associated with PC reported on previous imaging in the same pancreatic segment as PIPC and no lesion or imaging changes on review after PIPC diagnosis (54% of cases)

“We hope this study will raise awareness of the issue of postimaging pancreatic cancer and common reasons why pancreatic cancer can be initially missed,” Dr. Umar stated in the UEG press release. “This will help to standardize future studies of this issue and guide quality improvement efforts so we can increase the likelihood of an early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, increase the chances of patient survival and, ultimately, save lives.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO—Before the pandemic, an estimated one-third of oncologists worldwide suffered a high level of burnout. Cancer physicians face many of the same risk factors as their colleagues—high workloads, lack of autonomy, and no support—along with the added pressure of working in a medical field where patients often die. Then COVID-19 hit, and the burnout crisis got even worse.

This tide can be reversed with a focus on best practices and resilience, a mental health researcher told cancer professionals at the September 2022 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology. Assessments, long-term interventions, and communication are all key, said Fay J. Hlubocky, PhD, MA, a clinical health psychologist and ethicist at the University of Chicago.

Even simple actions like taking time for “mindful moments” and checking in with a colleague can make a difference, she said. But institutions must act, she said. “Long-term tailored strategies are incredibly important to promote well-being.”

Hlubocky, who led an American Society of Clinical Oncology committee on burnout prior to the pandemic, noted that statistics about burnout in American medicine and oncology specifically, are grim. In 2017, a systematic review and meta-analysis found that significant numbers of oncologists suffered from high burnout (32%), high psychiatric morbidity (27%), depression (at least 12%), and alcohol misuse (as many as 30%).

The pandemic piled on more stressors. In the second half of 2020, researchers interviewed 25 American oncologists in focus groups and found that their “underlying oncologist burnout exacerbated stressors associated with disruptions in care, education, research, financial practice health, and telemedicine. Many feared delays in cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment [and] strongly considered working part-time or taking early retirement.”

As one participant put it, “everyone is seeing a lot of death and heartache and social isolation and anger that they’re not used to encountering and in very new and different ways.”

Major contributors to oncologist burnout, Hlubocky said, include moral distress, moral injury, and compassion fatigue. “Moral distress occurs when that individual believes he or she knows the right thing to do, but institutional constraints make it really difficult to do what is right,” Hlubocky said. “The individual is aware of the moral problem, acknowledges and takes moral responsibility, makes some moral judgments, but yet—as a result of these constraints — participates in perceived moral wrongdoing.”

Moral injury refers to the damage that can be caused by moral distress or by witnessing acts that violate morals, such as during military service. Compassion fatigue, meanwhile, is defined by the American Stress Institute as “a low level, chronic clouding of caring and concern for others in your life.”

What can be done? Hlubocky highlighted multiple interventions, such as adjustment of work patterns, cognitive behavioral therapy, and training in mindfulness, relaxation, and communication. One strategy is to adopt multiple in-person interventions simultaneously.

But first it’s crucial for administrators to understand the problem in a specific workplace: “You have to know what’s going on in your organization to intervene on it,” she said. “There are multiple tools that have been validated in other health care fields and can be used on a regular basis over time to measure burnout, satisfaction, and engagement.”

For individuals, other strategies include daily check-ins with colleagues to catch signs of stress, she said, as Toronto oncologists started doing amid the pandemic. The check-ins can include simple questions like: How are you doing? How are you feeling? Are you sleeping, eating and exercising? Do you need help?

As for resilience, Hlubocky said it must grow at the individual level. “We can't rely so much on the organization. We need to develop our personal resilience in order for professional resilience to flourish again, and we have to do a lot to protect ourselves. It’s about focusing on the strength of the individual—that empowerment to rise above adversity, that vitality, that engagement, that self-efficacy. It supports health and enhances coping, and it is the key element of physician and clinician well-being.”

Research into resilience offers guidance about how to achieve it, she said. A 2013 German study of 200 physicians found that the most resilient physicians change their attitudes and behaviors, take time off, set boundaries, spend time with family and friends, and ask colleagues for help. And they gained resilience, the study found, by getting older and becoming more experienced.

Hlubocky pointed to several useful resources for burned-out medical professionals, including mindfulness, cognitive behavioral therapy and breathing apps: She highlighted Breathe2Relax, Headspace, MoodGYM, Stress Gym, and guided audio files from the University of California at San Diego. And she said ASCO has resources on combatting burnout and promoting well-being.

Hlubocky has no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO—Before the pandemic, an estimated one-third of oncologists worldwide suffered a high level of burnout. Cancer physicians face many of the same risk factors as their colleagues—high workloads, lack of autonomy, and no support—along with the added pressure of working in a medical field where patients often die. Then COVID-19 hit, and the burnout crisis got even worse.

This tide can be reversed with a focus on best practices and resilience, a mental health researcher told cancer professionals at the September 2022 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology. Assessments, long-term interventions, and communication are all key, said Fay J. Hlubocky, PhD, MA, a clinical health psychologist and ethicist at the University of Chicago.

Even simple actions like taking time for “mindful moments” and checking in with a colleague can make a difference, she said. But institutions must act, she said. “Long-term tailored strategies are incredibly important to promote well-being.”

Hlubocky, who led an American Society of Clinical Oncology committee on burnout prior to the pandemic, noted that statistics about burnout in American medicine and oncology specifically, are grim. In 2017, a systematic review and meta-analysis found that significant numbers of oncologists suffered from high burnout (32%), high psychiatric morbidity (27%), depression (at least 12%), and alcohol misuse (as many as 30%).

The pandemic piled on more stressors. In the second half of 2020, researchers interviewed 25 American oncologists in focus groups and found that their “underlying oncologist burnout exacerbated stressors associated with disruptions in care, education, research, financial practice health, and telemedicine. Many feared delays in cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment [and] strongly considered working part-time or taking early retirement.”

As one participant put it, “everyone is seeing a lot of death and heartache and social isolation and anger that they’re not used to encountering and in very new and different ways.”

Major contributors to oncologist burnout, Hlubocky said, include moral distress, moral injury, and compassion fatigue. “Moral distress occurs when that individual believes he or she knows the right thing to do, but institutional constraints make it really difficult to do what is right,” Hlubocky said. “The individual is aware of the moral problem, acknowledges and takes moral responsibility, makes some moral judgments, but yet—as a result of these constraints — participates in perceived moral wrongdoing.”

Moral injury refers to the damage that can be caused by moral distress or by witnessing acts that violate morals, such as during military service. Compassion fatigue, meanwhile, is defined by the American Stress Institute as “a low level, chronic clouding of caring and concern for others in your life.”

What can be done? Hlubocky highlighted multiple interventions, such as adjustment of work patterns, cognitive behavioral therapy, and training in mindfulness, relaxation, and communication. One strategy is to adopt multiple in-person interventions simultaneously.

But first it’s crucial for administrators to understand the problem in a specific workplace: “You have to know what’s going on in your organization to intervene on it,” she said. “There are multiple tools that have been validated in other health care fields and can be used on a regular basis over time to measure burnout, satisfaction, and engagement.”

For individuals, other strategies include daily check-ins with colleagues to catch signs of stress, she said, as Toronto oncologists started doing amid the pandemic. The check-ins can include simple questions like: How are you doing? How are you feeling? Are you sleeping, eating and exercising? Do you need help?

As for resilience, Hlubocky said it must grow at the individual level. “We can't rely so much on the organization. We need to develop our personal resilience in order for professional resilience to flourish again, and we have to do a lot to protect ourselves. It’s about focusing on the strength of the individual—that empowerment to rise above adversity, that vitality, that engagement, that self-efficacy. It supports health and enhances coping, and it is the key element of physician and clinician well-being.”

Research into resilience offers guidance about how to achieve it, she said. A 2013 German study of 200 physicians found that the most resilient physicians change their attitudes and behaviors, take time off, set boundaries, spend time with family and friends, and ask colleagues for help. And they gained resilience, the study found, by getting older and becoming more experienced.

Hlubocky pointed to several useful resources for burned-out medical professionals, including mindfulness, cognitive behavioral therapy and breathing apps: She highlighted Breathe2Relax, Headspace, MoodGYM, Stress Gym, and guided audio files from the University of California at San Diego. And she said ASCO has resources on combatting burnout and promoting well-being.

Hlubocky has no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO—Before the pandemic, an estimated one-third of oncologists worldwide suffered a high level of burnout. Cancer physicians face many of the same risk factors as their colleagues—high workloads, lack of autonomy, and no support—along with the added pressure of working in a medical field where patients often die. Then COVID-19 hit, and the burnout crisis got even worse.

This tide can be reversed with a focus on best practices and resilience, a mental health researcher told cancer professionals at the September 2022 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology. Assessments, long-term interventions, and communication are all key, said Fay J. Hlubocky, PhD, MA, a clinical health psychologist and ethicist at the University of Chicago.

Even simple actions like taking time for “mindful moments” and checking in with a colleague can make a difference, she said. But institutions must act, she said. “Long-term tailored strategies are incredibly important to promote well-being.”

Hlubocky, who led an American Society of Clinical Oncology committee on burnout prior to the pandemic, noted that statistics about burnout in American medicine and oncology specifically, are grim. In 2017, a systematic review and meta-analysis found that significant numbers of oncologists suffered from high burnout (32%), high psychiatric morbidity (27%), depression (at least 12%), and alcohol misuse (as many as 30%).

The pandemic piled on more stressors. In the second half of 2020, researchers interviewed 25 American oncologists in focus groups and found that their “underlying oncologist burnout exacerbated stressors associated with disruptions in care, education, research, financial practice health, and telemedicine. Many feared delays in cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment [and] strongly considered working part-time or taking early retirement.”

As one participant put it, “everyone is seeing a lot of death and heartache and social isolation and anger that they’re not used to encountering and in very new and different ways.”

Major contributors to oncologist burnout, Hlubocky said, include moral distress, moral injury, and compassion fatigue. “Moral distress occurs when that individual believes he or she knows the right thing to do, but institutional constraints make it really difficult to do what is right,” Hlubocky said. “The individual is aware of the moral problem, acknowledges and takes moral responsibility, makes some moral judgments, but yet—as a result of these constraints — participates in perceived moral wrongdoing.”

Moral injury refers to the damage that can be caused by moral distress or by witnessing acts that violate morals, such as during military service. Compassion fatigue, meanwhile, is defined by the American Stress Institute as “a low level, chronic clouding of caring and concern for others in your life.”

What can be done? Hlubocky highlighted multiple interventions, such as adjustment of work patterns, cognitive behavioral therapy, and training in mindfulness, relaxation, and communication. One strategy is to adopt multiple in-person interventions simultaneously.

But first it’s crucial for administrators to understand the problem in a specific workplace: “You have to know what’s going on in your organization to intervene on it,” she said. “There are multiple tools that have been validated in other health care fields and can be used on a regular basis over time to measure burnout, satisfaction, and engagement.”

For individuals, other strategies include daily check-ins with colleagues to catch signs of stress, she said, as Toronto oncologists started doing amid the pandemic. The check-ins can include simple questions like: How are you doing? How are you feeling? Are you sleeping, eating and exercising? Do you need help?

As for resilience, Hlubocky said it must grow at the individual level. “We can't rely so much on the organization. We need to develop our personal resilience in order for professional resilience to flourish again, and we have to do a lot to protect ourselves. It’s about focusing on the strength of the individual—that empowerment to rise above adversity, that vitality, that engagement, that self-efficacy. It supports health and enhances coping, and it is the key element of physician and clinician well-being.”

Research into resilience offers guidance about how to achieve it, she said. A 2013 German study of 200 physicians found that the most resilient physicians change their attitudes and behaviors, take time off, set boundaries, spend time with family and friends, and ask colleagues for help. And they gained resilience, the study found, by getting older and becoming more experienced.

Hlubocky pointed to several useful resources for burned-out medical professionals, including mindfulness, cognitive behavioral therapy and breathing apps: She highlighted Breathe2Relax, Headspace, MoodGYM, Stress Gym, and guided audio files from the University of California at San Diego. And she said ASCO has resources on combatting burnout and promoting well-being.

Hlubocky has no relevant disclosures.

VIENNA – The real-world risk of colorectal cancer and associated mortality was lower among people who underwent a single screening colonoscopy than among those who did not have a colonoscopy, though only modestly so, the 10-year follow-up of the large, multicenter, randomized Northern-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) trial shows.

In effect, this means the number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer is 455 (95% confidence interval, 270-1,429), the researchers determined.

The results were presented at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2022 meeting and were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The results of the study, which was designed to be truly population based and to mimic national colorectal cancer screening programs, provide an estimate of the effect of screening colonoscopy in the general population.

The primary outcome was determined on an intention-to-screen basis. All persons who were invited to undergo colonoscopy screening were compared with people who received usual care (that is, received no invitation or screening). At UEG 2022, the researchers presented the interim 10-year colorectal cancer risk, which was found to be 0.98%, compared to 1.20%. This represents a risk reduction of 18% among colonoscopy invitees (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93). During the study period, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group versus622 in the usual-care group.

The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64-1.16). The risk of death from any cause was similar in both the invited group and the usual-care group, at 11.03% and 11.04%, respectively (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.04).

The authors noted that the benefit would have been greater had more people undergone screening; only 42% of those who were invited actually underwent colonoscopy. In an adjusted analysis, had all those who had been invited to undergo screening undergone colonoscopy, the 10-year risk of colorectal cancer would have decreased from 1.22% to 0.84%, and the risk of colorectal cancer–related death would have fallen from 0.30% to 0.15%.

The researchers, led by gastroenterologist Michael Bretthauer, MD, from the department of medicine, gastrointestinal endoscopy, University of Oslo, who presented the data at UEG 2022 on behalf of the NordICC study group, acknowledged that, despite the “observed appreciable reductions in relative risks, the absolute risks of the risk of colorectal cancer and even more so of colorectal cancer–related death were lower than those in previous screening trials and lower than what we anticipated when the trial was planned.”

However, they add that “optimism related to the effects of screening on colorectal cancer–related death may be warranted in light of the 50% decrease observed in adjusted per-protocol analyses.”

With his coauthors, Dr. Bretthauer wrote that even their adjusted findings “probably underestimated the benefit because, as in most other large-scale trials of colorectal cancer screening, we could not adjust for all important confounders in all countries.”

Dr. Bretthauer also noted that results were similar to those achieved through sigmoidoscopy screening. By close comparison, sigmoidoscopy studies show the risk of colorectal cancer is reduced between 33% and 40%, according to per protocol analyses. “These results suggest that colonoscopy screening might not be substantially better in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer than sigmoidoscopy.”
 

Real-world, population-based study

NordICC is an ongoing, pragmatic study and is the first randomized trial to quantify the possible benefit of colonoscopy screening on risk of colorectal cancer and related death.

Researchers recruited healthy men and women from registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. Most participants came from Poland (54,258), followed by Norway (26,411) and Sweden (3,646). Data from the Netherlands could not be included owing to data protection law.

At baseline, 84,585 participants aged 55-64 years were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio either to receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (28,220; invited) or to undergo usual care in each participant country (56,365; no invitation or screening).

Any colorectal cancer lesions detected were removed, whenever possible. The primary endpoints were the risks of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer–related death. The secondary endpoint was death from any cause.
 

‘Modest effectiveness,’ but longer follow-up to give fuller picture

In an editorial that accompanied publication of the study, Jason A. Dominitz, MD, from the division of gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle, and Douglas J. Robertson, MD, from White River Junction (Vt.) Veterans Affairs Medical Center, commented on the possible reasons for the low reduction in incident cancer and deaths seen in NordICC.

They pointed out that cohort studies suggest a 40%-69% decrease in the incidence of colorectal cancer and a 29%-88% decrease in the risk of death with colonoscopy. However, they noted that “cohort studies probably overestimate the real-world effectiveness of colonoscopy because of the inability to adjust for important factors such as incomplete adherence to testing and the tendency of healthier persons to seek preventive care.”

Referring to Dr. Bretthauer’s point about attendance to screening, Dr. Dominitz and Dr. Robertson added that, in the United States, colonoscopy is the predominant form of screening for colorectal cancer and that in countries where colonoscopy is less established, participation may be very different.

“The actual effectiveness of colonoscopy in populations that are more accepting of colonoscopy could more closely resemble the effectiveness shown in the per-protocol analysis in this trial,” they wrote.

The editorialists also pointed out that the benefits of screening colonoscopy take time to be realized “because the incidence of colorectal cancer is initially increased when presymptomatic cancers are identified.” A repeat and final analysis of the NordICC data is due at 15 years’ follow-up.

In addition, they noted that “colonoscopy is highly operator dependent” and that the adenoma detection rate is variable and affects cancer risk and related mortality.

Given the “modest effectiveness” of screening colonoscopy in the trial, they asserted that, “if the trial truly represents the real-world performance of population-based screening colonoscopy, it might be hard to justify the risk and expense of this form of screening when simpler, less-invasive strategies (e.g., sigmoidoscopy and FIT [fecal immunochemical test]) are available.”

However, they also noted that “additional analyses, including longer follow up and results from other ongoing comparative effectiveness trials, will help us to fully understand the benefits of this test.”

Also commenting on the study was Michiel Maas, MD, from the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Radboud UMC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, told this news organization that he agreed that the absolute effect on colorectal cancer risk or colorectal cancer–related death was not as high as expected and may be disappointing.

But Dr. Maas said that “around half of the patients in the study did not undergo colonoscopy, which may have negatively impacted the results.

“An additional factor, which can be influential in colonoscopy studies, is the potential variability in detection rates between operators/endoscopists,” he said.

Looking to the future, Dr. Maas noted that “AI [artificial intelligence] or computer-aided detection can level this playing field in detection rates.

“Nevertheless, this is a very interesting study, which sheds a new light on the efficacy on screening colonoscopies,” he said.

Dr. Bretthauer has relationships with Paion, Cybernet, and the Norwegian Council of Research. Dr. Dominitz is cochair of VA Cooperative Studies Program #577: “Colonoscopy vs. Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) in Reducing Mortality from Colorectal Cancer” (the CONFIRM Study), which is funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Robertson is national cochair (with Dr. Dominitz) of the CONFIRM trial and has received personal fees from Freenome outside of the submitted work. Dr. Maas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

VIENNA – The real-world risk of colorectal cancer and associated mortality was lower among people who underwent a single screening colonoscopy than among those who did not have a colonoscopy, though only modestly so, the 10-year follow-up of the large, multicenter, randomized Northern-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) trial shows.

In effect, this means the number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer is 455 (95% confidence interval, 270-1,429), the researchers determined.

The results were presented at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2022 meeting and were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The results of the study, which was designed to be truly population based and to mimic national colorectal cancer screening programs, provide an estimate of the effect of screening colonoscopy in the general population.

The primary outcome was determined on an intention-to-screen basis. All persons who were invited to undergo colonoscopy screening were compared with people who received usual care (that is, received no invitation or screening). At UEG 2022, the researchers presented the interim 10-year colorectal cancer risk, which was found to be 0.98%, compared to 1.20%. This represents a risk reduction of 18% among colonoscopy invitees (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93). During the study period, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group versus622 in the usual-care group.

The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64-1.16). The risk of death from any cause was similar in both the invited group and the usual-care group, at 11.03% and 11.04%, respectively (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.04).

The authors noted that the benefit would have been greater had more people undergone screening; only 42% of those who were invited actually underwent colonoscopy. In an adjusted analysis, had all those who had been invited to undergo screening undergone colonoscopy, the 10-year risk of colorectal cancer would have decreased from 1.22% to 0.84%, and the risk of colorectal cancer–related death would have fallen from 0.30% to 0.15%.

The researchers, led by gastroenterologist Michael Bretthauer, MD, from the department of medicine, gastrointestinal endoscopy, University of Oslo, who presented the data at UEG 2022 on behalf of the NordICC study group, acknowledged that, despite the “observed appreciable reductions in relative risks, the absolute risks of the risk of colorectal cancer and even more so of colorectal cancer–related death were lower than those in previous screening trials and lower than what we anticipated when the trial was planned.”

However, they add that “optimism related to the effects of screening on colorectal cancer–related death may be warranted in light of the 50% decrease observed in adjusted per-protocol analyses.”

With his coauthors, Dr. Bretthauer wrote that even their adjusted findings “probably underestimated the benefit because, as in most other large-scale trials of colorectal cancer screening, we could not adjust for all important confounders in all countries.”

Dr. Bretthauer also noted that results were similar to those achieved through sigmoidoscopy screening. By close comparison, sigmoidoscopy studies show the risk of colorectal cancer is reduced between 33% and 40%, according to per protocol analyses. “These results suggest that colonoscopy screening might not be substantially better in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer than sigmoidoscopy.”
 

Real-world, population-based study

NordICC is an ongoing, pragmatic study and is the first randomized trial to quantify the possible benefit of colonoscopy screening on risk of colorectal cancer and related death.

Researchers recruited healthy men and women from registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. Most participants came from Poland (54,258), followed by Norway (26,411) and Sweden (3,646). Data from the Netherlands could not be included owing to data protection law.

At baseline, 84,585 participants aged 55-64 years were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio either to receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (28,220; invited) or to undergo usual care in each participant country (56,365; no invitation or screening).

Any colorectal cancer lesions detected were removed, whenever possible. The primary endpoints were the risks of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer–related death. The secondary endpoint was death from any cause.
 

‘Modest effectiveness,’ but longer follow-up to give fuller picture

In an editorial that accompanied publication of the study, Jason A. Dominitz, MD, from the division of gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle, and Douglas J. Robertson, MD, from White River Junction (Vt.) Veterans Affairs Medical Center, commented on the possible reasons for the low reduction in incident cancer and deaths seen in NordICC.

They pointed out that cohort studies suggest a 40%-69% decrease in the incidence of colorectal cancer and a 29%-88% decrease in the risk of death with colonoscopy. However, they noted that “cohort studies probably overestimate the real-world effectiveness of colonoscopy because of the inability to adjust for important factors such as incomplete adherence to testing and the tendency of healthier persons to seek preventive care.”

Referring to Dr. Bretthauer’s point about attendance to screening, Dr. Dominitz and Dr. Robertson added that, in the United States, colonoscopy is the predominant form of screening for colorectal cancer and that in countries where colonoscopy is less established, participation may be very different.

“The actual effectiveness of colonoscopy in populations that are more accepting of colonoscopy could more closely resemble the effectiveness shown in the per-protocol analysis in this trial,” they wrote.

The editorialists also pointed out that the benefits of screening colonoscopy take time to be realized “because the incidence of colorectal cancer is initially increased when presymptomatic cancers are identified.” A repeat and final analysis of the NordICC data is due at 15 years’ follow-up.

In addition, they noted that “colonoscopy is highly operator dependent” and that the adenoma detection rate is variable and affects cancer risk and related mortality.

Given the “modest effectiveness” of screening colonoscopy in the trial, they asserted that, “if the trial truly represents the real-world performance of population-based screening colonoscopy, it might be hard to justify the risk and expense of this form of screening when simpler, less-invasive strategies (e.g., sigmoidoscopy and FIT [fecal immunochemical test]) are available.”

However, they also noted that “additional analyses, including longer follow up and results from other ongoing comparative effectiveness trials, will help us to fully understand the benefits of this test.”

Also commenting on the study was Michiel Maas, MD, from the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Radboud UMC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, told this news organization that he agreed that the absolute effect on colorectal cancer risk or colorectal cancer–related death was not as high as expected and may be disappointing.

But Dr. Maas said that “around half of the patients in the study did not undergo colonoscopy, which may have negatively impacted the results.

“An additional factor, which can be influential in colonoscopy studies, is the potential variability in detection rates between operators/endoscopists,” he said.

Looking to the future, Dr. Maas noted that “AI [artificial intelligence] or computer-aided detection can level this playing field in detection rates.

“Nevertheless, this is a very interesting study, which sheds a new light on the efficacy on screening colonoscopies,” he said.

Dr. Bretthauer has relationships with Paion, Cybernet, and the Norwegian Council of Research. Dr. Dominitz is cochair of VA Cooperative Studies Program #577: “Colonoscopy vs. Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) in Reducing Mortality from Colorectal Cancer” (the CONFIRM Study), which is funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Robertson is national cochair (with Dr. Dominitz) of the CONFIRM trial and has received personal fees from Freenome outside of the submitted work. Dr. Maas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

VIENNA – The real-world risk of colorectal cancer and associated mortality was lower among people who underwent a single screening colonoscopy than among those who did not have a colonoscopy, though only modestly so, the 10-year follow-up of the large, multicenter, randomized Northern-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) trial shows.

In effect, this means the number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer is 455 (95% confidence interval, 270-1,429), the researchers determined.

The results were presented at the United European Gastroenterology Week 2022 meeting and were published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The results of the study, which was designed to be truly population based and to mimic national colorectal cancer screening programs, provide an estimate of the effect of screening colonoscopy in the general population.

The primary outcome was determined on an intention-to-screen basis. All persons who were invited to undergo colonoscopy screening were compared with people who received usual care (that is, received no invitation or screening). At UEG 2022, the researchers presented the interim 10-year colorectal cancer risk, which was found to be 0.98%, compared to 1.20%. This represents a risk reduction of 18% among colonoscopy invitees (risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93). During the study period, 259 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed in the invited group versus622 in the usual-care group.

The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.64-1.16). The risk of death from any cause was similar in both the invited group and the usual-care group, at 11.03% and 11.04%, respectively (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.04).

The authors noted that the benefit would have been greater had more people undergone screening; only 42% of those who were invited actually underwent colonoscopy. In an adjusted analysis, had all those who had been invited to undergo screening undergone colonoscopy, the 10-year risk of colorectal cancer would have decreased from 1.22% to 0.84%, and the risk of colorectal cancer–related death would have fallen from 0.30% to 0.15%.

The researchers, led by gastroenterologist Michael Bretthauer, MD, from the department of medicine, gastrointestinal endoscopy, University of Oslo, who presented the data at UEG 2022 on behalf of the NordICC study group, acknowledged that, despite the “observed appreciable reductions in relative risks, the absolute risks of the risk of colorectal cancer and even more so of colorectal cancer–related death were lower than those in previous screening trials and lower than what we anticipated when the trial was planned.”

However, they add that “optimism related to the effects of screening on colorectal cancer–related death may be warranted in light of the 50% decrease observed in adjusted per-protocol analyses.”

With his coauthors, Dr. Bretthauer wrote that even their adjusted findings “probably underestimated the benefit because, as in most other large-scale trials of colorectal cancer screening, we could not adjust for all important confounders in all countries.”

Dr. Bretthauer also noted that results were similar to those achieved through sigmoidoscopy screening. By close comparison, sigmoidoscopy studies show the risk of colorectal cancer is reduced between 33% and 40%, according to per protocol analyses. “These results suggest that colonoscopy screening might not be substantially better in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer than sigmoidoscopy.”
 

Real-world, population-based study

NordICC is an ongoing, pragmatic study and is the first randomized trial to quantify the possible benefit of colonoscopy screening on risk of colorectal cancer and related death.

Researchers recruited healthy men and women from registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014. Most participants came from Poland (54,258), followed by Norway (26,411) and Sweden (3,646). Data from the Netherlands could not be included owing to data protection law.

At baseline, 84,585 participants aged 55-64 years were randomly assigned in a 1:2 ratio either to receive an invitation to undergo a single screening colonoscopy (28,220; invited) or to undergo usual care in each participant country (56,365; no invitation or screening).

Any colorectal cancer lesions detected were removed, whenever possible. The primary endpoints were the risks of colorectal cancer and colorectal cancer–related death. The secondary endpoint was death from any cause.
 

‘Modest effectiveness,’ but longer follow-up to give fuller picture

In an editorial that accompanied publication of the study, Jason A. Dominitz, MD, from the division of gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle, and Douglas J. Robertson, MD, from White River Junction (Vt.) Veterans Affairs Medical Center, commented on the possible reasons for the low reduction in incident cancer and deaths seen in NordICC.

They pointed out that cohort studies suggest a 40%-69% decrease in the incidence of colorectal cancer and a 29%-88% decrease in the risk of death with colonoscopy. However, they noted that “cohort studies probably overestimate the real-world effectiveness of colonoscopy because of the inability to adjust for important factors such as incomplete adherence to testing and the tendency of healthier persons to seek preventive care.”

Referring to Dr. Bretthauer’s point about attendance to screening, Dr. Dominitz and Dr. Robertson added that, in the United States, colonoscopy is the predominant form of screening for colorectal cancer and that in countries where colonoscopy is less established, participation may be very different.

“The actual effectiveness of colonoscopy in populations that are more accepting of colonoscopy could more closely resemble the effectiveness shown in the per-protocol analysis in this trial,” they wrote.

The editorialists also pointed out that the benefits of screening colonoscopy take time to be realized “because the incidence of colorectal cancer is initially increased when presymptomatic cancers are identified.” A repeat and final analysis of the NordICC data is due at 15 years’ follow-up.

In addition, they noted that “colonoscopy is highly operator dependent” and that the adenoma detection rate is variable and affects cancer risk and related mortality.

Given the “modest effectiveness” of screening colonoscopy in the trial, they asserted that, “if the trial truly represents the real-world performance of population-based screening colonoscopy, it might be hard to justify the risk and expense of this form of screening when simpler, less-invasive strategies (e.g., sigmoidoscopy and FIT [fecal immunochemical test]) are available.”

However, they also noted that “additional analyses, including longer follow up and results from other ongoing comparative effectiveness trials, will help us to fully understand the benefits of this test.”

Also commenting on the study was Michiel Maas, MD, from the department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Radboud UMC, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, told this news organization that he agreed that the absolute effect on colorectal cancer risk or colorectal cancer–related death was not as high as expected and may be disappointing.

But Dr. Maas said that “around half of the patients in the study did not undergo colonoscopy, which may have negatively impacted the results.

“An additional factor, which can be influential in colonoscopy studies, is the potential variability in detection rates between operators/endoscopists,” he said.

Looking to the future, Dr. Maas noted that “AI [artificial intelligence] or computer-aided detection can level this playing field in detection rates.

“Nevertheless, this is a very interesting study, which sheds a new light on the efficacy on screening colonoscopies,” he said.

Dr. Bretthauer has relationships with Paion, Cybernet, and the Norwegian Council of Research. Dr. Dominitz is cochair of VA Cooperative Studies Program #577: “Colonoscopy vs. Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) in Reducing Mortality from Colorectal Cancer” (the CONFIRM Study), which is funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Robertson is national cochair (with Dr. Dominitz) of the CONFIRM trial and has received personal fees from Freenome outside of the submitted work. Dr. Maas reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Using artificial intelligence, researchers have developed an algorithm that can help improve the prediction of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence.

The QuantCRC algorithm can identify patients with CRC who might be able to skip chemotherapy, given a low probability of recurrence, and identify those patients at high risk for recurrence who may benefit from more intensive treatment or follow-up, the researchers say.

“For patients with colon cancer, the algorithm gives oncologists another tool to help guide therapy and follow-up,” Rish Pai, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, who developed the tool, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the journal Gastroenterology.

The tool is a deep-learning segmentation algorithm developed using 6,468 digitized CRC images. It quantifies 15 features from a CRC image and uses them to improve prediction of recurrence.

“QuantCRC can identify different regions within the tumor and extract quantitative data from these regions,” Dr. Pai explained.

“The algorithm converts an image into a set of numbers that is unique to that tumor. The large number of tumors that we analyzed allowed us to learn which features were most predictive of tumor behavior. We can now apply what we have learned to new colon cancers to predict how the tumor will behave,” Dr. Pai said.

The researchers developed a prognostic model incorporating stage, mismatch repair, and QuantCRC that resulted in a concordance (c)-index of 0.714 in the internal test and 0.744 in the external cohort. Removing QuantCRC from the model reduced the c-index to 0.679 in the external cohort.

Using QuantCRC, they identified prognostic risk groups for recurrence, which provided a hazard ratio of 2.24 for low- versus high-risk stage III CRC and 2.36 for low- versus high-risk stage II CRC, in the external cohort after adjusting for established risk factors.

The predicted median 36-month recurrence rate for high-risk stage III CRC was 32.7% versus 13.4% for low-risk stage III CRC and 15.8% for high-risk stage II CRC versus 5.4% for low-risk stage II CRC, the researchers report.

QuantCRC provides a “powerful adjunct” to routine pathologic reporting of CRC, and a prognostic model using QuantCRC can improve prediction of recurrence-free survival, they write.

Looking ahead, Dr. Pai plans to use QuantCRC to better understand mechanisms of tumor recurrence and see if it can predict the response to certain treatments, like immunotherapy, he said.

Funding for this study was provided in part by the Colon Cancer Family Registry, which is supported in part by funding from the National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pai reports consulting income from Alimentiv, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Allergan, Genentech, and PathAI outside of the submitted work.

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

Using artificial intelligence, researchers have developed an algorithm that can help improve the prediction of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence.

The QuantCRC algorithm can identify patients with CRC who might be able to skip chemotherapy, given a low probability of recurrence, and identify those patients at high risk for recurrence who may benefit from more intensive treatment or follow-up, the researchers say.

“For patients with colon cancer, the algorithm gives oncologists another tool to help guide therapy and follow-up,” Rish Pai, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, who developed the tool, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the journal Gastroenterology.

The tool is a deep-learning segmentation algorithm developed using 6,468 digitized CRC images. It quantifies 15 features from a CRC image and uses them to improve prediction of recurrence.

“QuantCRC can identify different regions within the tumor and extract quantitative data from these regions,” Dr. Pai explained.

“The algorithm converts an image into a set of numbers that is unique to that tumor. The large number of tumors that we analyzed allowed us to learn which features were most predictive of tumor behavior. We can now apply what we have learned to new colon cancers to predict how the tumor will behave,” Dr. Pai said.

The researchers developed a prognostic model incorporating stage, mismatch repair, and QuantCRC that resulted in a concordance (c)-index of 0.714 in the internal test and 0.744 in the external cohort. Removing QuantCRC from the model reduced the c-index to 0.679 in the external cohort.

Using QuantCRC, they identified prognostic risk groups for recurrence, which provided a hazard ratio of 2.24 for low- versus high-risk stage III CRC and 2.36 for low- versus high-risk stage II CRC, in the external cohort after adjusting for established risk factors.

The predicted median 36-month recurrence rate for high-risk stage III CRC was 32.7% versus 13.4% for low-risk stage III CRC and 15.8% for high-risk stage II CRC versus 5.4% for low-risk stage II CRC, the researchers report.

QuantCRC provides a “powerful adjunct” to routine pathologic reporting of CRC, and a prognostic model using QuantCRC can improve prediction of recurrence-free survival, they write.

Looking ahead, Dr. Pai plans to use QuantCRC to better understand mechanisms of tumor recurrence and see if it can predict the response to certain treatments, like immunotherapy, he said.

Funding for this study was provided in part by the Colon Cancer Family Registry, which is supported in part by funding from the National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pai reports consulting income from Alimentiv, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Allergan, Genentech, and PathAI outside of the submitted work.

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

Using artificial intelligence, researchers have developed an algorithm that can help improve the prediction of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence.

The QuantCRC algorithm can identify patients with CRC who might be able to skip chemotherapy, given a low probability of recurrence, and identify those patients at high risk for recurrence who may benefit from more intensive treatment or follow-up, the researchers say.

“For patients with colon cancer, the algorithm gives oncologists another tool to help guide therapy and follow-up,” Rish Pai, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, who developed the tool, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the journal Gastroenterology.

The tool is a deep-learning segmentation algorithm developed using 6,468 digitized CRC images. It quantifies 15 features from a CRC image and uses them to improve prediction of recurrence.

“QuantCRC can identify different regions within the tumor and extract quantitative data from these regions,” Dr. Pai explained.

“The algorithm converts an image into a set of numbers that is unique to that tumor. The large number of tumors that we analyzed allowed us to learn which features were most predictive of tumor behavior. We can now apply what we have learned to new colon cancers to predict how the tumor will behave,” Dr. Pai said.

The researchers developed a prognostic model incorporating stage, mismatch repair, and QuantCRC that resulted in a concordance (c)-index of 0.714 in the internal test and 0.744 in the external cohort. Removing QuantCRC from the model reduced the c-index to 0.679 in the external cohort.

Using QuantCRC, they identified prognostic risk groups for recurrence, which provided a hazard ratio of 2.24 for low- versus high-risk stage III CRC and 2.36 for low- versus high-risk stage II CRC, in the external cohort after adjusting for established risk factors.

The predicted median 36-month recurrence rate for high-risk stage III CRC was 32.7% versus 13.4% for low-risk stage III CRC and 15.8% for high-risk stage II CRC versus 5.4% for low-risk stage II CRC, the researchers report.

QuantCRC provides a “powerful adjunct” to routine pathologic reporting of CRC, and a prognostic model using QuantCRC can improve prediction of recurrence-free survival, they write.

Looking ahead, Dr. Pai plans to use QuantCRC to better understand mechanisms of tumor recurrence and see if it can predict the response to certain treatments, like immunotherapy, he said.

Funding for this study was provided in part by the Colon Cancer Family Registry, which is supported in part by funding from the National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pai reports consulting income from Alimentiv, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Allergan, Genentech, and PathAI outside of the submitted work.

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

Nick Burwick, MD, discusses important takeaways that he gathered from the AVAHO 2022 meeting in San Diego. In keeping with this year's theme of self-care in cancer care, the keynote speaker, 'Patient Lee' Tomlinson, made a big impact on Dr Burwick with a motivational message about practicing compassion for not only your patients, but also for yourself. This theme continued with Dr Fay Hlubocky's presentation on resources available for self-care.

Dr Burwick also appreciated the multidisciplinary aspects of this year's AVAHO meeting that showcased the range of VA Whole Health options, the implementation of the Schwartz Rounds, and a diverse group of cancer care providers.

Nick Burwick, MD, discusses important takeaways that he gathered from the AVAHO 2022 meeting in San Diego. In keeping with this year's theme of self-care in cancer care, the keynote speaker, 'Patient Lee' Tomlinson, made a big impact on Dr Burwick with a motivational message about practicing compassion for not only your patients, but also for yourself. This theme continued with Dr Fay Hlubocky's presentation on resources available for self-care.

Dr Burwick also appreciated the multidisciplinary aspects of this year's AVAHO meeting that showcased the range of VA Whole Health options, the implementation of the Schwartz Rounds, and a diverse group of cancer care providers.

Nick Burwick, MD, discusses important takeaways that he gathered from the AVAHO 2022 meeting in San Diego. In keeping with this year's theme of self-care in cancer care, the keynote speaker, 'Patient Lee' Tomlinson, made a big impact on Dr Burwick with a motivational message about practicing compassion for not only your patients, but also for yourself. This theme continued with Dr Fay Hlubocky's presentation on resources available for self-care.

Dr Burwick also appreciated the multidisciplinary aspects of this year's AVAHO meeting that showcased the range of VA Whole Health options, the implementation of the Schwartz Rounds, and a diverse group of cancer care providers.

Bernadette Heron, PharmD, summarizes the offerings at the AVAHO 2022 meeting, from the standard sharing of updates across disciplines and specialties to the more specific focus on the role of self-care in cancer care.

Importantly, Dr Heron underscores the connection between the concept of self-care and the implements required for its realization in the clinical setting, resulting in an assortment of tools that practitioners can draw on as they continue the conversation that drives the evolution of cancer care. 

Bernadette Heron, PharmD, summarizes the offerings at the AVAHO 2022 meeting, from the standard sharing of updates across disciplines and specialties to the more specific focus on the role of self-care in cancer care.

Importantly, Dr Heron underscores the connection between the concept of self-care and the implements required for its realization in the clinical setting, resulting in an assortment of tools that practitioners can draw on as they continue the conversation that drives the evolution of cancer care. 

Bernadette Heron, PharmD, summarizes the offerings at the AVAHO 2022 meeting, from the standard sharing of updates across disciplines and specialties to the more specific focus on the role of self-care in cancer care.

Importantly, Dr Heron underscores the connection between the concept of self-care and the implements required for its realization in the clinical setting, resulting in an assortment of tools that practitioners can draw on as they continue the conversation that drives the evolution of cancer care. 

Lauren Cliffel, MSW, describes how the AVAHO 2022 meeting and the main theme of "Self-care in Cancer Care" reestablished the feelings of joy and compassion that led her to choose a career as a cancer care provider in the first place. 

The inclusive character of even the larger sessions this year is noted, in which all interdisciplinary contributors to cancer care were addressed as central to the delivery of an informed and effective care of patients and, importantly, how this care is enhanced by a restored sense of purpose among all those engaged in the specialty of oncology.

Lauren Cliffel, MSW, describes how the AVAHO 2022 meeting and the main theme of "Self-care in Cancer Care" reestablished the feelings of joy and compassion that led her to choose a career as a cancer care provider in the first place. 

The inclusive character of even the larger sessions this year is noted, in which all interdisciplinary contributors to cancer care were addressed as central to the delivery of an informed and effective care of patients and, importantly, how this care is enhanced by a restored sense of purpose among all those engaged in the specialty of oncology.

Lauren Cliffel, MSW, describes how the AVAHO 2022 meeting and the main theme of "Self-care in Cancer Care" reestablished the feelings of joy and compassion that led her to choose a career as a cancer care provider in the first place. 

The inclusive character of even the larger sessions this year is noted, in which all interdisciplinary contributors to cancer care were addressed as central to the delivery of an informed and effective care of patients and, importantly, how this care is enhanced by a restored sense of purpose among all those engaged in the specialty of oncology.

Among patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who are ineligible to receive cisplatin, carboplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) may be a better option than cetuximab-based chemoradiotherapy, according to a new cohort study of U.S. veterans.

Although cisplatin is the favored treatment choice for these patients, kidney dysfunction, hearing loss, neuropathy, advanced age, and performance status can be contraindications. As radiosensitizing agents, both cetuximab and carboplatin-fluorouracil combined with radiotherapy have increased survival compared to radiotherapy alone in randomized, controlled trials.

Previous studies have demonstrated that cisplatin outperforms cetuximab in CRT regimens with a particular focus on cancers linked to human papillomavirus (HPV), but no prospective trials have compared cetuximab and carboplatin-based radiosensitization, according to the authors of the new report, published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery.

Some small retrospective studies, generally performed at one or two institutions, found that carboplatin outperformed cetuximab with respect to progression-free and overall survival, but these were subject to natural biases as well as imbalances between the two treatment groups.

To address this literature gap, the authors conducted a nationwide retrospective analysis of 8,290 U.S. veterans, who have a high rate of frailty and comorbidities such as heart disease and tobacco use that could make them ineligible for treatment with cisplatin. Among the veterans, 5,566 were treated with cisplatin, 1,231 with carboplatin, and 1,493 with cetuximab. The overall median age was 63 years, 98.9% were male, 82.6% were White, 15.8% were Black or African American, 68.5% were current smokers, 13.0% were former smokers, and 18.5% had never smoked.

Patients treated with carboplatin and cetuximab were older and had more comorbidities than those treated with cisplatin. Sixty-five percent of patients treated with carboplatin also received paclitaxel. Fifty-eight percent had a primary oropharynx cancer.

Median overall survival was 59.3 months among all patients (interquartile range [IQR, 18.5-140.9 months]. Median OS was 74.4 months in the cisplatin group (IQR, 22.3-162.2), 43.4 months in the carboplatin group (IQR, 15.3-123.8), and 31.1 months in the cetuximab group (IQR, 12.4-87.8). There was a lower inverse probability weighted cause-specific hazard ratio (csHR) of death associated with carboplatin (csHR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.93). The researchers compared survival associations in oropharynx and nonoropharynx subgroups and found a significant association in the oropharynx group (csHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94) but only a trend in the nonoropharynx group (csHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-1.00).

Given that most oropharynx cancers are likely related to HPV, the authors speculate that the finding of an association in the oropharynx group but not the nonoropharynx group may be attributable to differences in treatment efficacy due to HPV status, since there is evidence beginning to mount that cetuximab may have lower efficacy in these cancers. “For patients who are ineligible for treatment with cisplatin, carboplatin-based radiosensitization may provide better oncologic outcomes than cetuximab, particularly for oropharynx cancer,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature and a lack of patient-level data on HPV status. The researchers did not have information on neuropathy, hearing loss, treatment toxicity, or disease progression.

Among patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who are ineligible to receive cisplatin, carboplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) may be a better option than cetuximab-based chemoradiotherapy, according to a new cohort study of U.S. veterans.

Although cisplatin is the favored treatment choice for these patients, kidney dysfunction, hearing loss, neuropathy, advanced age, and performance status can be contraindications. As radiosensitizing agents, both cetuximab and carboplatin-fluorouracil combined with radiotherapy have increased survival compared to radiotherapy alone in randomized, controlled trials.

Previous studies have demonstrated that cisplatin outperforms cetuximab in CRT regimens with a particular focus on cancers linked to human papillomavirus (HPV), but no prospective trials have compared cetuximab and carboplatin-based radiosensitization, according to the authors of the new report, published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery.

Some small retrospective studies, generally performed at one or two institutions, found that carboplatin outperformed cetuximab with respect to progression-free and overall survival, but these were subject to natural biases as well as imbalances between the two treatment groups.

To address this literature gap, the authors conducted a nationwide retrospective analysis of 8,290 U.S. veterans, who have a high rate of frailty and comorbidities such as heart disease and tobacco use that could make them ineligible for treatment with cisplatin. Among the veterans, 5,566 were treated with cisplatin, 1,231 with carboplatin, and 1,493 with cetuximab. The overall median age was 63 years, 98.9% were male, 82.6% were White, 15.8% were Black or African American, 68.5% were current smokers, 13.0% were former smokers, and 18.5% had never smoked.

Patients treated with carboplatin and cetuximab were older and had more comorbidities than those treated with cisplatin. Sixty-five percent of patients treated with carboplatin also received paclitaxel. Fifty-eight percent had a primary oropharynx cancer.

Median overall survival was 59.3 months among all patients (interquartile range [IQR, 18.5-140.9 months]. Median OS was 74.4 months in the cisplatin group (IQR, 22.3-162.2), 43.4 months in the carboplatin group (IQR, 15.3-123.8), and 31.1 months in the cetuximab group (IQR, 12.4-87.8). There was a lower inverse probability weighted cause-specific hazard ratio (csHR) of death associated with carboplatin (csHR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.93). The researchers compared survival associations in oropharynx and nonoropharynx subgroups and found a significant association in the oropharynx group (csHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94) but only a trend in the nonoropharynx group (csHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-1.00).

Given that most oropharynx cancers are likely related to HPV, the authors speculate that the finding of an association in the oropharynx group but not the nonoropharynx group may be attributable to differences in treatment efficacy due to HPV status, since there is evidence beginning to mount that cetuximab may have lower efficacy in these cancers. “For patients who are ineligible for treatment with cisplatin, carboplatin-based radiosensitization may provide better oncologic outcomes than cetuximab, particularly for oropharynx cancer,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature and a lack of patient-level data on HPV status. The researchers did not have information on neuropathy, hearing loss, treatment toxicity, or disease progression.

Among patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma who are ineligible to receive cisplatin, carboplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) may be a better option than cetuximab-based chemoradiotherapy, according to a new cohort study of U.S. veterans.

Although cisplatin is the favored treatment choice for these patients, kidney dysfunction, hearing loss, neuropathy, advanced age, and performance status can be contraindications. As radiosensitizing agents, both cetuximab and carboplatin-fluorouracil combined with radiotherapy have increased survival compared to radiotherapy alone in randomized, controlled trials.

Previous studies have demonstrated that cisplatin outperforms cetuximab in CRT regimens with a particular focus on cancers linked to human papillomavirus (HPV), but no prospective trials have compared cetuximab and carboplatin-based radiosensitization, according to the authors of the new report, published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head & Neck Surgery.

Some small retrospective studies, generally performed at one or two institutions, found that carboplatin outperformed cetuximab with respect to progression-free and overall survival, but these were subject to natural biases as well as imbalances between the two treatment groups.

To address this literature gap, the authors conducted a nationwide retrospective analysis of 8,290 U.S. veterans, who have a high rate of frailty and comorbidities such as heart disease and tobacco use that could make them ineligible for treatment with cisplatin. Among the veterans, 5,566 were treated with cisplatin, 1,231 with carboplatin, and 1,493 with cetuximab. The overall median age was 63 years, 98.9% were male, 82.6% were White, 15.8% were Black or African American, 68.5% were current smokers, 13.0% were former smokers, and 18.5% had never smoked.

Patients treated with carboplatin and cetuximab were older and had more comorbidities than those treated with cisplatin. Sixty-five percent of patients treated with carboplatin also received paclitaxel. Fifty-eight percent had a primary oropharynx cancer.

Median overall survival was 59.3 months among all patients (interquartile range [IQR, 18.5-140.9 months]. Median OS was 74.4 months in the cisplatin group (IQR, 22.3-162.2), 43.4 months in the carboplatin group (IQR, 15.3-123.8), and 31.1 months in the cetuximab group (IQR, 12.4-87.8). There was a lower inverse probability weighted cause-specific hazard ratio (csHR) of death associated with carboplatin (csHR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.93). The researchers compared survival associations in oropharynx and nonoropharynx subgroups and found a significant association in the oropharynx group (csHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.94) but only a trend in the nonoropharynx group (csHR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-1.00).

Given that most oropharynx cancers are likely related to HPV, the authors speculate that the finding of an association in the oropharynx group but not the nonoropharynx group may be attributable to differences in treatment efficacy due to HPV status, since there is evidence beginning to mount that cetuximab may have lower efficacy in these cancers. “For patients who are ineligible for treatment with cisplatin, carboplatin-based radiosensitization may provide better oncologic outcomes than cetuximab, particularly for oropharynx cancer,” the authors wrote.

The study is limited by its retrospective nature and a lack of patient-level data on HPV status. The researchers did not have information on neuropathy, hearing loss, treatment toxicity, or disease progression.

PARIS – What do doctors know about their patients’ sexual health? Not a lot. What about oncologists who treat women with breast cancer? Not much more. Yet sexual dysfunction has a significant impact on the quality of life of patients during and after cancer.

To determine the extent of sexual dysfunction among women with breast cancer, Maria Alice Franzoi, MD, an oncologist at Gustave Roussy Hospital, Villejuif, France, analyzed data concerning sexuality from the CANTO cohort study. She showed that sexual dysfunction often predates the cancer diagnosis and doesn’t improve but rather worsens in the following 2 years. She presented her results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
 

Present at diagnosis

Dr. Franzoi, whose research projects have focused on patient monitoring post cancer, drew her conclusions from the data provided by CANTO, a longitudinal, prospective cohort study that monitors women being treated for localized breast cancer. Study participants answered the EORTC-QLQ-BR23 quality-of-life questionnaire at the time of diagnosis (T0), 1 year after diagnosis (T1), and 2 years after diagnosis (T2). Four factors were employed to better define women’s sex-related problems: poor body image, poor sexual functioning (activity and desire), lack of sexual pleasure, and a complete lack of sexual activity.

The analysis focused on the responses of 7,895 patients in the CANTO cohort study on sexual activity; 4,523 of those patients answered questions about sexual pleasure. Female respondents who reported engaging in no sexual activity did not have to answer the questions in this second section.

“Seventy-five percent of patients reported at least one of the four concerns during the study,” noted Dr. Franzoi during her presentation. This finding highlights the fact that “sexual problems are already present at the time of diagnosis in a considerable number of patients,” she said. More than a third of participants complained of at least one of the four items.
 

Developments after diagnosis

The proportion of women who reported no arousal or poor sexual function remained stable at around 30% over time, meaning that the sexual problems were reported in similar numbers at T0, T1, and T2. “However, after cancer, more patients are worried about a lack of sexual pleasure (38.7% at T1 and 38.1% at T2, vs. 29.1% at T0) or report having a negative body image (57.8% at T1 and 52.5% at T2, vs. 32.1% at T0),” said Dr. Franzoi.

She identified the following three variables as being associated with sexual dysfunction 2 years after diagnosis: the existence of this problem at the time of diagnosis, the use of adjuvant hormone therapy, and severe depression or a very high stress level after the first year of treatment.
 

Inadequate specific treatment

“Sexual dysfunction is a major unmet need with a significant impact on quality of life,” said Maryam Lustberg, MD, an oncologist at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., who was invited to discuss the results at the conference.

Dr. Franzoi observed that most participants with sexual dysfunction that had continued 2 years after diagnosis had not been referred to a doctor for this problem. “In terms of sexual function, it’s better at T2 than at T1, but only 41% of these women have been seen by a gynecologist, and only 15% have received specific treatment,” she reported, emphasizing the need to assess and treat these issues “proactively” at the time of diagnosis and during and after treatment.

“Now we need to work out what the best treatment approach is,” commented Dr. Lustberg. She said that cancers other than breast and gynecologic cancers should also be taken into consideration. She cited the Sexual Health Assessment in Women With Lung Cancer study, which recently revealed that after being diagnosed with lung cancer, female patients experienced a drop in sexual desire (31% vs. 15% before diagnosis) and an increase in vaginal discomfort or dryness (43% vs. 13% before diagnosis). This study, presented in August to the 2022 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer World Conference on Lung Cancer, also revealed that different parameters affect satisfaction in one’s sex life, including fatigue, sadness, relationship problems with a partner, and even breathing. Dr. Lustberg concluded from this study that a multidisciplinary approach is needed for cancer survivors.

Dr. Franzoi received research funding from Resilience Care. Dr. Lustberg has links with AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi, and Lilly.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

PARIS – What do doctors know about their patients’ sexual health? Not a lot. What about oncologists who treat women with breast cancer? Not much more. Yet sexual dysfunction has a significant impact on the quality of life of patients during and after cancer.

To determine the extent of sexual dysfunction among women with breast cancer, Maria Alice Franzoi, MD, an oncologist at Gustave Roussy Hospital, Villejuif, France, analyzed data concerning sexuality from the CANTO cohort study. She showed that sexual dysfunction often predates the cancer diagnosis and doesn’t improve but rather worsens in the following 2 years. She presented her results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
 

Present at diagnosis

Dr. Franzoi, whose research projects have focused on patient monitoring post cancer, drew her conclusions from the data provided by CANTO, a longitudinal, prospective cohort study that monitors women being treated for localized breast cancer. Study participants answered the EORTC-QLQ-BR23 quality-of-life questionnaire at the time of diagnosis (T0), 1 year after diagnosis (T1), and 2 years after diagnosis (T2). Four factors were employed to better define women’s sex-related problems: poor body image, poor sexual functioning (activity and desire), lack of sexual pleasure, and a complete lack of sexual activity.

The analysis focused on the responses of 7,895 patients in the CANTO cohort study on sexual activity; 4,523 of those patients answered questions about sexual pleasure. Female respondents who reported engaging in no sexual activity did not have to answer the questions in this second section.

“Seventy-five percent of patients reported at least one of the four concerns during the study,” noted Dr. Franzoi during her presentation. This finding highlights the fact that “sexual problems are already present at the time of diagnosis in a considerable number of patients,” she said. More than a third of participants complained of at least one of the four items.
 

Developments after diagnosis

The proportion of women who reported no arousal or poor sexual function remained stable at around 30% over time, meaning that the sexual problems were reported in similar numbers at T0, T1, and T2. “However, after cancer, more patients are worried about a lack of sexual pleasure (38.7% at T1 and 38.1% at T2, vs. 29.1% at T0) or report having a negative body image (57.8% at T1 and 52.5% at T2, vs. 32.1% at T0),” said Dr. Franzoi.

She identified the following three variables as being associated with sexual dysfunction 2 years after diagnosis: the existence of this problem at the time of diagnosis, the use of adjuvant hormone therapy, and severe depression or a very high stress level after the first year of treatment.
 

Inadequate specific treatment

“Sexual dysfunction is a major unmet need with a significant impact on quality of life,” said Maryam Lustberg, MD, an oncologist at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., who was invited to discuss the results at the conference.

Dr. Franzoi observed that most participants with sexual dysfunction that had continued 2 years after diagnosis had not been referred to a doctor for this problem. “In terms of sexual function, it’s better at T2 than at T1, but only 41% of these women have been seen by a gynecologist, and only 15% have received specific treatment,” she reported, emphasizing the need to assess and treat these issues “proactively” at the time of diagnosis and during and after treatment.

“Now we need to work out what the best treatment approach is,” commented Dr. Lustberg. She said that cancers other than breast and gynecologic cancers should also be taken into consideration. She cited the Sexual Health Assessment in Women With Lung Cancer study, which recently revealed that after being diagnosed with lung cancer, female patients experienced a drop in sexual desire (31% vs. 15% before diagnosis) and an increase in vaginal discomfort or dryness (43% vs. 13% before diagnosis). This study, presented in August to the 2022 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer World Conference on Lung Cancer, also revealed that different parameters affect satisfaction in one’s sex life, including fatigue, sadness, relationship problems with a partner, and even breathing. Dr. Lustberg concluded from this study that a multidisciplinary approach is needed for cancer survivors.

Dr. Franzoi received research funding from Resilience Care. Dr. Lustberg has links with AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi, and Lilly.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

PARIS – What do doctors know about their patients’ sexual health? Not a lot. What about oncologists who treat women with breast cancer? Not much more. Yet sexual dysfunction has a significant impact on the quality of life of patients during and after cancer.

To determine the extent of sexual dysfunction among women with breast cancer, Maria Alice Franzoi, MD, an oncologist at Gustave Roussy Hospital, Villejuif, France, analyzed data concerning sexuality from the CANTO cohort study. She showed that sexual dysfunction often predates the cancer diagnosis and doesn’t improve but rather worsens in the following 2 years. She presented her results at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
 

Present at diagnosis

Dr. Franzoi, whose research projects have focused on patient monitoring post cancer, drew her conclusions from the data provided by CANTO, a longitudinal, prospective cohort study that monitors women being treated for localized breast cancer. Study participants answered the EORTC-QLQ-BR23 quality-of-life questionnaire at the time of diagnosis (T0), 1 year after diagnosis (T1), and 2 years after diagnosis (T2). Four factors were employed to better define women’s sex-related problems: poor body image, poor sexual functioning (activity and desire), lack of sexual pleasure, and a complete lack of sexual activity.

The analysis focused on the responses of 7,895 patients in the CANTO cohort study on sexual activity; 4,523 of those patients answered questions about sexual pleasure. Female respondents who reported engaging in no sexual activity did not have to answer the questions in this second section.

“Seventy-five percent of patients reported at least one of the four concerns during the study,” noted Dr. Franzoi during her presentation. This finding highlights the fact that “sexual problems are already present at the time of diagnosis in a considerable number of patients,” she said. More than a third of participants complained of at least one of the four items.
 

Developments after diagnosis

The proportion of women who reported no arousal or poor sexual function remained stable at around 30% over time, meaning that the sexual problems were reported in similar numbers at T0, T1, and T2. “However, after cancer, more patients are worried about a lack of sexual pleasure (38.7% at T1 and 38.1% at T2, vs. 29.1% at T0) or report having a negative body image (57.8% at T1 and 52.5% at T2, vs. 32.1% at T0),” said Dr. Franzoi.

She identified the following three variables as being associated with sexual dysfunction 2 years after diagnosis: the existence of this problem at the time of diagnosis, the use of adjuvant hormone therapy, and severe depression or a very high stress level after the first year of treatment.
 

Inadequate specific treatment

“Sexual dysfunction is a major unmet need with a significant impact on quality of life,” said Maryam Lustberg, MD, an oncologist at Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., who was invited to discuss the results at the conference.

Dr. Franzoi observed that most participants with sexual dysfunction that had continued 2 years after diagnosis had not been referred to a doctor for this problem. “In terms of sexual function, it’s better at T2 than at T1, but only 41% of these women have been seen by a gynecologist, and only 15% have received specific treatment,” she reported, emphasizing the need to assess and treat these issues “proactively” at the time of diagnosis and during and after treatment.

“Now we need to work out what the best treatment approach is,” commented Dr. Lustberg. She said that cancers other than breast and gynecologic cancers should also be taken into consideration. She cited the Sexual Health Assessment in Women With Lung Cancer study, which recently revealed that after being diagnosed with lung cancer, female patients experienced a drop in sexual desire (31% vs. 15% before diagnosis) and an increase in vaginal discomfort or dryness (43% vs. 13% before diagnosis). This study, presented in August to the 2022 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer World Conference on Lung Cancer, also revealed that different parameters affect satisfaction in one’s sex life, including fatigue, sadness, relationship problems with a partner, and even breathing. Dr. Lustberg concluded from this study that a multidisciplinary approach is needed for cancer survivors.

Dr. Franzoi received research funding from Resilience Care. Dr. Lustberg has links with AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi, and Lilly.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

John Whyte, MD: Welcome, everyone. I’m Dr John Whyte. I’m the chief medical officer at WebMD, and I’m joined today by Fabrice André. He is the chair of the scientific committee at the European Society for Medical Oncology, where we are today in Paris, France. Bonjour, Fabrice.

So, remind our viewers: What is ESMO? What does it do? And why is it so important?

Fabrice André, MD, PhD: First ESMO, is a scientific society – a member-based organization with around 25,000 members.

Dr. Whyte: Equivalent to ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) in the United States, correct?

Dr. André: It has members worldwide, from all over the world. And it aims at disseminating science, educating. The name is European, so it has some roots in Europe; but it is really a global organization for education, dissemination, and also more and more to generate frameworks for the standards of treatment and the common terminology for healthcare professionals to better care for patients.

Dr. Whyte: What are you most excited by at this conference in terms of the innovations that are being discussed?

Dr. André: Today we are at ESMO 2022 in Paris, with 28,000 people registered and the vast majority on site, and what has been the editorial line – the tagline – for the scientific committee is “understand the disease to better treat the patient.” This is extremely important; all of the educational program is built on this tagline, meaning that we need to understand what are the mechanisms of cancer progression? What are the determinants of outcomes if we want to integrate all the wealth of innovation that is coming?

So, then, what are the new things? In the Presidential Symposium, where we usually have the very new things, we will have very important presentations on the role of pollution on cancer and the biological mechanism that induces cancer. Why is it important? First, it has impact on public health. But also, it’s important because, for us, it’s raising the signal that the oncology community must start to invest in this field of prevention.

Dr. Whyte: I was at your booth, by the way, the ESMO booth here, and you have two bicycles, which impressed me. Nobody was on them, I might point out, but the focus was on prevention. But let’s also address how historically, the academic community, the scientific community hasn’t really been focused on prevention. It’s about treatment. So it’s fascinating that you’re talking about prevention, because usually we talk about precision medicine, right? We talk about checkpoint inhibitors; we talk about immunomodulators. And here you’re saying, “Hey, John, we need to understand how we prevent cancer,” which is really a misnomer in a way, because there are many different diseases. Would you agree with that?

Dr. André: I fully agree with you. But what is the premise we are trying to address here? The premise is that prevention has always been very low in the agenda of international conferences. And we think we want to give the signal that it’s really time now that clinical infrastructure, hospitals, invest in this field, create teams dedicated to prevention, new structures for prevention. Why? Because we are discovering step by step that it could be that some drugs we use for patients with cancer could also be developed in the field of prevention. And for this, we need the oncologists. So, more and more, our conviction is that it is the oncology community that will transform the field of prevention, and we need to invest now. Having said that, we have two very important abstracts on this question. The other one is about early cancer detection. But of course, we have our traditional session on immunotherapeutics, precision medicine, and all the wealth of randomized trials. And so in this field, for patients with cancer, what is the new information?

Dr. Whyte: We have this whole continuum. So you talk about prevention – how much cancer is preventable? Eighty percent? Seventy percent? What do you estimate?

Dr. André: You know, I’m also a scientist. So as a scientist, I will say that there is no limit for this question. No, the only limit is the knowledge.

Dr. Whyte: Well, there is some inherited mutation, so we do know that.

Dr. André: We can just go to the current status – what we know now – but I don’t see why we would put some limit on how much we can prevent cancer. But indeed, so far, what are the risk factors? Genetics, hereditary cancer, all habits, and we know them. It’s about tobacco, alcohol, sun, some sexual behavior, etc., that indeed account. In France, we say that around 40% of cancer could be preventable.

Dr. Whyte: More and more, we learn about the issues of gout, other inflammatory diseases; it can have an association, but then we have early screening as well. So, if we’re on this continuum, how excited are you by what’s happening with liquid biopsies, with other testing? Because if we can get a cancer instead of at 500,000 cells at the time of imaging, at 10 or 50 cells, while there are fragments, that’s revolutionary, isn’t it?

Dr. André: I fully agree with you. We will have an important trial presented during ESMO that is the first prospective trial testing the device called Galleri, a tool for early cancer detection based on ctDNA (circulating tumor DNA) analysis by methylation pattern.

Dr. Whyte: General screening of the population or a more tailored population with certain indications? Because right now, most of those have focused on a limited population or are used for patients who already have a cancer, and testing that way – you think it’s going to be broader?

Dr. André: What this trial is investigating is in participants who do not have cancer, 6,000 participants ...

Dr. Whyte: Pas de tout? No cancer at all?

Dr. André: No cancer.

Dr. Whyte: No family history?

Dr. André: They can have family history, but no detectable cancer – can ctDNA analysis detect cancer? And the answer is, indeed, there is around 1% positivity, and around 40% of them, indeed, had cancer. So why is it important? Because it’s really a landmark prospective trial that is telling us that a device based on ctDNA can detect cancer at early stage. Then, how many cancers? What percentage?

Dr. Whyte: Which type of cancer?

Dr. André: And is it going to have an impact on outcome? And for all the questions, we don’t have the answer here. But the answer we have here today is that with this device, done prospectively, you can detect some cancer that would not be detectable without symptoms.

Dr. Whyte: It’s only going to get better, too.

Dr. André: Yeah. So then the next step is improving technology, integrating this technology with other ones we already have, in order to increase the percentage of patients in which we detect cancer at an earlier stage.

Dr. Whyte: What about pancreatic cancer, cancers we can’t detect through screening? People forget that most cancers cannot be detected through screening, so we need better tools. We do know that there are inherited mutations. Those really aren’t preventable in many ways; the goal is to get them early. So then we move to treatments, and you talked about precision medicine. What excites you about what’s going on these days at ESMO right now.

Dr. André: We have many trials on precision medicine. We will have two randomized trials that investigate two new targets; one is gamma secretase inhibitor. So, it’s a first-in-class, first time we even hear about this target at a clinical conference. And the second highly expected trial is a clinical trial in patients with metastatic lung cancer, KRAS mutated, testing sotorasib, which is a KRAS inhibitor, and showing the magnitude of improvement associated with sotorasib. The trial is positive, and it improved PFS [progression-free survival] in these patients. So these are two new targets that are validated at this conference.

Then, if we go on another topic of genomics, there is a question that is extremely important: Can we define patients who present an outlier sensitivity to immunotherapeutics? There will be one trial presented in the Presidential Symposium of immunotherapeutics in patients with colon cancer and microsatellite instability (MSI), showing that a few weeks of immunotherapeutics followed by surgery can cure patients. Why is it important? It’s important because we are all facing a shortage in the healthcare workforce. We have fewer nurses, fewer doctors, and we all have issues of sustainability. So, really now is the time to think about precision medicine, how precision medicine, by identifying outlier responders, can decrease the amount of resources we need to cure a patient. And this trial on immunotherapeutics, guided by genomics, is exactly this point: 8 weeks of treatment to cure a patient.

Dr. Whyte: Do you think there’s going to be a cure for cancer 10 years from now?

Dr. André: What I’m convinced of is that, in the 10 years that are coming, we are going step by step; we’re going to continue to increase the life expectancy of patients with cancer.

Dr. Whyte: And quality of life too, right?

Dr. André: Quality of life is a major issue. We had today a keynote on digital medicine and how ePRO (electronic patient-reported outcomes) can help the patient to really decrease the burden of symptoms. Quality of life is, of course, extremely important because of the very high number of patients who are cured of cancer; we need to decrease the burden of symptom in patients.

Dr. Whyte: And even though cancer rates are going down in most areas of the world, we still globally have millions of deaths from cancer every year. And sometimes people forget that, because they hear about some of the innovations. But I want to end with this: Are we investing enough in cancer care? Because let’s be honest – there are other diseases that we also need to spend time on. Cardiovascular disease is a global burden; infectious disease is a global burden. Are governments, are industries spending enough on cancer research and development?

Dr. André: Well, we can always claim for more, no? This is how everyone is trying to be, I think. But the reality is that we are living in a world where we have limited resources. I think what is more important for me is to be sure that any euro or dollar invested in cancer research is well used and generates an impact for patients. That is the most important, I think.

Dr. Whyte: And that’s why outcomes are so important in this research.

Dr. André: My conviction is that we have the tools, meaning the knowledge, the biotechnology, to really go the next step in terms of improving outcomes for patients. And for this, we now need clinical trials and translational research, but the tools, meaning basic science, basic knowledge, biotechnology – the basement for progress is here. We need now to transform this into direct impact for the patient. But I would not like to finish by saying we need more money in the field; what we need are people who can transform one euro, one dollar into concrete and measurable advances.

Dr. Whyte: We’re going to need more time on another day because I want to ask you about diversity in clinical trials, how important that is. I want to ask you about pediatric cancers; there are a whole bunch of things that I want to talk to you about. So hopefully we’ll find more time when we’re not at a big international conference such as ESMO. So, Dr Fabrice André, I want to thank you for taking time today.

Dr. André: Thank you and have a nice day.

Dr. Whyte: Stay tuned for a future discussion with Dr André on more about where we’re going in terms of cancer research and development. Thanks for watching, everyone.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

John Whyte, MD: Welcome, everyone. I’m Dr John Whyte. I’m the chief medical officer at WebMD, and I’m joined today by Fabrice André. He is the chair of the scientific committee at the European Society for Medical Oncology, where we are today in Paris, France. Bonjour, Fabrice.

So, remind our viewers: What is ESMO? What does it do? And why is it so important?

Fabrice André, MD, PhD: First ESMO, is a scientific society – a member-based organization with around 25,000 members.

Dr. Whyte: Equivalent to ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) in the United States, correct?

Dr. André: It has members worldwide, from all over the world. And it aims at disseminating science, educating. The name is European, so it has some roots in Europe; but it is really a global organization for education, dissemination, and also more and more to generate frameworks for the standards of treatment and the common terminology for healthcare professionals to better care for patients.

Dr. Whyte: What are you most excited by at this conference in terms of the innovations that are being discussed?

Dr. André: Today we are at ESMO 2022 in Paris, with 28,000 people registered and the vast majority on site, and what has been the editorial line – the tagline – for the scientific committee is “understand the disease to better treat the patient.” This is extremely important; all of the educational program is built on this tagline, meaning that we need to understand what are the mechanisms of cancer progression? What are the determinants of outcomes if we want to integrate all the wealth of innovation that is coming?

So, then, what are the new things? In the Presidential Symposium, where we usually have the very new things, we will have very important presentations on the role of pollution on cancer and the biological mechanism that induces cancer. Why is it important? First, it has impact on public health. But also, it’s important because, for us, it’s raising the signal that the oncology community must start to invest in this field of prevention.

Dr. Whyte: I was at your booth, by the way, the ESMO booth here, and you have two bicycles, which impressed me. Nobody was on them, I might point out, but the focus was on prevention. But let’s also address how historically, the academic community, the scientific community hasn’t really been focused on prevention. It’s about treatment. So it’s fascinating that you’re talking about prevention, because usually we talk about precision medicine, right? We talk about checkpoint inhibitors; we talk about immunomodulators. And here you’re saying, “Hey, John, we need to understand how we prevent cancer,” which is really a misnomer in a way, because there are many different diseases. Would you agree with that?

Dr. André: I fully agree with you. But what is the premise we are trying to address here? The premise is that prevention has always been very low in the agenda of international conferences. And we think we want to give the signal that it’s really time now that clinical infrastructure, hospitals, invest in this field, create teams dedicated to prevention, new structures for prevention. Why? Because we are discovering step by step that it could be that some drugs we use for patients with cancer could also be developed in the field of prevention. And for this, we need the oncologists. So, more and more, our conviction is that it is the oncology community that will transform the field of prevention, and we need to invest now. Having said that, we have two very important abstracts on this question. The other one is about early cancer detection. But of course, we have our traditional session on immunotherapeutics, precision medicine, and all the wealth of randomized trials. And so in this field, for patients with cancer, what is the new information?

Dr. Whyte: We have this whole continuum. So you talk about prevention – how much cancer is preventable? Eighty percent? Seventy percent? What do you estimate?

Dr. André: You know, I’m also a scientist. So as a scientist, I will say that there is no limit for this question. No, the only limit is the knowledge.

Dr. Whyte: Well, there is some inherited mutation, so we do know that.

Dr. André: We can just go to the current status – what we know now – but I don’t see why we would put some limit on how much we can prevent cancer. But indeed, so far, what are the risk factors? Genetics, hereditary cancer, all habits, and we know them. It’s about tobacco, alcohol, sun, some sexual behavior, etc., that indeed account. In France, we say that around 40% of cancer could be preventable.

Dr. Whyte: More and more, we learn about the issues of gout, other inflammatory diseases; it can have an association, but then we have early screening as well. So, if we’re on this continuum, how excited are you by what’s happening with liquid biopsies, with other testing? Because if we can get a cancer instead of at 500,000 cells at the time of imaging, at 10 or 50 cells, while there are fragments, that’s revolutionary, isn’t it?

Dr. André: I fully agree with you. We will have an important trial presented during ESMO that is the first prospective trial testing the device called Galleri, a tool for early cancer detection based on ctDNA (circulating tumor DNA) analysis by methylation pattern.

Dr. Whyte: General screening of the population or a more tailored population with certain indications? Because right now, most of those have focused on a limited population or are used for patients who already have a cancer, and testing that way – you think it’s going to be broader?

Dr. André: What this trial is investigating is in participants who do not have cancer, 6,000 participants ...

Dr. Whyte: Pas de tout? No cancer at all?

Dr. André: No cancer.

Dr. Whyte: No family history?

Dr. André: They can have family history, but no detectable cancer – can ctDNA analysis detect cancer? And the answer is, indeed, there is around 1% positivity, and around 40% of them, indeed, had cancer. So why is it important? Because it’s really a landmark prospective trial that is telling us that a device based on ctDNA can detect cancer at early stage. Then, how many cancers? What percentage?

Dr. Whyte: Which type of cancer?

Dr. André: And is it going to have an impact on outcome? And for all the questions, we don’t have the answer here. But the answer we have here today is that with this device, done prospectively, you can detect some cancer that would not be detectable without symptoms.

Dr. Whyte: It’s only going to get better, too.

Dr. André: Yeah. So then the next step is improving technology, integrating this technology with other ones we already have, in order to increase the percentage of patients in which we detect cancer at an earlier stage.

Dr. Whyte: What about pancreatic cancer, cancers we can’t detect through screening? People forget that most cancers cannot be detected through screening, so we need better tools. We do know that there are inherited mutations. Those really aren’t preventable in many ways; the goal is to get them early. So then we move to treatments, and you talked about precision medicine. What excites you about what’s going on these days at ESMO right now.

Dr. André: We have many trials on precision medicine. We will have two randomized trials that investigate two new targets; one is gamma secretase inhibitor. So, it’s a first-in-class, first time we even hear about this target at a clinical conference. And the second highly expected trial is a clinical trial in patients with metastatic lung cancer, KRAS mutated, testing sotorasib, which is a KRAS inhibitor, and showing the magnitude of improvement associated with sotorasib. The trial is positive, and it improved PFS [progression-free survival] in these patients. So these are two new targets that are validated at this conference.

Then, if we go on another topic of genomics, there is a question that is extremely important: Can we define patients who present an outlier sensitivity to immunotherapeutics? There will be one trial presented in the Presidential Symposium of immunotherapeutics in patients with colon cancer and microsatellite instability (MSI), showing that a few weeks of immunotherapeutics followed by surgery can cure patients. Why is it important? It’s important because we are all facing a shortage in the healthcare workforce. We have fewer nurses, fewer doctors, and we all have issues of sustainability. So, really now is the time to think about precision medicine, how precision medicine, by identifying outlier responders, can decrease the amount of resources we need to cure a patient. And this trial on immunotherapeutics, guided by genomics, is exactly this point: 8 weeks of treatment to cure a patient.

Dr. Whyte: Do you think there’s going to be a cure for cancer 10 years from now?

Dr. André: What I’m convinced of is that, in the 10 years that are coming, we are going step by step; we’re going to continue to increase the life expectancy of patients with cancer.

Dr. Whyte: And quality of life too, right?

Dr. André: Quality of life is a major issue. We had today a keynote on digital medicine and how ePRO (electronic patient-reported outcomes) can help the patient to really decrease the burden of symptoms. Quality of life is, of course, extremely important because of the very high number of patients who are cured of cancer; we need to decrease the burden of symptom in patients.

Dr. Whyte: And even though cancer rates are going down in most areas of the world, we still globally have millions of deaths from cancer every year. And sometimes people forget that, because they hear about some of the innovations. But I want to end with this: Are we investing enough in cancer care? Because let’s be honest – there are other diseases that we also need to spend time on. Cardiovascular disease is a global burden; infectious disease is a global burden. Are governments, are industries spending enough on cancer research and development?

Dr. André: Well, we can always claim for more, no? This is how everyone is trying to be, I think. But the reality is that we are living in a world where we have limited resources. I think what is more important for me is to be sure that any euro or dollar invested in cancer research is well used and generates an impact for patients. That is the most important, I think.

Dr. Whyte: And that’s why outcomes are so important in this research.

Dr. André: My conviction is that we have the tools, meaning the knowledge, the biotechnology, to really go the next step in terms of improving outcomes for patients. And for this, we now need clinical trials and translational research, but the tools, meaning basic science, basic knowledge, biotechnology – the basement for progress is here. We need now to transform this into direct impact for the patient. But I would not like to finish by saying we need more money in the field; what we need are people who can transform one euro, one dollar into concrete and measurable advances.

Dr. Whyte: We’re going to need more time on another day because I want to ask you about diversity in clinical trials, how important that is. I want to ask you about pediatric cancers; there are a whole bunch of things that I want to talk to you about. So hopefully we’ll find more time when we’re not at a big international conference such as ESMO. So, Dr Fabrice André, I want to thank you for taking time today.

Dr. André: Thank you and have a nice day.

Dr. Whyte: Stay tuned for a future discussion with Dr André on more about where we’re going in terms of cancer research and development. Thanks for watching, everyone.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

John Whyte, MD: Welcome, everyone. I’m Dr John Whyte. I’m the chief medical officer at WebMD, and I’m joined today by Fabrice André. He is the chair of the scientific committee at the European Society for Medical Oncology, where we are today in Paris, France. Bonjour, Fabrice.

So, remind our viewers: What is ESMO? What does it do? And why is it so important?

Fabrice André, MD, PhD: First ESMO, is a scientific society – a member-based organization with around 25,000 members.

Dr. Whyte: Equivalent to ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) in the United States, correct?

Dr. André: It has members worldwide, from all over the world. And it aims at disseminating science, educating. The name is European, so it has some roots in Europe; but it is really a global organization for education, dissemination, and also more and more to generate frameworks for the standards of treatment and the common terminology for healthcare professionals to better care for patients.

Dr. Whyte: What are you most excited by at this conference in terms of the innovations that are being discussed?

Dr. André: Today we are at ESMO 2022 in Paris, with 28,000 people registered and the vast majority on site, and what has been the editorial line – the tagline – for the scientific committee is “understand the disease to better treat the patient.” This is extremely important; all of the educational program is built on this tagline, meaning that we need to understand what are the mechanisms of cancer progression? What are the determinants of outcomes if we want to integrate all the wealth of innovation that is coming?

So, then, what are the new things? In the Presidential Symposium, where we usually have the very new things, we will have very important presentations on the role of pollution on cancer and the biological mechanism that induces cancer. Why is it important? First, it has impact on public health. But also, it’s important because, for us, it’s raising the signal that the oncology community must start to invest in this field of prevention.

Dr. Whyte: I was at your booth, by the way, the ESMO booth here, and you have two bicycles, which impressed me. Nobody was on them, I might point out, but the focus was on prevention. But let’s also address how historically, the academic community, the scientific community hasn’t really been focused on prevention. It’s about treatment. So it’s fascinating that you’re talking about prevention, because usually we talk about precision medicine, right? We talk about checkpoint inhibitors; we talk about immunomodulators. And here you’re saying, “Hey, John, we need to understand how we prevent cancer,” which is really a misnomer in a way, because there are many different diseases. Would you agree with that?

Dr. André: I fully agree with you. But what is the premise we are trying to address here? The premise is that prevention has always been very low in the agenda of international conferences. And we think we want to give the signal that it’s really time now that clinical infrastructure, hospitals, invest in this field, create teams dedicated to prevention, new structures for prevention. Why? Because we are discovering step by step that it could be that some drugs we use for patients with cancer could also be developed in the field of prevention. And for this, we need the oncologists. So, more and more, our conviction is that it is the oncology community that will transform the field of prevention, and we need to invest now. Having said that, we have two very important abstracts on this question. The other one is about early cancer detection. But of course, we have our traditional session on immunotherapeutics, precision medicine, and all the wealth of randomized trials. And so in this field, for patients with cancer, what is the new information?

Dr. Whyte: We have this whole continuum. So you talk about prevention – how much cancer is preventable? Eighty percent? Seventy percent? What do you estimate?

Dr. André: You know, I’m also a scientist. So as a scientist, I will say that there is no limit for this question. No, the only limit is the knowledge.

Dr. Whyte: Well, there is some inherited mutation, so we do know that.

Dr. André: We can just go to the current status – what we know now – but I don’t see why we would put some limit on how much we can prevent cancer. But indeed, so far, what are the risk factors? Genetics, hereditary cancer, all habits, and we know them. It’s about tobacco, alcohol, sun, some sexual behavior, etc., that indeed account. In France, we say that around 40% of cancer could be preventable.

Dr. Whyte: More and more, we learn about the issues of gout, other inflammatory diseases; it can have an association, but then we have early screening as well. So, if we’re on this continuum, how excited are you by what’s happening with liquid biopsies, with other testing? Because if we can get a cancer instead of at 500,000 cells at the time of imaging, at 10 or 50 cells, while there are fragments, that’s revolutionary, isn’t it?

Dr. André: I fully agree with you. We will have an important trial presented during ESMO that is the first prospective trial testing the device called Galleri, a tool for early cancer detection based on ctDNA (circulating tumor DNA) analysis by methylation pattern.

Dr. Whyte: General screening of the population or a more tailored population with certain indications? Because right now, most of those have focused on a limited population or are used for patients who already have a cancer, and testing that way – you think it’s going to be broader?

Dr. André: What this trial is investigating is in participants who do not have cancer, 6,000 participants ...

Dr. Whyte: Pas de tout? No cancer at all?

Dr. André: No cancer.

Dr. Whyte: No family history?

Dr. André: They can have family history, but no detectable cancer – can ctDNA analysis detect cancer? And the answer is, indeed, there is around 1% positivity, and around 40% of them, indeed, had cancer. So why is it important? Because it’s really a landmark prospective trial that is telling us that a device based on ctDNA can detect cancer at early stage. Then, how many cancers? What percentage?

Dr. Whyte: Which type of cancer?

Dr. André: And is it going to have an impact on outcome? And for all the questions, we don’t have the answer here. But the answer we have here today is that with this device, done prospectively, you can detect some cancer that would not be detectable without symptoms.

Dr. Whyte: It’s only going to get better, too.

Dr. André: Yeah. So then the next step is improving technology, integrating this technology with other ones we already have, in order to increase the percentage of patients in which we detect cancer at an earlier stage.

Dr. Whyte: What about pancreatic cancer, cancers we can’t detect through screening? People forget that most cancers cannot be detected through screening, so we need better tools. We do know that there are inherited mutations. Those really aren’t preventable in many ways; the goal is to get them early. So then we move to treatments, and you talked about precision medicine. What excites you about what’s going on these days at ESMO right now.

Dr. André: We have many trials on precision medicine. We will have two randomized trials that investigate two new targets; one is gamma secretase inhibitor. So, it’s a first-in-class, first time we even hear about this target at a clinical conference. And the second highly expected trial is a clinical trial in patients with metastatic lung cancer, KRAS mutated, testing sotorasib, which is a KRAS inhibitor, and showing the magnitude of improvement associated with sotorasib. The trial is positive, and it improved PFS [progression-free survival] in these patients. So these are two new targets that are validated at this conference.

Then, if we go on another topic of genomics, there is a question that is extremely important: Can we define patients who present an outlier sensitivity to immunotherapeutics? There will be one trial presented in the Presidential Symposium of immunotherapeutics in patients with colon cancer and microsatellite instability (MSI), showing that a few weeks of immunotherapeutics followed by surgery can cure patients. Why is it important? It’s important because we are all facing a shortage in the healthcare workforce. We have fewer nurses, fewer doctors, and we all have issues of sustainability. So, really now is the time to think about precision medicine, how precision medicine, by identifying outlier responders, can decrease the amount of resources we need to cure a patient. And this trial on immunotherapeutics, guided by genomics, is exactly this point: 8 weeks of treatment to cure a patient.

Dr. Whyte: Do you think there’s going to be a cure for cancer 10 years from now?

Dr. André: What I’m convinced of is that, in the 10 years that are coming, we are going step by step; we’re going to continue to increase the life expectancy of patients with cancer.

Dr. Whyte: And quality of life too, right?

Dr. André: Quality of life is a major issue. We had today a keynote on digital medicine and how ePRO (electronic patient-reported outcomes) can help the patient to really decrease the burden of symptoms. Quality of life is, of course, extremely important because of the very high number of patients who are cured of cancer; we need to decrease the burden of symptom in patients.

Dr. Whyte: And even though cancer rates are going down in most areas of the world, we still globally have millions of deaths from cancer every year. And sometimes people forget that, because they hear about some of the innovations. But I want to end with this: Are we investing enough in cancer care? Because let’s be honest – there are other diseases that we also need to spend time on. Cardiovascular disease is a global burden; infectious disease is a global burden. Are governments, are industries spending enough on cancer research and development?

Dr. André: Well, we can always claim for more, no? This is how everyone is trying to be, I think. But the reality is that we are living in a world where we have limited resources. I think what is more important for me is to be sure that any euro or dollar invested in cancer research is well used and generates an impact for patients. That is the most important, I think.

Dr. Whyte: And that’s why outcomes are so important in this research.

Dr. André: My conviction is that we have the tools, meaning the knowledge, the biotechnology, to really go the next step in terms of improving outcomes for patients. And for this, we now need clinical trials and translational research, but the tools, meaning basic science, basic knowledge, biotechnology – the basement for progress is here. We need now to transform this into direct impact for the patient. But I would not like to finish by saying we need more money in the field; what we need are people who can transform one euro, one dollar into concrete and measurable advances.

Dr. Whyte: We’re going to need more time on another day because I want to ask you about diversity in clinical trials, how important that is. I want to ask you about pediatric cancers; there are a whole bunch of things that I want to talk to you about. So hopefully we’ll find more time when we’re not at a big international conference such as ESMO. So, Dr Fabrice André, I want to thank you for taking time today.

Dr. André: Thank you and have a nice day.

Dr. Whyte: Stay tuned for a future discussion with Dr André on more about where we’re going in terms of cancer research and development. Thanks for watching, everyone.

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