AVAHO

SAN DIEGO—As patients with cancer live longer, pain is going to become an even bigger challenge for clinicians, a palliative care specialist told cancer specialists in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) in September, and decisions about treatment are becoming more complicated amid the opioid epidemic.

Fortunately, guidelines and clinical experience offer helpful insight into the best practices, said hematologist/oncologist Andrea Ruskin, MD, medical director of palliative care at Veterans Administration (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS).

As Ruskin pointed out, two-thirds of newly diagnosed cancer patients are living for at least 5 years, “but with this progress comes challenges.” More than one-third (37%) of cancer survivors report cancer pain, 21% have noncancer pain, and 45% have both. About 5% to 8% of VA cancer survivors use opioids for the long term, she said, although there have been few studies in this population.

Among patients with head and neck cancer, specifically, chronic pain affects 45%, and severe pain affects 11%. Subclinical PTSD, depression, anxiety, and low quality of life are common in this population. “We may cure them, but they have a lot of issues going forward.”

One key strategy is to perform a comprehensive pain assessment at the first visit, and then address pain at every subsequent visit. She recommended a physician resource from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and a template may be useful to provide helpful questions, Ruskin said.

At VACHS certain questions are routine. “Is pain interfering with your function? Sometimes people say it’s always a 10, but it’s not affecting function at all. Ask if the medicine is working. And how are they taking it? Sometimes they say, ‘I’m taking that for sleep,’ and we say ‘No, Mr. Smith, that is not a sleep medication.’”

Be aware that some patients may use nonmedical opioids, she said. And set expectations early on. “Safe opioid use starts with the very first prescription,” she said. “If I have somebody with myeloma or head and neck cancer, I make it very clear that my goal is that we want you off the opioids after the radiation or once the disease is in remission. I really make an effort at the very beginning to make sure that we're all on the same page.”

As you continue to see a patient, consider ordering urine tests, she said, not as a punitive measure but to make sure you’re offering the safest and most effective treatment. “We don’t do it to say ‘no, no, no.’ We do it for safety and to make sure they’re not getting meds elsewhere.”

What are the best practices when pain doesn’t go away? Should they stay on opioids? According to Ruskin, few evidence-based guidelines address the “more nuanced care” that patients need when their pain lasts for months or years.

But there are useful resources. Ruskin highlighted the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s survivorship guidelines, and she summarized a few of the available painkiller options. “Opioids are great, and adjuvants are so-so. They work in some people, but we definitely have room for improvement.”

What if patients have persistent opioid use after cancer recovery? “I try to taper if I can, and I try to explain why I’m tapering. It could take months or years to taper patients,” she said. And consider transitioning the patient to buprenorphine, a drug that treats both pain and opioid use disorder, if appropriate. “You don’t need a waiver if you use it for pain. It’s definitely something we’re using more of.”

One important step is to bring in colleagues to help. Psychologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, physiatrists, and pain pharmacists can all be helpful, she said. “Learn about your VA resources and who can partner with you to help these complicated patients. They’re all at your fingertips.”

SAN DIEGO—As patients with cancer live longer, pain is going to become an even bigger challenge for clinicians, a palliative care specialist told cancer specialists in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) in September, and decisions about treatment are becoming more complicated amid the opioid epidemic.

Fortunately, guidelines and clinical experience offer helpful insight into the best practices, said hematologist/oncologist Andrea Ruskin, MD, medical director of palliative care at Veterans Administration (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS).

As Ruskin pointed out, two-thirds of newly diagnosed cancer patients are living for at least 5 years, “but with this progress comes challenges.” More than one-third (37%) of cancer survivors report cancer pain, 21% have noncancer pain, and 45% have both. About 5% to 8% of VA cancer survivors use opioids for the long term, she said, although there have been few studies in this population.

Among patients with head and neck cancer, specifically, chronic pain affects 45%, and severe pain affects 11%. Subclinical PTSD, depression, anxiety, and low quality of life are common in this population. “We may cure them, but they have a lot of issues going forward.”

One key strategy is to perform a comprehensive pain assessment at the first visit, and then address pain at every subsequent visit. She recommended a physician resource from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and a template may be useful to provide helpful questions, Ruskin said.

At VACHS certain questions are routine. “Is pain interfering with your function? Sometimes people say it’s always a 10, but it’s not affecting function at all. Ask if the medicine is working. And how are they taking it? Sometimes they say, ‘I’m taking that for sleep,’ and we say ‘No, Mr. Smith, that is not a sleep medication.’”

Be aware that some patients may use nonmedical opioids, she said. And set expectations early on. “Safe opioid use starts with the very first prescription,” she said. “If I have somebody with myeloma or head and neck cancer, I make it very clear that my goal is that we want you off the opioids after the radiation or once the disease is in remission. I really make an effort at the very beginning to make sure that we're all on the same page.”

As you continue to see a patient, consider ordering urine tests, she said, not as a punitive measure but to make sure you’re offering the safest and most effective treatment. “We don’t do it to say ‘no, no, no.’ We do it for safety and to make sure they’re not getting meds elsewhere.”

What are the best practices when pain doesn’t go away? Should they stay on opioids? According to Ruskin, few evidence-based guidelines address the “more nuanced care” that patients need when their pain lasts for months or years.

But there are useful resources. Ruskin highlighted the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s survivorship guidelines, and she summarized a few of the available painkiller options. “Opioids are great, and adjuvants are so-so. They work in some people, but we definitely have room for improvement.”

What if patients have persistent opioid use after cancer recovery? “I try to taper if I can, and I try to explain why I’m tapering. It could take months or years to taper patients,” she said. And consider transitioning the patient to buprenorphine, a drug that treats both pain and opioid use disorder, if appropriate. “You don’t need a waiver if you use it for pain. It’s definitely something we’re using more of.”

One important step is to bring in colleagues to help. Psychologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, physiatrists, and pain pharmacists can all be helpful, she said. “Learn about your VA resources and who can partner with you to help these complicated patients. They’re all at your fingertips.”

SAN DIEGO—As patients with cancer live longer, pain is going to become an even bigger challenge for clinicians, a palliative care specialist told cancer specialists in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) in September, and decisions about treatment are becoming more complicated amid the opioid epidemic.

Fortunately, guidelines and clinical experience offer helpful insight into the best practices, said hematologist/oncologist Andrea Ruskin, MD, medical director of palliative care at Veterans Administration (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS).

As Ruskin pointed out, two-thirds of newly diagnosed cancer patients are living for at least 5 years, “but with this progress comes challenges.” More than one-third (37%) of cancer survivors report cancer pain, 21% have noncancer pain, and 45% have both. About 5% to 8% of VA cancer survivors use opioids for the long term, she said, although there have been few studies in this population.

Among patients with head and neck cancer, specifically, chronic pain affects 45%, and severe pain affects 11%. Subclinical PTSD, depression, anxiety, and low quality of life are common in this population. “We may cure them, but they have a lot of issues going forward.”

One key strategy is to perform a comprehensive pain assessment at the first visit, and then address pain at every subsequent visit. She recommended a physician resource from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and a template may be useful to provide helpful questions, Ruskin said.

At VACHS certain questions are routine. “Is pain interfering with your function? Sometimes people say it’s always a 10, but it’s not affecting function at all. Ask if the medicine is working. And how are they taking it? Sometimes they say, ‘I’m taking that for sleep,’ and we say ‘No, Mr. Smith, that is not a sleep medication.’”

Be aware that some patients may use nonmedical opioids, she said. And set expectations early on. “Safe opioid use starts with the very first prescription,” she said. “If I have somebody with myeloma or head and neck cancer, I make it very clear that my goal is that we want you off the opioids after the radiation or once the disease is in remission. I really make an effort at the very beginning to make sure that we're all on the same page.”

As you continue to see a patient, consider ordering urine tests, she said, not as a punitive measure but to make sure you’re offering the safest and most effective treatment. “We don’t do it to say ‘no, no, no.’ We do it for safety and to make sure they’re not getting meds elsewhere.”

What are the best practices when pain doesn’t go away? Should they stay on opioids? According to Ruskin, few evidence-based guidelines address the “more nuanced care” that patients need when their pain lasts for months or years.

But there are useful resources. Ruskin highlighted the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s survivorship guidelines, and she summarized a few of the available painkiller options. “Opioids are great, and adjuvants are so-so. They work in some people, but we definitely have room for improvement.”

What if patients have persistent opioid use after cancer recovery? “I try to taper if I can, and I try to explain why I’m tapering. It could take months or years to taper patients,” she said. And consider transitioning the patient to buprenorphine, a drug that treats both pain and opioid use disorder, if appropriate. “You don’t need a waiver if you use it for pain. It’s definitely something we’re using more of.”

One important step is to bring in colleagues to help. Psychologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, physiatrists, and pain pharmacists can all be helpful, she said. “Learn about your VA resources and who can partner with you to help these complicated patients. They’re all at your fingertips.”

Among high-risk early breast cancer patients, delivery of a radiation boost to the tumor bed during whole breast irradiation was just as safe and effective as delivering the boost sequentially after whole breast irradiation ended. The findings from the phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.

“These findings are indeed practice changing. This was a well-designed trial that looked at shortening treatment from six to three weeks. They showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant during a presentation given by Frank Vicini, MD, FASTRO, GenesisCare, during the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“This is substantially more convenient. It’s cost effective both for the health care system and individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day and they’re taking time from work which means they have to arrange for childcare and transportation. So, this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.

“One of the things that was surprising is that I think all of us were thinking this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vicini showed, it was equally effective over time with minimal toxicity and cosmesis was stable over time, which is important. Importantly, it included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, including all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It represents an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.

Previous randomized controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice calls for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds 1 week to a 1.5 week–long treatment.

The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score (GCS) to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients. 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).

“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation – compared to a sequential boost – results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient rated cosmesis, and no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis. The entire treatment was delivered in three weeks, even for high-risk patients. Just as critical, the use of target volume based radiation planning for [three-dimensional conformal or IMRT whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” Dr. Vincini said.

No conflicts of interest were disclosed for Dr. Horst or Dr. Vicini.

Among high-risk early breast cancer patients, delivery of a radiation boost to the tumor bed during whole breast irradiation was just as safe and effective as delivering the boost sequentially after whole breast irradiation ended. The findings from the phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.

“These findings are indeed practice changing. This was a well-designed trial that looked at shortening treatment from six to three weeks. They showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant during a presentation given by Frank Vicini, MD, FASTRO, GenesisCare, during the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“This is substantially more convenient. It’s cost effective both for the health care system and individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day and they’re taking time from work which means they have to arrange for childcare and transportation. So, this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.

“One of the things that was surprising is that I think all of us were thinking this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vicini showed, it was equally effective over time with minimal toxicity and cosmesis was stable over time, which is important. Importantly, it included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, including all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It represents an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.

Previous randomized controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice calls for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds 1 week to a 1.5 week–long treatment.

The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score (GCS) to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients. 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).

“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation – compared to a sequential boost – results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient rated cosmesis, and no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis. The entire treatment was delivered in three weeks, even for high-risk patients. Just as critical, the use of target volume based radiation planning for [three-dimensional conformal or IMRT whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” Dr. Vincini said.

No conflicts of interest were disclosed for Dr. Horst or Dr. Vicini.

Among high-risk early breast cancer patients, delivery of a radiation boost to the tumor bed during whole breast irradiation was just as safe and effective as delivering the boost sequentially after whole breast irradiation ended. The findings from the phase 3 clinical trial are a boon to patient convenience.

“These findings are indeed practice changing. This was a well-designed trial that looked at shortening treatment from six to three weeks. They showed equivalent local control and importantly, a good cosmetic outcome over time,” said Kathleen Horst, MD, who served as a discussant during a presentation given by Frank Vicini, MD, FASTRO, GenesisCare, during the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

“This is substantially more convenient. It’s cost effective both for the health care system and individual patients. Importantly, our patients come in for treatment every day and they’re taking time from work which means they have to arrange for childcare and transportation. So, this makes a big difference for these patients,” said Dr. Horst, who is a professor of radiation oncology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine and director of well-being in the radiation department at Stanford Medicine.

“One of the things that was surprising is that I think all of us were thinking this might be a more toxic regimen, but as Dr. Vicini showed, it was equally effective over time with minimal toxicity and cosmesis was stable over time, which is important. Importantly, it included patient-reported outcomes, not just the physician-reported outcomes. Broadly, I think these findings are applicable for many patients, including all patients who are receiving whole breast radiotherapy with an added boost. I think over time this is going to improve the quality of life of our patients. It represents an innovative change that everyone is going to be excited to embrace,” Dr. Horst said.

Previous randomized controlled trials showed that an additional radiation dose to the tumor bed following lumpectomy and whole breast irradiation reduces the relative risk of local recurrence by about 35%. However, this increases treatment time for patients who have already endured an extensive regimen. For whole breast irradiation, hypofractionated radiation in 15-16 fractions over 3 weeks has comparable recurrence rates as a 5-week regimen, but the relevant trials did not examine the effect hypofractionation may have on a radiation boost to the tumor bed of high-risk patients. Because of this lack of evidence, current practice calls for the boost to remain sequential in five to eight fractions after completion of whole breast irradiation, which adds 1 week to a 1.5 week–long treatment.

The study included 2,262 patients who were randomized to receive a sequential boost or a concomitant boost. After a median follow-up of 7.4 years, there were 54 ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR) events. The estimated 7-year risk of IBR was 2.2% in the sequential boost and 2.6% in the concurrent risk group (hazard ratio, 1.32; noninferiority test P = .039). Approximately 60% of patients received adjuvant chemotherapy.

Grade 3 or higher adverse events were similar with a frequency of 3.3% in the sequential group and 3.5% in the concurrent group (P = .79). The researchers used the Global Cosmetic Score (GCS) to assess outcomes from the perspective of both physicians and patients. 86% of physicians rated the outcome as excellent/good in the sequential group versus 82% in the concurrent group (P = .33).

“For high-risk early-stage breast cancer patients undergoing breast conservation, a concurrent boost with hypofractionated whole breast irradiation – compared to a sequential boost – results in noninferior local recurrence rates with no significant difference in toxicity, noninferior patient rated cosmesis, and no significant difference in physician rated cosmesis. The entire treatment was delivered in three weeks, even for high-risk patients. Just as critical, the use of target volume based radiation planning for [three-dimensional conformal or IMRT whole breast irradiation assessed by dose volume analysis is feasible, and resulted in very low toxicity in the treatment arms, regardless of the fractionation schedule, or the boost delivery,” Dr. Vincini said.

No conflicts of interest were disclosed for Dr. Horst or Dr. Vicini.

Among patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and especially those with macrovascular invasion, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) appears to grant a survival benefit when added to systemic therapy. That was the finding from a phase 3 clinical trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

For unresectable HCC or cases that cannot be treated with thermal ablation or regional therapy, the current standard of care is systemic therapy. When the study was conducted, the recommended therapy was the sorafenib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor. But with the publication of the IMbrave 150 study in 2021, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is now increasingly preferred by some oncologists.

In 2008, the SHARP study found that sorafenib improved median survival, but it provided less benefit for patients with macrovascular invasion. Various studies have addressed the question of whether radiation could improve survival among this patient population, but results have not been encouraging. Direct comparisons between sorafenib and radiotherapy in the SARAH and SIRveNIB studies showed no significant differences in outcomes.

To determine the efficacy of combined SBRT and sorafenib, researchers randomized 177 patients with locally advanced HCC to receive 400 mg sorafenib every 12 hours or SBRT of 27.5-50 Gy in five fractions, followed by 200 mg sorafenib every 12 hours for 4 weeks, then 400 mg sorafenib every 12 hours thereafter. The median age was 66 years, 85% of patients were male, 74% had macrovascular invasion. The study included patients with locally advanced tumors up to a 20-cm sum of diameters or up to a 20-cm conglomerate tumor, as well as those with metastases of 3 cm size or smaller.

After a median follow-up of 13.2 months, median overall survival was 15.8 months in the combination group, versus 12.3 months in sorafenib group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 1-sided P = .055). After a multivariable analysis, the combined treatment was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.72; P = .042).

“This overall survival is greater than expected and impressive even in the era now of immunotherapy trials,” said Laura Dawson, MD, who presented the results of the study during a press conference at the meeting. Dr. Dawson is a professor of radiation oncology at University of Toronto and a radiation oncologist at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto.

Median progression-free survival was 9.2 months in the combined group versus 5.5 months in the sorafenib-only group (HR, 0.55; P = .0001). At 24 months, 17% of the combination group had 7% of the sorafenib group remained had not progressed. The median time to progression was 18.5 months in the combination group and 9.5 months in the sorafenib group (HR, 0.69; P = .034). The frequency of adverse events was similar in both groups. The study admitted patients with any level of vascular invasion, which contrasted with many earlier trials that excluded those with involvement of the main portal vein.

“I think this is really one of the most important studies that’s come out in many years in terms of practice changing outcomes. We’ve seen that with patients who have very high-risk HCC, especially patients who have portal vein or macrovascular vascular invasion, there’s been a significant improvement in overall survival for these patients, and this is a very difficult patient population. Adding SBRT in this group improved both the progression free survival and overall survival, so I think we’re really at a point where we can call this a standard of care for patients,” Karyn A. Goodman, MD, professor and vice chair of clinical research and radiation oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said at the press conference.

A limitation of the study is that it closed early to accrual because of a change in the standard of care.

Dr. Goodman has served on advisory boards for Novartis, Philips Healthcare, and Genentech, and has consulted for RenovoRx and Syntactx. Dr. Dawson has received research grants from Merck and received patent/license fees or copyright compensation from RaySearch.

Among patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and especially those with macrovascular invasion, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) appears to grant a survival benefit when added to systemic therapy. That was the finding from a phase 3 clinical trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

For unresectable HCC or cases that cannot be treated with thermal ablation or regional therapy, the current standard of care is systemic therapy. When the study was conducted, the recommended therapy was the sorafenib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor. But with the publication of the IMbrave 150 study in 2021, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is now increasingly preferred by some oncologists.

In 2008, the SHARP study found that sorafenib improved median survival, but it provided less benefit for patients with macrovascular invasion. Various studies have addressed the question of whether radiation could improve survival among this patient population, but results have not been encouraging. Direct comparisons between sorafenib and radiotherapy in the SARAH and SIRveNIB studies showed no significant differences in outcomes.

To determine the efficacy of combined SBRT and sorafenib, researchers randomized 177 patients with locally advanced HCC to receive 400 mg sorafenib every 12 hours or SBRT of 27.5-50 Gy in five fractions, followed by 200 mg sorafenib every 12 hours for 4 weeks, then 400 mg sorafenib every 12 hours thereafter. The median age was 66 years, 85% of patients were male, 74% had macrovascular invasion. The study included patients with locally advanced tumors up to a 20-cm sum of diameters or up to a 20-cm conglomerate tumor, as well as those with metastases of 3 cm size or smaller.

After a median follow-up of 13.2 months, median overall survival was 15.8 months in the combination group, versus 12.3 months in sorafenib group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 1-sided P = .055). After a multivariable analysis, the combined treatment was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.72; P = .042).

“This overall survival is greater than expected and impressive even in the era now of immunotherapy trials,” said Laura Dawson, MD, who presented the results of the study during a press conference at the meeting. Dr. Dawson is a professor of radiation oncology at University of Toronto and a radiation oncologist at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto.

Median progression-free survival was 9.2 months in the combined group versus 5.5 months in the sorafenib-only group (HR, 0.55; P = .0001). At 24 months, 17% of the combination group had 7% of the sorafenib group remained had not progressed. The median time to progression was 18.5 months in the combination group and 9.5 months in the sorafenib group (HR, 0.69; P = .034). The frequency of adverse events was similar in both groups. The study admitted patients with any level of vascular invasion, which contrasted with many earlier trials that excluded those with involvement of the main portal vein.

“I think this is really one of the most important studies that’s come out in many years in terms of practice changing outcomes. We’ve seen that with patients who have very high-risk HCC, especially patients who have portal vein or macrovascular vascular invasion, there’s been a significant improvement in overall survival for these patients, and this is a very difficult patient population. Adding SBRT in this group improved both the progression free survival and overall survival, so I think we’re really at a point where we can call this a standard of care for patients,” Karyn A. Goodman, MD, professor and vice chair of clinical research and radiation oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said at the press conference.

A limitation of the study is that it closed early to accrual because of a change in the standard of care.

Dr. Goodman has served on advisory boards for Novartis, Philips Healthcare, and Genentech, and has consulted for RenovoRx and Syntactx. Dr. Dawson has received research grants from Merck and received patent/license fees or copyright compensation from RaySearch.

Among patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and especially those with macrovascular invasion, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) appears to grant a survival benefit when added to systemic therapy. That was the finding from a phase 3 clinical trial presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

For unresectable HCC or cases that cannot be treated with thermal ablation or regional therapy, the current standard of care is systemic therapy. When the study was conducted, the recommended therapy was the sorafenib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor. But with the publication of the IMbrave 150 study in 2021, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is now increasingly preferred by some oncologists.

In 2008, the SHARP study found that sorafenib improved median survival, but it provided less benefit for patients with macrovascular invasion. Various studies have addressed the question of whether radiation could improve survival among this patient population, but results have not been encouraging. Direct comparisons between sorafenib and radiotherapy in the SARAH and SIRveNIB studies showed no significant differences in outcomes.

To determine the efficacy of combined SBRT and sorafenib, researchers randomized 177 patients with locally advanced HCC to receive 400 mg sorafenib every 12 hours or SBRT of 27.5-50 Gy in five fractions, followed by 200 mg sorafenib every 12 hours for 4 weeks, then 400 mg sorafenib every 12 hours thereafter. The median age was 66 years, 85% of patients were male, 74% had macrovascular invasion. The study included patients with locally advanced tumors up to a 20-cm sum of diameters or up to a 20-cm conglomerate tumor, as well as those with metastases of 3 cm size or smaller.

After a median follow-up of 13.2 months, median overall survival was 15.8 months in the combination group, versus 12.3 months in sorafenib group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 1-sided P = .055). After a multivariable analysis, the combined treatment was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.72; P = .042).

“This overall survival is greater than expected and impressive even in the era now of immunotherapy trials,” said Laura Dawson, MD, who presented the results of the study during a press conference at the meeting. Dr. Dawson is a professor of radiation oncology at University of Toronto and a radiation oncologist at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto.

Median progression-free survival was 9.2 months in the combined group versus 5.5 months in the sorafenib-only group (HR, 0.55; P = .0001). At 24 months, 17% of the combination group had 7% of the sorafenib group remained had not progressed. The median time to progression was 18.5 months in the combination group and 9.5 months in the sorafenib group (HR, 0.69; P = .034). The frequency of adverse events was similar in both groups. The study admitted patients with any level of vascular invasion, which contrasted with many earlier trials that excluded those with involvement of the main portal vein.

“I think this is really one of the most important studies that’s come out in many years in terms of practice changing outcomes. We’ve seen that with patients who have very high-risk HCC, especially patients who have portal vein or macrovascular vascular invasion, there’s been a significant improvement in overall survival for these patients, and this is a very difficult patient population. Adding SBRT in this group improved both the progression free survival and overall survival, so I think we’re really at a point where we can call this a standard of care for patients,” Karyn A. Goodman, MD, professor and vice chair of clinical research and radiation oncology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said at the press conference.

A limitation of the study is that it closed early to accrual because of a change in the standard of care.

Dr. Goodman has served on advisory boards for Novartis, Philips Healthcare, and Genentech, and has consulted for RenovoRx and Syntactx. Dr. Dawson has received research grants from Merck and received patent/license fees or copyright compensation from RaySearch.

CHARLOTTE, N.C.– Performing high-quality index colonoscopies may pay off later in your patients’ reduced risk for advanced neoplasia, investigators report.

A study of registry data on more than 2,200 patients who had an index colonoscopy showing no evidence of neoplasia found that, on repeat colonoscopy 10 years later, the absolute risk for advanced neoplasia outcomes was lower for those with a high-quality index exam, compared with those who had a lesser-quality index colonoscopy.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The adjusted odds ratio for patients who underwent high-quality index exams was 0.59%, reported Joseph Anderson, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

“These data demonstrate that high-quality index colonoscopy provides better protection from interval lesions than low-quality exams with no polyps detected at that index exam,” he said in an oral abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“These data support the importance of high-quality index exams in the prevention of interval colorectal cancer, and support the 10-year interval for normal exams,” Dr. Anderson added.

He recommended that endoscopists focus on the quality of their exams by using adequate scope withdrawal time – 8-10 minutes – to ensure optimal adenoma detection, and by ensuring the use of optimal bowel preparation in their practices.

Registry study

Dr. Anderson and colleagues studied how the quality of index colonoscopies could affect the risk of advanced outcomes in low-risk patients at the 10-year or later follow-up. They used records from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which includes data from 2004 to the present on more than 250,000 exams performed by more than 150 endoscopists in more than 30 Granite State practices.

The investigators also looked at data on patients with less than 5 years of follow-up, and those with follow-up from 5 to less than 10 years.

The study sample included patients with no adenoma or significant serrated polyps on their index exams who had at least one follow-up exam 12 months or more after the index exams. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or familial colon cancer syndromes were excluded.

They defined a high-quality colonoscopy as an exam complete to cecum, with adequate bowel preparation, and performed by an endoscopist with an adenoma detection rate of 25 or higher.

The adenoma detection rate is calculated as the number of screening colonoscopies with at least one adenoma divided by the total number of screening colonoscopies.

The definition of advanced outcomes included advanced adenomas, colorectal cancer, and/or large serrated polyps (1 cm or greater).

Of the 14,011 patients in the sample, 2,283 had a follow-up exam at 10 years. The absolute risk for advanced outcomes among patients who had a high quality index exam was 4.0% vs. 6.7% for those with lower quality exams.

Among patients with low-quality index exams – but not patients with high quality exams – there was a statistically significant increase in the absolute risk for advanced outcomes at all time periods, from 5.1% in the less than 5-year follow-up group, to 6.7% in the 10-years or more follow-up group.

Patients with initial high-quality exams also had a lower risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer, compared with patients who had low-quality index exams: 0.4% vs. 0.8%. This difference translated into an adjusted hazard ratio for colorectal cancer after a high-quality exam of 0.53.
 

It’s getting better all the time

In an interview, Daniel J. Pambianco, MD, FACG from Charlottesville (Va.) Gastroenterology Associates, who was not involved in the study, commented that Dr. Anderson and colleagues highlighted the importance of the quality of the bowel prep and the quality of the examination itself.

He noted that the use of devices such as colonoscopy caps can help further improve adenoma detection rates and pointed to up-and-coming developments such as the use of artificial intelligence algorithms to aid human endoscopists.

Dr. Pambianco comoderated the session where the data were presented.

The investigators did not report a study funding source. Dr. Anderson and Dr. Pambianco reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

CHARLOTTE, N.C.– Performing high-quality index colonoscopies may pay off later in your patients’ reduced risk for advanced neoplasia, investigators report.

A study of registry data on more than 2,200 patients who had an index colonoscopy showing no evidence of neoplasia found that, on repeat colonoscopy 10 years later, the absolute risk for advanced neoplasia outcomes was lower for those with a high-quality index exam, compared with those who had a lesser-quality index colonoscopy.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The adjusted odds ratio for patients who underwent high-quality index exams was 0.59%, reported Joseph Anderson, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

“These data demonstrate that high-quality index colonoscopy provides better protection from interval lesions than low-quality exams with no polyps detected at that index exam,” he said in an oral abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“These data support the importance of high-quality index exams in the prevention of interval colorectal cancer, and support the 10-year interval for normal exams,” Dr. Anderson added.

He recommended that endoscopists focus on the quality of their exams by using adequate scope withdrawal time – 8-10 minutes – to ensure optimal adenoma detection, and by ensuring the use of optimal bowel preparation in their practices.

Registry study

Dr. Anderson and colleagues studied how the quality of index colonoscopies could affect the risk of advanced outcomes in low-risk patients at the 10-year or later follow-up. They used records from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which includes data from 2004 to the present on more than 250,000 exams performed by more than 150 endoscopists in more than 30 Granite State practices.

The investigators also looked at data on patients with less than 5 years of follow-up, and those with follow-up from 5 to less than 10 years.

The study sample included patients with no adenoma or significant serrated polyps on their index exams who had at least one follow-up exam 12 months or more after the index exams. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or familial colon cancer syndromes were excluded.

They defined a high-quality colonoscopy as an exam complete to cecum, with adequate bowel preparation, and performed by an endoscopist with an adenoma detection rate of 25 or higher.

The adenoma detection rate is calculated as the number of screening colonoscopies with at least one adenoma divided by the total number of screening colonoscopies.

The definition of advanced outcomes included advanced adenomas, colorectal cancer, and/or large serrated polyps (1 cm or greater).

Of the 14,011 patients in the sample, 2,283 had a follow-up exam at 10 years. The absolute risk for advanced outcomes among patients who had a high quality index exam was 4.0% vs. 6.7% for those with lower quality exams.

Among patients with low-quality index exams – but not patients with high quality exams – there was a statistically significant increase in the absolute risk for advanced outcomes at all time periods, from 5.1% in the less than 5-year follow-up group, to 6.7% in the 10-years or more follow-up group.

Patients with initial high-quality exams also had a lower risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer, compared with patients who had low-quality index exams: 0.4% vs. 0.8%. This difference translated into an adjusted hazard ratio for colorectal cancer after a high-quality exam of 0.53.
 

It’s getting better all the time

In an interview, Daniel J. Pambianco, MD, FACG from Charlottesville (Va.) Gastroenterology Associates, who was not involved in the study, commented that Dr. Anderson and colleagues highlighted the importance of the quality of the bowel prep and the quality of the examination itself.

He noted that the use of devices such as colonoscopy caps can help further improve adenoma detection rates and pointed to up-and-coming developments such as the use of artificial intelligence algorithms to aid human endoscopists.

Dr. Pambianco comoderated the session where the data were presented.

The investigators did not report a study funding source. Dr. Anderson and Dr. Pambianco reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

CHARLOTTE, N.C.– Performing high-quality index colonoscopies may pay off later in your patients’ reduced risk for advanced neoplasia, investigators report.

A study of registry data on more than 2,200 patients who had an index colonoscopy showing no evidence of neoplasia found that, on repeat colonoscopy 10 years later, the absolute risk for advanced neoplasia outcomes was lower for those with a high-quality index exam, compared with those who had a lesser-quality index colonoscopy.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

The adjusted odds ratio for patients who underwent high-quality index exams was 0.59%, reported Joseph Anderson, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.

“These data demonstrate that high-quality index colonoscopy provides better protection from interval lesions than low-quality exams with no polyps detected at that index exam,” he said in an oral abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

“These data support the importance of high-quality index exams in the prevention of interval colorectal cancer, and support the 10-year interval for normal exams,” Dr. Anderson added.

He recommended that endoscopists focus on the quality of their exams by using adequate scope withdrawal time – 8-10 minutes – to ensure optimal adenoma detection, and by ensuring the use of optimal bowel preparation in their practices.

Registry study

Dr. Anderson and colleagues studied how the quality of index colonoscopies could affect the risk of advanced outcomes in low-risk patients at the 10-year or later follow-up. They used records from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which includes data from 2004 to the present on more than 250,000 exams performed by more than 150 endoscopists in more than 30 Granite State practices.

The investigators also looked at data on patients with less than 5 years of follow-up, and those with follow-up from 5 to less than 10 years.

The study sample included patients with no adenoma or significant serrated polyps on their index exams who had at least one follow-up exam 12 months or more after the index exams. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or familial colon cancer syndromes were excluded.

They defined a high-quality colonoscopy as an exam complete to cecum, with adequate bowel preparation, and performed by an endoscopist with an adenoma detection rate of 25 or higher.

The adenoma detection rate is calculated as the number of screening colonoscopies with at least one adenoma divided by the total number of screening colonoscopies.

The definition of advanced outcomes included advanced adenomas, colorectal cancer, and/or large serrated polyps (1 cm or greater).

Of the 14,011 patients in the sample, 2,283 had a follow-up exam at 10 years. The absolute risk for advanced outcomes among patients who had a high quality index exam was 4.0% vs. 6.7% for those with lower quality exams.

Among patients with low-quality index exams – but not patients with high quality exams – there was a statistically significant increase in the absolute risk for advanced outcomes at all time periods, from 5.1% in the less than 5-year follow-up group, to 6.7% in the 10-years or more follow-up group.

Patients with initial high-quality exams also had a lower risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer, compared with patients who had low-quality index exams: 0.4% vs. 0.8%. This difference translated into an adjusted hazard ratio for colorectal cancer after a high-quality exam of 0.53.
 

It’s getting better all the time

In an interview, Daniel J. Pambianco, MD, FACG from Charlottesville (Va.) Gastroenterology Associates, who was not involved in the study, commented that Dr. Anderson and colleagues highlighted the importance of the quality of the bowel prep and the quality of the examination itself.

He noted that the use of devices such as colonoscopy caps can help further improve adenoma detection rates and pointed to up-and-coming developments such as the use of artificial intelligence algorithms to aid human endoscopists.

Dr. Pambianco comoderated the session where the data were presented.

The investigators did not report a study funding source. Dr. Anderson and Dr. Pambianco reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – In a real-world setting, a 1-liter polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid combination produced a high level of adequate or better bowel cleansing for colonoscopy.

Among more than 13,000 patients who used the combination, abbreviated as 1L PEG+ASC (Plenvu), the overall rate of adequate quality bowel prep was 89.3%, reported Cátia Arieira, MD, from the Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira in Guimarães, Portugal.

The rate of adequate prep was significantly higher with a split-dose regimen (evening-morning) than with a same-day regimen, at 94.7% versus 86.7%, respectively.

“Results from this large study confirm the high cleansing effectiveness and good tolerability of 1 liter of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid in real-world settings,” she said in an oral abstract session during the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Designed for tolerability

The 1L PEG+ASC regimen is intended to make precolonoscopy bowel prep a little easier both to take, by reducing the volume of liquid patients need to ingest, and to reduce indigestion with two asymmetric doses, with the second dose having a high ascorbate content.

The 1-liter regimen has been shown to be safe and effective both in clinical trials and in smaller practice-based studies, Dr. Arieira said.

To see how well 1L PEG+ASC performs on a larger scale, the investigators conducted a retrospective observational study of patients underwent a colonoscopy from June 2019 to September 2021 at 12 centers in Spain and Portugal.

The sample included patients who had either a screening, diagnostic, or surveillance colonoscopy and used 1L PEG+ASC in either a split or same-day dose.

The investigators used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) to evaluate the quality of cleansing. They defined an adequate cleansing as a total BBPS score of 6 or greater, with all segmental scores 2 or greater, and a high-quality cleansing as segmental scores of 3.

They enrolled a total of 13,169 patients, 6,406 men and 6,763 women. The same-day regimen was used by two-thirds of patients, and the split-dose regimen by one-third.

In all, 41.9% of procedures were for screening, 29.4% for diagnosis, 26.2% for surveillance, and 2.6% for other, unspecified reasons.

Results

As noted, the overall rate of adequate prep was 89.3%, with rates of 94.7% and 86.7% for the split and same-day doses, respectively.

A breakdown of cleansing by bowel segment showed that, for each segment, the split-dose regimen was numerically superior to the same-day regimen, with rates of 95.6% versus 89.5% for the right colon, 97.1% versus 91.9% for the left colon, and 97.8% versus 93.1% for the transverse colon, respectively.

Mean BBPS scores were significantly better with split dosing, at 8.02 versus 6.96. Higher scores were seen with split-dosing for each colon segment.

The incidence of adverse events was low, at 2.3% overall, 1.4% for same-day dosing, and 3.9% for split dosing, with nausea the most common.

Tolerability is key

Renee L. Williams, MD, MHPE, FACG, from New York University, who moderated the session but was not involved in the study, commented that the more convenient 1L PEG+ASC regimen may be helpful with improving compliance with bowel prep in underserved populations.

“My population of patients is very different from the one in this study,” she said in an interview. “Normally, if you’re looking at people who are not prepped, at least in the United States, people who have a lot of comorbidities, who are underserved, or have insurance uncertainty tend to have a lower level of bowel prep. So I’d be curious to see whether this would work in that population.”

Dr. Williams noted that she prefers split dosing for bowel prep because it offers better tolerability for patients, adding that when her center introduced split-dose prep, the percentage of adequate prep rose from around 60% to more than 90%.

Comoderator John R. Saltzman, MD, FACG, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham & Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said that while he’s not familiar with this specific bowel prep formulation, “I’m looking for whatever is most palatable to patients and most effective in practice. Still, most of our patients tolerate these 2-liter overnight preps very well.”

The 1L-PEG+ASC regimen may be a suitable option for patients whose colonoscopies are scheduled for later in the day, Dr. Saltzman added.

The study was supported by Norgine and Xolomon Tree. Dr. Arieira, Dr. Williams, and Dr. Saltzman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – In a real-world setting, a 1-liter polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid combination produced a high level of adequate or better bowel cleansing for colonoscopy.

Among more than 13,000 patients who used the combination, abbreviated as 1L PEG+ASC (Plenvu), the overall rate of adequate quality bowel prep was 89.3%, reported Cátia Arieira, MD, from the Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira in Guimarães, Portugal.

The rate of adequate prep was significantly higher with a split-dose regimen (evening-morning) than with a same-day regimen, at 94.7% versus 86.7%, respectively.

“Results from this large study confirm the high cleansing effectiveness and good tolerability of 1 liter of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid in real-world settings,” she said in an oral abstract session during the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Designed for tolerability

The 1L PEG+ASC regimen is intended to make precolonoscopy bowel prep a little easier both to take, by reducing the volume of liquid patients need to ingest, and to reduce indigestion with two asymmetric doses, with the second dose having a high ascorbate content.

The 1-liter regimen has been shown to be safe and effective both in clinical trials and in smaller practice-based studies, Dr. Arieira said.

To see how well 1L PEG+ASC performs on a larger scale, the investigators conducted a retrospective observational study of patients underwent a colonoscopy from June 2019 to September 2021 at 12 centers in Spain and Portugal.

The sample included patients who had either a screening, diagnostic, or surveillance colonoscopy and used 1L PEG+ASC in either a split or same-day dose.

The investigators used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) to evaluate the quality of cleansing. They defined an adequate cleansing as a total BBPS score of 6 or greater, with all segmental scores 2 or greater, and a high-quality cleansing as segmental scores of 3.

They enrolled a total of 13,169 patients, 6,406 men and 6,763 women. The same-day regimen was used by two-thirds of patients, and the split-dose regimen by one-third.

In all, 41.9% of procedures were for screening, 29.4% for diagnosis, 26.2% for surveillance, and 2.6% for other, unspecified reasons.

Results

As noted, the overall rate of adequate prep was 89.3%, with rates of 94.7% and 86.7% for the split and same-day doses, respectively.

A breakdown of cleansing by bowel segment showed that, for each segment, the split-dose regimen was numerically superior to the same-day regimen, with rates of 95.6% versus 89.5% for the right colon, 97.1% versus 91.9% for the left colon, and 97.8% versus 93.1% for the transverse colon, respectively.

Mean BBPS scores were significantly better with split dosing, at 8.02 versus 6.96. Higher scores were seen with split-dosing for each colon segment.

The incidence of adverse events was low, at 2.3% overall, 1.4% for same-day dosing, and 3.9% for split dosing, with nausea the most common.

Tolerability is key

Renee L. Williams, MD, MHPE, FACG, from New York University, who moderated the session but was not involved in the study, commented that the more convenient 1L PEG+ASC regimen may be helpful with improving compliance with bowel prep in underserved populations.

“My population of patients is very different from the one in this study,” she said in an interview. “Normally, if you’re looking at people who are not prepped, at least in the United States, people who have a lot of comorbidities, who are underserved, or have insurance uncertainty tend to have a lower level of bowel prep. So I’d be curious to see whether this would work in that population.”

Dr. Williams noted that she prefers split dosing for bowel prep because it offers better tolerability for patients, adding that when her center introduced split-dose prep, the percentage of adequate prep rose from around 60% to more than 90%.

Comoderator John R. Saltzman, MD, FACG, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham & Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said that while he’s not familiar with this specific bowel prep formulation, “I’m looking for whatever is most palatable to patients and most effective in practice. Still, most of our patients tolerate these 2-liter overnight preps very well.”

The 1L-PEG+ASC regimen may be a suitable option for patients whose colonoscopies are scheduled for later in the day, Dr. Saltzman added.

The study was supported by Norgine and Xolomon Tree. Dr. Arieira, Dr. Williams, and Dr. Saltzman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – In a real-world setting, a 1-liter polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid combination produced a high level of adequate or better bowel cleansing for colonoscopy.

Among more than 13,000 patients who used the combination, abbreviated as 1L PEG+ASC (Plenvu), the overall rate of adequate quality bowel prep was 89.3%, reported Cátia Arieira, MD, from the Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira in Guimarães, Portugal.

The rate of adequate prep was significantly higher with a split-dose regimen (evening-morning) than with a same-day regimen, at 94.7% versus 86.7%, respectively.

“Results from this large study confirm the high cleansing effectiveness and good tolerability of 1 liter of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid in real-world settings,” she said in an oral abstract session during the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

Designed for tolerability

The 1L PEG+ASC regimen is intended to make precolonoscopy bowel prep a little easier both to take, by reducing the volume of liquid patients need to ingest, and to reduce indigestion with two asymmetric doses, with the second dose having a high ascorbate content.

The 1-liter regimen has been shown to be safe and effective both in clinical trials and in smaller practice-based studies, Dr. Arieira said.

To see how well 1L PEG+ASC performs on a larger scale, the investigators conducted a retrospective observational study of patients underwent a colonoscopy from June 2019 to September 2021 at 12 centers in Spain and Portugal.

The sample included patients who had either a screening, diagnostic, or surveillance colonoscopy and used 1L PEG+ASC in either a split or same-day dose.

The investigators used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) to evaluate the quality of cleansing. They defined an adequate cleansing as a total BBPS score of 6 or greater, with all segmental scores 2 or greater, and a high-quality cleansing as segmental scores of 3.

They enrolled a total of 13,169 patients, 6,406 men and 6,763 women. The same-day regimen was used by two-thirds of patients, and the split-dose regimen by one-third.

In all, 41.9% of procedures were for screening, 29.4% for diagnosis, 26.2% for surveillance, and 2.6% for other, unspecified reasons.

Results

As noted, the overall rate of adequate prep was 89.3%, with rates of 94.7% and 86.7% for the split and same-day doses, respectively.

A breakdown of cleansing by bowel segment showed that, for each segment, the split-dose regimen was numerically superior to the same-day regimen, with rates of 95.6% versus 89.5% for the right colon, 97.1% versus 91.9% for the left colon, and 97.8% versus 93.1% for the transverse colon, respectively.

Mean BBPS scores were significantly better with split dosing, at 8.02 versus 6.96. Higher scores were seen with split-dosing for each colon segment.

The incidence of adverse events was low, at 2.3% overall, 1.4% for same-day dosing, and 3.9% for split dosing, with nausea the most common.

Tolerability is key

Renee L. Williams, MD, MHPE, FACG, from New York University, who moderated the session but was not involved in the study, commented that the more convenient 1L PEG+ASC regimen may be helpful with improving compliance with bowel prep in underserved populations.

“My population of patients is very different from the one in this study,” she said in an interview. “Normally, if you’re looking at people who are not prepped, at least in the United States, people who have a lot of comorbidities, who are underserved, or have insurance uncertainty tend to have a lower level of bowel prep. So I’d be curious to see whether this would work in that population.”

Dr. Williams noted that she prefers split dosing for bowel prep because it offers better tolerability for patients, adding that when her center introduced split-dose prep, the percentage of adequate prep rose from around 60% to more than 90%.

Comoderator John R. Saltzman, MD, FACG, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham & Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said that while he’s not familiar with this specific bowel prep formulation, “I’m looking for whatever is most palatable to patients and most effective in practice. Still, most of our patients tolerate these 2-liter overnight preps very well.”

The 1L-PEG+ASC regimen may be a suitable option for patients whose colonoscopies are scheduled for later in the day, Dr. Saltzman added.

The study was supported by Norgine and Xolomon Tree. Dr. Arieira, Dr. Williams, and Dr. Saltzman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Josie Tenore, MD, and Paul Hinds were introduced by a mutual friend in 2017 and hadn’t been going out long when she laid down the law: He had to get a physical.

“I don’t date people who don’t take care of their health,” said Dr. Tenore, who practices cosmetic dermatology and functional medicine in suburban Chicago.

One of Mr. Hinds’ blood tests that summer came back with an alarming result: His prostate-specific antigen (PSA), level was very high. A biopsy confirmed he had advanced prostate cancer.

There aren’t a lot of comfortable alternatives for treating prostate cancer, which generally progresses as long as testosterone levels remain high. Marijuana appears to lower testosterone levels, so after his diagnosis, he dosed a liquid form of cannabis for several weeks. That cut his PSA in half, but Mr. Hinds, a cybersecurity expert who likes yoga and bicycling, “was stoned out of his mind and couldn’t function,” Dr. Tenore recalled.

With Dr. Tenore guiding his decisions, Mr. Hinds next tried high-frequency ultrasound treatment, but it failed. And in the summer of 2019 doctors removed his prostate gland. Still, the PSA levels climbed again, and doctors assessed that the cancer had metastasized. The only alternative was to drastically lower Mr. Hinds’ testosterone levels – either via surgery or drugs that block all testosterone. In May 2021, he got his first intramuscular shot of Lupron Depot, a brand name for leuprolide, designed to suppress the prostate gland’s release of the hormone for 3 months. That August, he got his second shot.

And then the bills came.

The patient: Paul Hinds, now 60, is covered by United Healthcare through a COBRA plan from his former employer.

Medical service: Two 3-month Lupron Depot injections for metastatic prostate cancer.

Service provider: University of Chicago Medicine, a 900-physician nonprofit system that includes an 811-bed medical center, a suburban hospital, the Pritzker School of Medicine, and outpatient clinics and physician offices throughout the Chicago area.

Total bill: $73,812 for the two shots ($35,414 for the first, $38,398 for the second), including lab work and physician charges. United Healthcare’s negotiated rate for the two shots plus associated fees was $27,568, of which the insurer paid $19,567. After Mr. Hinds haggled with the hospital and insurer for more than a year, his share of the bills was determined to be nearly $7,000.

What gives: The first issue is unrelenting price increases on old drugs that have remained branded as manufacturers find ways to extend patents for decades and maintain sales through marketing.

Though Lupron was invented in 1973, its manufacturer got patent extensions in 1989 by offering a slow-release version. Drugmakers commonly use this tactic to extend their exclusive rights to sell a product.

The development of Lupron Depot as an intramuscular shot that suppressed testosterone for months at a time improved patient compliance and also enabled its maker, Abbott Laboratories, and its Japanese partner, Takeda, to extend their patents on the drug into the 2000s, said Gerald Weisberg, MD, a former Abbott scientist who has been critical of the company’s pricing policies.

In subsequent years, Abbott and Takeda, in a joint venture called TAP Pharmaceuticals, steadily marked up the price of their slow-release product. In 2000, the average wholesale U.S. price for a 3-month shot was $1,245; currently that figure is $5,866. (It is manufactured in the United States by AbbVie now.)

In the United Kingdom, where health care is generally free and Takeda sells the drug under the name Prostap, all physicians can purchase a 3-month dose for about $260.

It’s likely that Chicago Medicine, where Mr. Hinds got his shots, paid something close to the British price. That’s because the health system’s hospital on Chicago’s South Side participates in a federal program called 340B, which allows hospitals that serve low-income populations to purchase drugs at deep discounts.

Lupron Depot is given as a simple injection into the muscle. It takes minutes for a nurse or doctor to administer. Yet hospital systems like Chicago Medicine can and typically do charge lavishly for such services, to enhance revenue, said Morgan Henderson, principal data scientist at the Hilltop Institute at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. Chicago Medicine declined to say what it paid for the drug.

While U.S. drugmakers can price their drugs however they please, TAP has gotten into trouble for its Lupron sales policies in the past. In 2001, after a Justice Department probe, it paid an $875 million settlement for illegally stimulating sales by giving urologists free and discounted vials of the drug while enabling them to charge Medicare full price.

Since then, many other drugs aimed at lowering testosterone levels have entered the market, including a pill, relugolix (Orgovyx). So why wouldn’t a patient use them?

Lupron Depot is long acting, is easy to prepare and store, and employs a small needle, which some patients prefer, said Brian McNeil, MD, chief of urology at University Hospital of Brooklyn. Orgovyx is convenient, but “a patient has to be very compliant. They have to take it every day around the same time,” he said. “Some people just forget.”

But there is another important factor that may well explain Lupron Depot’s ongoing popularity among medical providers: Doctors and hospitals can earn tens of thousands of dollars each visit by marking up its price and administration fees – as they did with Mr. Hinds. If they merely write a prescription for a drug that can be taken at home, they earn nothing.

Asked about this high patient charge and the possibility of using alternatives, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo said payment was “appropriately based on the hospital’s contract and the member’s benefit plan,” adding that the insurer encourages customers to shop around for the best quality and price.

Resolution: In addition to leaving Mr. Hinds listless, the Lupron Depot shots were, literally, a pain in the rear end. “Each time he was miserable for 2 weeks,” Dr. Tenore said. After looking over his first bill for the Lupron shot, Dr. Tenore told Mr. Hinds he should ask his doctor whether there was a less expensive drug that was easier to take.

After the second shot, in August 2021, a pharmacist told him he could instead receive the pill. His doctor prescribed Mr. Hinds 3 months’ worth of Orgovyx last November, for which he paid $216 and the insurer paid over $6,000. The drug’s list price is about $2,700 a month. There is evidence that Orgovyx works a little better than leuprolide.

Orgovyx was a “no-brainer,” Mr. Hinds said. “Why would you want a sore ass for two weeks when you can take a pill that kicks in sooner, functions the same way, and clears your body of testosterone faster?”

While Orgovyx is increasingly used for prostate cancer, Lupron and other injections usually remain the standard of care, hospital spokesperson Ashley Heher said. Clinicians “work with patients to determine what treatments are the most medically effective and, when necessary, to find reasonable alternatives that may be less financially burdensome due to insurance coverage limitations.”

Mr. Hinds was baffled by the size of the charges. During months of phone calls and emails, the hospital reversed and then reapplied part of the charge, and then in July agreed to a $666.34 monthly payment plan. After Hinds had made two payments, however, the hospital announced Aug. 29 it was canceling the agreement and sending the remainder of his bill to a collection agency. Two weeks later, the hospital reinstated the payment plan – after KHN asked about the cancellation.

As for Mr. Hinds, he remains active, though his bike rides have been shortened from 50 or 60 miles to about 30, he said.

He’s grateful to have Dr. Tenore as a free consultant and empathizes with those who lack a knowledgeable guide through their disease and health care’s financial maze.

“I’ve got Dr. Josie as an advocate who knows the system,” Mr. Hinds said.

The takeaway: First tip: If you are prescribed an infusion or injection, ask your physician if there are cheaper oral medications to treat your condition. Also, many drugs that are given by injection – ones that are given “subcutaneously,” rather than into a muscle – can be administered by a patient at home, avoiding hefty administration fees. Drugs like Dupixent for eczema fall into this category.

Keep in mind that where you get treatment could make a big difference in your charges: A study found that leading U.S. cancer centers charge enormous markups to private insurers for drug injections or infusions. Another study found that hospital systems charge an average of 86% more than private clinics for cancer drug infusions. And the percentage of cancer infusions done in hospital-operated clinics increased from 6% in 2004 to 43% in 2014, and has grown since.

Under a law that took effect in 2021, hospitals are required to list their charges, though they currently do so in a way that is not user friendly. But it’s worth taking a look at the price list – the hospital chargemaster – to try to decipher the pricing and markup for your medicine. If you’re about to get an injection, infusion, or procedure done in a hospital system, ask ahead of time for an estimate of what you will owe.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Josie Tenore, MD, and Paul Hinds were introduced by a mutual friend in 2017 and hadn’t been going out long when she laid down the law: He had to get a physical.

“I don’t date people who don’t take care of their health,” said Dr. Tenore, who practices cosmetic dermatology and functional medicine in suburban Chicago.

One of Mr. Hinds’ blood tests that summer came back with an alarming result: His prostate-specific antigen (PSA), level was very high. A biopsy confirmed he had advanced prostate cancer.

There aren’t a lot of comfortable alternatives for treating prostate cancer, which generally progresses as long as testosterone levels remain high. Marijuana appears to lower testosterone levels, so after his diagnosis, he dosed a liquid form of cannabis for several weeks. That cut his PSA in half, but Mr. Hinds, a cybersecurity expert who likes yoga and bicycling, “was stoned out of his mind and couldn’t function,” Dr. Tenore recalled.

With Dr. Tenore guiding his decisions, Mr. Hinds next tried high-frequency ultrasound treatment, but it failed. And in the summer of 2019 doctors removed his prostate gland. Still, the PSA levels climbed again, and doctors assessed that the cancer had metastasized. The only alternative was to drastically lower Mr. Hinds’ testosterone levels – either via surgery or drugs that block all testosterone. In May 2021, he got his first intramuscular shot of Lupron Depot, a brand name for leuprolide, designed to suppress the prostate gland’s release of the hormone for 3 months. That August, he got his second shot.

And then the bills came.

The patient: Paul Hinds, now 60, is covered by United Healthcare through a COBRA plan from his former employer.

Medical service: Two 3-month Lupron Depot injections for metastatic prostate cancer.

Service provider: University of Chicago Medicine, a 900-physician nonprofit system that includes an 811-bed medical center, a suburban hospital, the Pritzker School of Medicine, and outpatient clinics and physician offices throughout the Chicago area.

Total bill: $73,812 for the two shots ($35,414 for the first, $38,398 for the second), including lab work and physician charges. United Healthcare’s negotiated rate for the two shots plus associated fees was $27,568, of which the insurer paid $19,567. After Mr. Hinds haggled with the hospital and insurer for more than a year, his share of the bills was determined to be nearly $7,000.

What gives: The first issue is unrelenting price increases on old drugs that have remained branded as manufacturers find ways to extend patents for decades and maintain sales through marketing.

Though Lupron was invented in 1973, its manufacturer got patent extensions in 1989 by offering a slow-release version. Drugmakers commonly use this tactic to extend their exclusive rights to sell a product.

The development of Lupron Depot as an intramuscular shot that suppressed testosterone for months at a time improved patient compliance and also enabled its maker, Abbott Laboratories, and its Japanese partner, Takeda, to extend their patents on the drug into the 2000s, said Gerald Weisberg, MD, a former Abbott scientist who has been critical of the company’s pricing policies.

In subsequent years, Abbott and Takeda, in a joint venture called TAP Pharmaceuticals, steadily marked up the price of their slow-release product. In 2000, the average wholesale U.S. price for a 3-month shot was $1,245; currently that figure is $5,866. (It is manufactured in the United States by AbbVie now.)

In the United Kingdom, where health care is generally free and Takeda sells the drug under the name Prostap, all physicians can purchase a 3-month dose for about $260.

It’s likely that Chicago Medicine, where Mr. Hinds got his shots, paid something close to the British price. That’s because the health system’s hospital on Chicago’s South Side participates in a federal program called 340B, which allows hospitals that serve low-income populations to purchase drugs at deep discounts.

Lupron Depot is given as a simple injection into the muscle. It takes minutes for a nurse or doctor to administer. Yet hospital systems like Chicago Medicine can and typically do charge lavishly for such services, to enhance revenue, said Morgan Henderson, principal data scientist at the Hilltop Institute at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. Chicago Medicine declined to say what it paid for the drug.

While U.S. drugmakers can price their drugs however they please, TAP has gotten into trouble for its Lupron sales policies in the past. In 2001, after a Justice Department probe, it paid an $875 million settlement for illegally stimulating sales by giving urologists free and discounted vials of the drug while enabling them to charge Medicare full price.

Since then, many other drugs aimed at lowering testosterone levels have entered the market, including a pill, relugolix (Orgovyx). So why wouldn’t a patient use them?

Lupron Depot is long acting, is easy to prepare and store, and employs a small needle, which some patients prefer, said Brian McNeil, MD, chief of urology at University Hospital of Brooklyn. Orgovyx is convenient, but “a patient has to be very compliant. They have to take it every day around the same time,” he said. “Some people just forget.”

But there is another important factor that may well explain Lupron Depot’s ongoing popularity among medical providers: Doctors and hospitals can earn tens of thousands of dollars each visit by marking up its price and administration fees – as they did with Mr. Hinds. If they merely write a prescription for a drug that can be taken at home, they earn nothing.

Asked about this high patient charge and the possibility of using alternatives, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo said payment was “appropriately based on the hospital’s contract and the member’s benefit plan,” adding that the insurer encourages customers to shop around for the best quality and price.

Resolution: In addition to leaving Mr. Hinds listless, the Lupron Depot shots were, literally, a pain in the rear end. “Each time he was miserable for 2 weeks,” Dr. Tenore said. After looking over his first bill for the Lupron shot, Dr. Tenore told Mr. Hinds he should ask his doctor whether there was a less expensive drug that was easier to take.

After the second shot, in August 2021, a pharmacist told him he could instead receive the pill. His doctor prescribed Mr. Hinds 3 months’ worth of Orgovyx last November, for which he paid $216 and the insurer paid over $6,000. The drug’s list price is about $2,700 a month. There is evidence that Orgovyx works a little better than leuprolide.

Orgovyx was a “no-brainer,” Mr. Hinds said. “Why would you want a sore ass for two weeks when you can take a pill that kicks in sooner, functions the same way, and clears your body of testosterone faster?”

While Orgovyx is increasingly used for prostate cancer, Lupron and other injections usually remain the standard of care, hospital spokesperson Ashley Heher said. Clinicians “work with patients to determine what treatments are the most medically effective and, when necessary, to find reasonable alternatives that may be less financially burdensome due to insurance coverage limitations.”

Mr. Hinds was baffled by the size of the charges. During months of phone calls and emails, the hospital reversed and then reapplied part of the charge, and then in July agreed to a $666.34 monthly payment plan. After Hinds had made two payments, however, the hospital announced Aug. 29 it was canceling the agreement and sending the remainder of his bill to a collection agency. Two weeks later, the hospital reinstated the payment plan – after KHN asked about the cancellation.

As for Mr. Hinds, he remains active, though his bike rides have been shortened from 50 or 60 miles to about 30, he said.

He’s grateful to have Dr. Tenore as a free consultant and empathizes with those who lack a knowledgeable guide through their disease and health care’s financial maze.

“I’ve got Dr. Josie as an advocate who knows the system,” Mr. Hinds said.

The takeaway: First tip: If you are prescribed an infusion or injection, ask your physician if there are cheaper oral medications to treat your condition. Also, many drugs that are given by injection – ones that are given “subcutaneously,” rather than into a muscle – can be administered by a patient at home, avoiding hefty administration fees. Drugs like Dupixent for eczema fall into this category.

Keep in mind that where you get treatment could make a big difference in your charges: A study found that leading U.S. cancer centers charge enormous markups to private insurers for drug injections or infusions. Another study found that hospital systems charge an average of 86% more than private clinics for cancer drug infusions. And the percentage of cancer infusions done in hospital-operated clinics increased from 6% in 2004 to 43% in 2014, and has grown since.

Under a law that took effect in 2021, hospitals are required to list their charges, though they currently do so in a way that is not user friendly. But it’s worth taking a look at the price list – the hospital chargemaster – to try to decipher the pricing and markup for your medicine. If you’re about to get an injection, infusion, or procedure done in a hospital system, ask ahead of time for an estimate of what you will owe.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

Josie Tenore, MD, and Paul Hinds were introduced by a mutual friend in 2017 and hadn’t been going out long when she laid down the law: He had to get a physical.

“I don’t date people who don’t take care of their health,” said Dr. Tenore, who practices cosmetic dermatology and functional medicine in suburban Chicago.

One of Mr. Hinds’ blood tests that summer came back with an alarming result: His prostate-specific antigen (PSA), level was very high. A biopsy confirmed he had advanced prostate cancer.

There aren’t a lot of comfortable alternatives for treating prostate cancer, which generally progresses as long as testosterone levels remain high. Marijuana appears to lower testosterone levels, so after his diagnosis, he dosed a liquid form of cannabis for several weeks. That cut his PSA in half, but Mr. Hinds, a cybersecurity expert who likes yoga and bicycling, “was stoned out of his mind and couldn’t function,” Dr. Tenore recalled.

With Dr. Tenore guiding his decisions, Mr. Hinds next tried high-frequency ultrasound treatment, but it failed. And in the summer of 2019 doctors removed his prostate gland. Still, the PSA levels climbed again, and doctors assessed that the cancer had metastasized. The only alternative was to drastically lower Mr. Hinds’ testosterone levels – either via surgery or drugs that block all testosterone. In May 2021, he got his first intramuscular shot of Lupron Depot, a brand name for leuprolide, designed to suppress the prostate gland’s release of the hormone for 3 months. That August, he got his second shot.

And then the bills came.

The patient: Paul Hinds, now 60, is covered by United Healthcare through a COBRA plan from his former employer.

Medical service: Two 3-month Lupron Depot injections for metastatic prostate cancer.

Service provider: University of Chicago Medicine, a 900-physician nonprofit system that includes an 811-bed medical center, a suburban hospital, the Pritzker School of Medicine, and outpatient clinics and physician offices throughout the Chicago area.

Total bill: $73,812 for the two shots ($35,414 for the first, $38,398 for the second), including lab work and physician charges. United Healthcare’s negotiated rate for the two shots plus associated fees was $27,568, of which the insurer paid $19,567. After Mr. Hinds haggled with the hospital and insurer for more than a year, his share of the bills was determined to be nearly $7,000.

What gives: The first issue is unrelenting price increases on old drugs that have remained branded as manufacturers find ways to extend patents for decades and maintain sales through marketing.

Though Lupron was invented in 1973, its manufacturer got patent extensions in 1989 by offering a slow-release version. Drugmakers commonly use this tactic to extend their exclusive rights to sell a product.

The development of Lupron Depot as an intramuscular shot that suppressed testosterone for months at a time improved patient compliance and also enabled its maker, Abbott Laboratories, and its Japanese partner, Takeda, to extend their patents on the drug into the 2000s, said Gerald Weisberg, MD, a former Abbott scientist who has been critical of the company’s pricing policies.

In subsequent years, Abbott and Takeda, in a joint venture called TAP Pharmaceuticals, steadily marked up the price of their slow-release product. In 2000, the average wholesale U.S. price for a 3-month shot was $1,245; currently that figure is $5,866. (It is manufactured in the United States by AbbVie now.)

In the United Kingdom, where health care is generally free and Takeda sells the drug under the name Prostap, all physicians can purchase a 3-month dose for about $260.

It’s likely that Chicago Medicine, where Mr. Hinds got his shots, paid something close to the British price. That’s because the health system’s hospital on Chicago’s South Side participates in a federal program called 340B, which allows hospitals that serve low-income populations to purchase drugs at deep discounts.

Lupron Depot is given as a simple injection into the muscle. It takes minutes for a nurse or doctor to administer. Yet hospital systems like Chicago Medicine can and typically do charge lavishly for such services, to enhance revenue, said Morgan Henderson, principal data scientist at the Hilltop Institute at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. Chicago Medicine declined to say what it paid for the drug.

While U.S. drugmakers can price their drugs however they please, TAP has gotten into trouble for its Lupron sales policies in the past. In 2001, after a Justice Department probe, it paid an $875 million settlement for illegally stimulating sales by giving urologists free and discounted vials of the drug while enabling them to charge Medicare full price.

Since then, many other drugs aimed at lowering testosterone levels have entered the market, including a pill, relugolix (Orgovyx). So why wouldn’t a patient use them?

Lupron Depot is long acting, is easy to prepare and store, and employs a small needle, which some patients prefer, said Brian McNeil, MD, chief of urology at University Hospital of Brooklyn. Orgovyx is convenient, but “a patient has to be very compliant. They have to take it every day around the same time,” he said. “Some people just forget.”

But there is another important factor that may well explain Lupron Depot’s ongoing popularity among medical providers: Doctors and hospitals can earn tens of thousands of dollars each visit by marking up its price and administration fees – as they did with Mr. Hinds. If they merely write a prescription for a drug that can be taken at home, they earn nothing.

Asked about this high patient charge and the possibility of using alternatives, United spokesperson Maria Gordon Shydlo said payment was “appropriately based on the hospital’s contract and the member’s benefit plan,” adding that the insurer encourages customers to shop around for the best quality and price.

Resolution: In addition to leaving Mr. Hinds listless, the Lupron Depot shots were, literally, a pain in the rear end. “Each time he was miserable for 2 weeks,” Dr. Tenore said. After looking over his first bill for the Lupron shot, Dr. Tenore told Mr. Hinds he should ask his doctor whether there was a less expensive drug that was easier to take.

After the second shot, in August 2021, a pharmacist told him he could instead receive the pill. His doctor prescribed Mr. Hinds 3 months’ worth of Orgovyx last November, for which he paid $216 and the insurer paid over $6,000. The drug’s list price is about $2,700 a month. There is evidence that Orgovyx works a little better than leuprolide.

Orgovyx was a “no-brainer,” Mr. Hinds said. “Why would you want a sore ass for two weeks when you can take a pill that kicks in sooner, functions the same way, and clears your body of testosterone faster?”

While Orgovyx is increasingly used for prostate cancer, Lupron and other injections usually remain the standard of care, hospital spokesperson Ashley Heher said. Clinicians “work with patients to determine what treatments are the most medically effective and, when necessary, to find reasonable alternatives that may be less financially burdensome due to insurance coverage limitations.”

Mr. Hinds was baffled by the size of the charges. During months of phone calls and emails, the hospital reversed and then reapplied part of the charge, and then in July agreed to a $666.34 monthly payment plan. After Hinds had made two payments, however, the hospital announced Aug. 29 it was canceling the agreement and sending the remainder of his bill to a collection agency. Two weeks later, the hospital reinstated the payment plan – after KHN asked about the cancellation.

As for Mr. Hinds, he remains active, though his bike rides have been shortened from 50 or 60 miles to about 30, he said.

He’s grateful to have Dr. Tenore as a free consultant and empathizes with those who lack a knowledgeable guide through their disease and health care’s financial maze.

“I’ve got Dr. Josie as an advocate who knows the system,” Mr. Hinds said.

The takeaway: First tip: If you are prescribed an infusion or injection, ask your physician if there are cheaper oral medications to treat your condition. Also, many drugs that are given by injection – ones that are given “subcutaneously,” rather than into a muscle – can be administered by a patient at home, avoiding hefty administration fees. Drugs like Dupixent for eczema fall into this category.

Keep in mind that where you get treatment could make a big difference in your charges: A study found that leading U.S. cancer centers charge enormous markups to private insurers for drug injections or infusions. Another study found that hospital systems charge an average of 86% more than private clinics for cancer drug infusions. And the percentage of cancer infusions done in hospital-operated clinics increased from 6% in 2004 to 43% in 2014, and has grown since.

Under a law that took effect in 2021, hospitals are required to list their charges, though they currently do so in a way that is not user friendly. But it’s worth taking a look at the price list – the hospital chargemaster – to try to decipher the pricing and markup for your medicine. If you’re about to get an injection, infusion, or procedure done in a hospital system, ask ahead of time for an estimate of what you will owe.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

When 32-year-old Brittany Dicks was diagnosed with stage II triple negative breast cancer in January 2022, she wasn’t worried about the cost of treatment. A medical assistant in Charleston, S.C., Ms. Dicks had full-time employment with health benefits.

But when she wasn’t able to work for several months because of chemotherapy and its side effects, Ms. Dicks lost her job. Her health insurance coverage ended in May. And although she filed for Medicaid at the beginning of June, it wasn’t approved until September.

Meanwhile, Ms. Dicks still needed treatment. She estimates that she ran up close to $20,000 in medical debt while finishing chemotherapy during the 4 months she was uninsured.

The surgeon she had seen since her diagnosis terminated her care when she could no longer pay her bills. That left her delaying a much-needed mastectomy.

“I don’t sleep at night,” said Ms. Dicks, a single mother of two young kids, ages 3 and 11. “Mentally, I’m drained. Just because I have cancer, doesn’t mean the bills aren’t due every month.”

As soon as she felt well enough over the summer, she started working as a part-time delivery driver for DoorDash to help pay for food and gas.

But that was just a Band-Aid. Even when her new insurance kicked in, covering the costs of daily life remained a struggle.

Ms. Dicks is still in deep medical debt. Her Medicaid has covered new medical expenses, and she hopes Medicaid will reimburse her for the debt she incurred over the summer while she waited for her coverage to kick in. So far, though, Medicaid has not touched her $20,000 debt.

“I fear that I’m not going to be able to dig out of this hole,” Ms. Dicks said.

Researchers who study the financial impacts of cancer have a term for Ms. Dicks’ experience: financial toxicity.

Financial toxicity is a catchall term for the burden many Americans with cancer experience.

“Financial toxicity is a multidimensional concept. There’s both a material burden and a psychosocial one,” said Grace Li Smith, MD, PhD, MPH, a radiation oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Financial toxicity encompasses the direct costs of medical care, including copays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses for treatment and medications as well as the indirect costs from loss of income or savings associated with cancer care.

Researchers are also now beginning to understand the psychological effects these financial burdens can have on patients and their family.

“Financial toxicity is not unique to the patient,” said Dr. Li Smith. It “very directly impacts the whole family or household.”
 

Stifling financial pressures

Early in her career, Dr. Li Smith was already seeing how her patients’ worries extended beyond their physical disease.

One of Dr. Li Smith’s first patients told her their greatest worry wasn’t whether the treatment would work or what physical toxicity to expect, it was how they would pay for their care.

“There was much more anxiety and true distress about the financial burden than about the treatment itself,” Dr. Li Smith recalled.

This fear about the costs of cancer care is well founded. In the United States, cancer treatment costs reached an estimated $150 billion in 2020 and continue to rise. Patients shoulder a significant portion of that burden – with one study estimating that patients paid $21 billion for their cancer care in 2019.

The burden is often compounded by decreased income. Between 40% and 85% of patients with cancer needed to take time off work or quit their jobs during treatment. And for those, like Dicks, who find themselves with no insurance, out-of-pocket costs can quickly skyrocket.

In fact, one study of newly diagnosed cancer patients over age 50 reported that more than 42% of patients fully depleted their financial assets and around 30% incurred debt by the second year of their diagnosis.

Younger adults may be even more financially vulnerable. A study of patients in Washington found that those under 65 – which represent about half of cancer cases – were two to five times more likely to declare bankruptcy than patients over 65.

Dr. Li Smith and colleagues have found that younger patients aged 18-64 experienced greater monetary hardships, which meant less money for food, worse adherence to medications, as well as greater distress and anxiety overall. In fact, younger adults were over 4.5 times more likely to encounter severe financial toxicity, compared with older adults, and about 4 times more likely to experience severe psychological effects from this burden.

The distress, if left unchecked, can spiral out of control.

Molly MacDonald had just gone through a financially devastating divorce in 2005 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Recently out of work and dealing with a $1,300 monthly COBRA premium, the mother of five had no financial safety net. She risked having her car repossessed and her utilities shut off.

“I gave tentative thought to how I could take my life and make it look like an accident,” said Ms. MacDonald. “I thought the kids would be better off without me.”

For some, the loss of income can be even more worrisome than the medical bills. Some patients may go back to work during treatment, often against medical advice.

When Stephanie Caputo, 43, of Monroe, N.J., began treatment for stage III breast cancer in 2021, her physician recommended she stop working. Treatment would make her immunocompromised, and her job in a medical clinic could expose her to harmful pathogens, including the coronavirus.

Ms. Caputo went on disability and received $900 every 2 weeks. But that wasn’t enough to pay her mortgage, let alone cover her other monthly expenses as a single mother of 4 teenagers.

After finishing chemotherapy, and during radiation, Ms. Caputo went back to work, part time, against her doctor’s advice.

“My doctor is telling me I can’t work, but I also can’t have my house go into default,” said Ms. Caputo.

But being on her feet through 12-hour shifts made treatment side effects, especially back and joint pain, kick into overdrive. “The physicality of my job was really difficult to tolerate,” she said.

The physical burden was too great to take on more work, but the extra money also wasn’t enough to keep her afloat. Fortunately, her brother stepped in and covered 6 months of her mortgage payments.
 

Financial toxicity impacts families

Although financial toxicity research to date has largely focused on the patient, researchers are also starting to understand that family members and caregivers often share in the burden.

“We are just at the beginning of realizing that this is a real problem,” said Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Dr. Chino and colleagues recently showed that family members of patients with cancer were more likely to delay or forgo medical care than family members of people without cancer. The study found the effect was greatest among family members of younger adults with cancer.

“The caregiver and family burden related to cancer diagnosis and treatment is really underappreciated,” said Dr. Chino. “Family members and caregivers are neglecting their own health concerns, passing up career opportunities, struggling with financial concerns.”

Dr. Chino speaks from personal experience. When her fiancé, later husband, was diagnosed with neuroendocrine carcinoma in 2005, Dr. Chino quit her job as art director at a television production company to take care of him.

The couple, both in their 20s, struggled to afford his care. Dr. Chino put her own dental, medical, and mental health care on hold. She never, for instance, went to physical therapy to address injuries sustained sleeping in hospital chairs and moving around her husband who was over 6 feet tall. At one point, she walked with a limp.

Dr. Chino’s husband passed away in 2007, and even 15 years later, her injury from sleeping in hospital chairs remains “a significant physical burden,” she said. But like many caregivers “I wasn’t really thinking about my own health.”

Danielle Hadfield, 35, an ED nurse in Rochester, N.Y., also delayed her own care when her mom got sick.

Ms. Hadfield quit her job shortly after her mom was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma in August 2020. Ms. Hadfield knew her mom, who lived 3.5 hours away in Albany, N.Y., would need a lot of care in the upcoming months.

“I knew this was going to be the last year or so of her life, and I wanted to be there for her,” said Ms. Hadfield.

When Ms. Hadfield quit her job, she and her husband – who was self-employed – purchased health insurance coverage through the New York state marketplace. The monthly insurance payments for Ms. Hadfield, who was pregnant with her second child, her husband, and their toddler cost as much as the family’s monthly mortgage payments.

In addition to providing childcare for her young daughter and making frequent trips to Albany, Ms. Hadfield began a side business as a legal nurse consultant, working mostly at night, to replace a portion of her lost income. During this time, she began to experience pain attacks that would migrate through her body along with intermittent tongue and facial numbness. She ignored these health issues for nearly a year, until after her mother died in November 2021.

Only after her mother passed away did Ms. Hadfield begin seeking answers to her own pain. In September 2022, she finally got them. She had a nerve condition called small-fiber sensory neuropathy.

But even with a diagnosis, she is still facing more tests to root out the cause and understand the best treatment.
 

Is help out there?

What can physicians do to help patients and families at risk for financial toxicity?

Specific guidelines for dealing with financial toxicity do not exist in most professional guidelines, nor are there standard screening tools to identify it, said Dr. Li Smith.

These gaps put pressure on physicians to ask about financial barriers and concerns, but most do not know how to broach the topic or how to help. “Physicians may not know how to fix the problem or what resources exist,” Dr. Li Smith said.

Patients and family members, on the other hand, are often reluctant to bring up cost with physicians. Some may be ashamed to talk about their financial problems while others may fear doing so will prevent them from being offered the best possible treatments, said Ms. MacDonald.

But, experts say, financial toxicity needs to be dealt with head on. That means involving financial navigators or counselors and social workers who can, for instance, help patients and families find financial support for their basic living expenses.

From a research perspective, more clinical trials should include financial toxicity outcomes, said Joshua Palmer, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Palmer and colleagues recently showed that the number of radiation therapy clinical trials including financial toxicity endpoints increased significantly from 2001 to 2020, though the absolute rate of inclusion remains low, at roughly 1.5% of radiation therapy-based clinical trials including financial toxicity endpoints from 2016 to 2020.

“Financial burden is part of the broader discussion about shared decision-making,” said Dr. Palmer.

In shared decision-making, physicians discuss the risks and benefits of different treatment options, empowering the patient to make an informed choice with the physician.

What we want to avoid is patients feeling like they will get inferior care, if they have financial barriers, said Dr. Palmer.

And every little bit can help. In 2006, Ms. MacDonald started the Pink Fund – a nonprofit to help patients with cancer cover nonmedical cost-of-living expenses. Both Ms. Caputo and Ms. Dicks received grants from the Pink Fund. For Ms. Caputo, the funds covered 2 months of car payments and for Ms. Dicks, it covered 2 months of rent.

While the one-time grant was a big help, said Ms. Dicks, “cancer is an everyday thing.” And “we all deserve peace of mind” when trying to heal.

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

When 32-year-old Brittany Dicks was diagnosed with stage II triple negative breast cancer in January 2022, she wasn’t worried about the cost of treatment. A medical assistant in Charleston, S.C., Ms. Dicks had full-time employment with health benefits.

But when she wasn’t able to work for several months because of chemotherapy and its side effects, Ms. Dicks lost her job. Her health insurance coverage ended in May. And although she filed for Medicaid at the beginning of June, it wasn’t approved until September.

Meanwhile, Ms. Dicks still needed treatment. She estimates that she ran up close to $20,000 in medical debt while finishing chemotherapy during the 4 months she was uninsured.

The surgeon she had seen since her diagnosis terminated her care when she could no longer pay her bills. That left her delaying a much-needed mastectomy.

“I don’t sleep at night,” said Ms. Dicks, a single mother of two young kids, ages 3 and 11. “Mentally, I’m drained. Just because I have cancer, doesn’t mean the bills aren’t due every month.”

As soon as she felt well enough over the summer, she started working as a part-time delivery driver for DoorDash to help pay for food and gas.

But that was just a Band-Aid. Even when her new insurance kicked in, covering the costs of daily life remained a struggle.

Ms. Dicks is still in deep medical debt. Her Medicaid has covered new medical expenses, and she hopes Medicaid will reimburse her for the debt she incurred over the summer while she waited for her coverage to kick in. So far, though, Medicaid has not touched her $20,000 debt.

“I fear that I’m not going to be able to dig out of this hole,” Ms. Dicks said.

Researchers who study the financial impacts of cancer have a term for Ms. Dicks’ experience: financial toxicity.

Financial toxicity is a catchall term for the burden many Americans with cancer experience.

“Financial toxicity is a multidimensional concept. There’s both a material burden and a psychosocial one,” said Grace Li Smith, MD, PhD, MPH, a radiation oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Financial toxicity encompasses the direct costs of medical care, including copays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses for treatment and medications as well as the indirect costs from loss of income or savings associated with cancer care.

Researchers are also now beginning to understand the psychological effects these financial burdens can have on patients and their family.

“Financial toxicity is not unique to the patient,” said Dr. Li Smith. It “very directly impacts the whole family or household.”
 

Stifling financial pressures

Early in her career, Dr. Li Smith was already seeing how her patients’ worries extended beyond their physical disease.

One of Dr. Li Smith’s first patients told her their greatest worry wasn’t whether the treatment would work or what physical toxicity to expect, it was how they would pay for their care.

“There was much more anxiety and true distress about the financial burden than about the treatment itself,” Dr. Li Smith recalled.

This fear about the costs of cancer care is well founded. In the United States, cancer treatment costs reached an estimated $150 billion in 2020 and continue to rise. Patients shoulder a significant portion of that burden – with one study estimating that patients paid $21 billion for their cancer care in 2019.

The burden is often compounded by decreased income. Between 40% and 85% of patients with cancer needed to take time off work or quit their jobs during treatment. And for those, like Dicks, who find themselves with no insurance, out-of-pocket costs can quickly skyrocket.

In fact, one study of newly diagnosed cancer patients over age 50 reported that more than 42% of patients fully depleted their financial assets and around 30% incurred debt by the second year of their diagnosis.

Younger adults may be even more financially vulnerable. A study of patients in Washington found that those under 65 – which represent about half of cancer cases – were two to five times more likely to declare bankruptcy than patients over 65.

Dr. Li Smith and colleagues have found that younger patients aged 18-64 experienced greater monetary hardships, which meant less money for food, worse adherence to medications, as well as greater distress and anxiety overall. In fact, younger adults were over 4.5 times more likely to encounter severe financial toxicity, compared with older adults, and about 4 times more likely to experience severe psychological effects from this burden.

The distress, if left unchecked, can spiral out of control.

Molly MacDonald had just gone through a financially devastating divorce in 2005 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Recently out of work and dealing with a $1,300 monthly COBRA premium, the mother of five had no financial safety net. She risked having her car repossessed and her utilities shut off.

“I gave tentative thought to how I could take my life and make it look like an accident,” said Ms. MacDonald. “I thought the kids would be better off without me.”

For some, the loss of income can be even more worrisome than the medical bills. Some patients may go back to work during treatment, often against medical advice.

When Stephanie Caputo, 43, of Monroe, N.J., began treatment for stage III breast cancer in 2021, her physician recommended she stop working. Treatment would make her immunocompromised, and her job in a medical clinic could expose her to harmful pathogens, including the coronavirus.

Ms. Caputo went on disability and received $900 every 2 weeks. But that wasn’t enough to pay her mortgage, let alone cover her other monthly expenses as a single mother of 4 teenagers.

After finishing chemotherapy, and during radiation, Ms. Caputo went back to work, part time, against her doctor’s advice.

“My doctor is telling me I can’t work, but I also can’t have my house go into default,” said Ms. Caputo.

But being on her feet through 12-hour shifts made treatment side effects, especially back and joint pain, kick into overdrive. “The physicality of my job was really difficult to tolerate,” she said.

The physical burden was too great to take on more work, but the extra money also wasn’t enough to keep her afloat. Fortunately, her brother stepped in and covered 6 months of her mortgage payments.
 

Financial toxicity impacts families

Although financial toxicity research to date has largely focused on the patient, researchers are also starting to understand that family members and caregivers often share in the burden.

“We are just at the beginning of realizing that this is a real problem,” said Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Dr. Chino and colleagues recently showed that family members of patients with cancer were more likely to delay or forgo medical care than family members of people without cancer. The study found the effect was greatest among family members of younger adults with cancer.

“The caregiver and family burden related to cancer diagnosis and treatment is really underappreciated,” said Dr. Chino. “Family members and caregivers are neglecting their own health concerns, passing up career opportunities, struggling with financial concerns.”

Dr. Chino speaks from personal experience. When her fiancé, later husband, was diagnosed with neuroendocrine carcinoma in 2005, Dr. Chino quit her job as art director at a television production company to take care of him.

The couple, both in their 20s, struggled to afford his care. Dr. Chino put her own dental, medical, and mental health care on hold. She never, for instance, went to physical therapy to address injuries sustained sleeping in hospital chairs and moving around her husband who was over 6 feet tall. At one point, she walked with a limp.

Dr. Chino’s husband passed away in 2007, and even 15 years later, her injury from sleeping in hospital chairs remains “a significant physical burden,” she said. But like many caregivers “I wasn’t really thinking about my own health.”

Danielle Hadfield, 35, an ED nurse in Rochester, N.Y., also delayed her own care when her mom got sick.

Ms. Hadfield quit her job shortly after her mom was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma in August 2020. Ms. Hadfield knew her mom, who lived 3.5 hours away in Albany, N.Y., would need a lot of care in the upcoming months.

“I knew this was going to be the last year or so of her life, and I wanted to be there for her,” said Ms. Hadfield.

When Ms. Hadfield quit her job, she and her husband – who was self-employed – purchased health insurance coverage through the New York state marketplace. The monthly insurance payments for Ms. Hadfield, who was pregnant with her second child, her husband, and their toddler cost as much as the family’s monthly mortgage payments.

In addition to providing childcare for her young daughter and making frequent trips to Albany, Ms. Hadfield began a side business as a legal nurse consultant, working mostly at night, to replace a portion of her lost income. During this time, she began to experience pain attacks that would migrate through her body along with intermittent tongue and facial numbness. She ignored these health issues for nearly a year, until after her mother died in November 2021.

Only after her mother passed away did Ms. Hadfield begin seeking answers to her own pain. In September 2022, she finally got them. She had a nerve condition called small-fiber sensory neuropathy.

But even with a diagnosis, she is still facing more tests to root out the cause and understand the best treatment.
 

Is help out there?

What can physicians do to help patients and families at risk for financial toxicity?

Specific guidelines for dealing with financial toxicity do not exist in most professional guidelines, nor are there standard screening tools to identify it, said Dr. Li Smith.

These gaps put pressure on physicians to ask about financial barriers and concerns, but most do not know how to broach the topic or how to help. “Physicians may not know how to fix the problem or what resources exist,” Dr. Li Smith said.

Patients and family members, on the other hand, are often reluctant to bring up cost with physicians. Some may be ashamed to talk about their financial problems while others may fear doing so will prevent them from being offered the best possible treatments, said Ms. MacDonald.

But, experts say, financial toxicity needs to be dealt with head on. That means involving financial navigators or counselors and social workers who can, for instance, help patients and families find financial support for their basic living expenses.

From a research perspective, more clinical trials should include financial toxicity outcomes, said Joshua Palmer, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Palmer and colleagues recently showed that the number of radiation therapy clinical trials including financial toxicity endpoints increased significantly from 2001 to 2020, though the absolute rate of inclusion remains low, at roughly 1.5% of radiation therapy-based clinical trials including financial toxicity endpoints from 2016 to 2020.

“Financial burden is part of the broader discussion about shared decision-making,” said Dr. Palmer.

In shared decision-making, physicians discuss the risks and benefits of different treatment options, empowering the patient to make an informed choice with the physician.

What we want to avoid is patients feeling like they will get inferior care, if they have financial barriers, said Dr. Palmer.

And every little bit can help. In 2006, Ms. MacDonald started the Pink Fund – a nonprofit to help patients with cancer cover nonmedical cost-of-living expenses. Both Ms. Caputo and Ms. Dicks received grants from the Pink Fund. For Ms. Caputo, the funds covered 2 months of car payments and for Ms. Dicks, it covered 2 months of rent.

While the one-time grant was a big help, said Ms. Dicks, “cancer is an everyday thing.” And “we all deserve peace of mind” when trying to heal.

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

When 32-year-old Brittany Dicks was diagnosed with stage II triple negative breast cancer in January 2022, she wasn’t worried about the cost of treatment. A medical assistant in Charleston, S.C., Ms. Dicks had full-time employment with health benefits.

But when she wasn’t able to work for several months because of chemotherapy and its side effects, Ms. Dicks lost her job. Her health insurance coverage ended in May. And although she filed for Medicaid at the beginning of June, it wasn’t approved until September.

Meanwhile, Ms. Dicks still needed treatment. She estimates that she ran up close to $20,000 in medical debt while finishing chemotherapy during the 4 months she was uninsured.

The surgeon she had seen since her diagnosis terminated her care when she could no longer pay her bills. That left her delaying a much-needed mastectomy.

“I don’t sleep at night,” said Ms. Dicks, a single mother of two young kids, ages 3 and 11. “Mentally, I’m drained. Just because I have cancer, doesn’t mean the bills aren’t due every month.”

As soon as she felt well enough over the summer, she started working as a part-time delivery driver for DoorDash to help pay for food and gas.

But that was just a Band-Aid. Even when her new insurance kicked in, covering the costs of daily life remained a struggle.

Ms. Dicks is still in deep medical debt. Her Medicaid has covered new medical expenses, and she hopes Medicaid will reimburse her for the debt she incurred over the summer while she waited for her coverage to kick in. So far, though, Medicaid has not touched her $20,000 debt.

“I fear that I’m not going to be able to dig out of this hole,” Ms. Dicks said.

Researchers who study the financial impacts of cancer have a term for Ms. Dicks’ experience: financial toxicity.

Financial toxicity is a catchall term for the burden many Americans with cancer experience.

“Financial toxicity is a multidimensional concept. There’s both a material burden and a psychosocial one,” said Grace Li Smith, MD, PhD, MPH, a radiation oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Financial toxicity encompasses the direct costs of medical care, including copays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket expenses for treatment and medications as well as the indirect costs from loss of income or savings associated with cancer care.

Researchers are also now beginning to understand the psychological effects these financial burdens can have on patients and their family.

“Financial toxicity is not unique to the patient,” said Dr. Li Smith. It “very directly impacts the whole family or household.”
 

Stifling financial pressures

Early in her career, Dr. Li Smith was already seeing how her patients’ worries extended beyond their physical disease.

One of Dr. Li Smith’s first patients told her their greatest worry wasn’t whether the treatment would work or what physical toxicity to expect, it was how they would pay for their care.

“There was much more anxiety and true distress about the financial burden than about the treatment itself,” Dr. Li Smith recalled.

This fear about the costs of cancer care is well founded. In the United States, cancer treatment costs reached an estimated $150 billion in 2020 and continue to rise. Patients shoulder a significant portion of that burden – with one study estimating that patients paid $21 billion for their cancer care in 2019.

The burden is often compounded by decreased income. Between 40% and 85% of patients with cancer needed to take time off work or quit their jobs during treatment. And for those, like Dicks, who find themselves with no insurance, out-of-pocket costs can quickly skyrocket.

In fact, one study of newly diagnosed cancer patients over age 50 reported that more than 42% of patients fully depleted their financial assets and around 30% incurred debt by the second year of their diagnosis.

Younger adults may be even more financially vulnerable. A study of patients in Washington found that those under 65 – which represent about half of cancer cases – were two to five times more likely to declare bankruptcy than patients over 65.

Dr. Li Smith and colleagues have found that younger patients aged 18-64 experienced greater monetary hardships, which meant less money for food, worse adherence to medications, as well as greater distress and anxiety overall. In fact, younger adults were over 4.5 times more likely to encounter severe financial toxicity, compared with older adults, and about 4 times more likely to experience severe psychological effects from this burden.

The distress, if left unchecked, can spiral out of control.

Molly MacDonald had just gone through a financially devastating divorce in 2005 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Recently out of work and dealing with a $1,300 monthly COBRA premium, the mother of five had no financial safety net. She risked having her car repossessed and her utilities shut off.

“I gave tentative thought to how I could take my life and make it look like an accident,” said Ms. MacDonald. “I thought the kids would be better off without me.”

For some, the loss of income can be even more worrisome than the medical bills. Some patients may go back to work during treatment, often against medical advice.

When Stephanie Caputo, 43, of Monroe, N.J., began treatment for stage III breast cancer in 2021, her physician recommended she stop working. Treatment would make her immunocompromised, and her job in a medical clinic could expose her to harmful pathogens, including the coronavirus.

Ms. Caputo went on disability and received $900 every 2 weeks. But that wasn’t enough to pay her mortgage, let alone cover her other monthly expenses as a single mother of 4 teenagers.

After finishing chemotherapy, and during radiation, Ms. Caputo went back to work, part time, against her doctor’s advice.

“My doctor is telling me I can’t work, but I also can’t have my house go into default,” said Ms. Caputo.

But being on her feet through 12-hour shifts made treatment side effects, especially back and joint pain, kick into overdrive. “The physicality of my job was really difficult to tolerate,” she said.

The physical burden was too great to take on more work, but the extra money also wasn’t enough to keep her afloat. Fortunately, her brother stepped in and covered 6 months of her mortgage payments.
 

Financial toxicity impacts families

Although financial toxicity research to date has largely focused on the patient, researchers are also starting to understand that family members and caregivers often share in the burden.

“We are just at the beginning of realizing that this is a real problem,” said Fumiko Chino, MD, a radiation oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Dr. Chino and colleagues recently showed that family members of patients with cancer were more likely to delay or forgo medical care than family members of people without cancer. The study found the effect was greatest among family members of younger adults with cancer.

“The caregiver and family burden related to cancer diagnosis and treatment is really underappreciated,” said Dr. Chino. “Family members and caregivers are neglecting their own health concerns, passing up career opportunities, struggling with financial concerns.”

Dr. Chino speaks from personal experience. When her fiancé, later husband, was diagnosed with neuroendocrine carcinoma in 2005, Dr. Chino quit her job as art director at a television production company to take care of him.

The couple, both in their 20s, struggled to afford his care. Dr. Chino put her own dental, medical, and mental health care on hold. She never, for instance, went to physical therapy to address injuries sustained sleeping in hospital chairs and moving around her husband who was over 6 feet tall. At one point, she walked with a limp.

Dr. Chino’s husband passed away in 2007, and even 15 years later, her injury from sleeping in hospital chairs remains “a significant physical burden,” she said. But like many caregivers “I wasn’t really thinking about my own health.”

Danielle Hadfield, 35, an ED nurse in Rochester, N.Y., also delayed her own care when her mom got sick.

Ms. Hadfield quit her job shortly after her mom was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma in August 2020. Ms. Hadfield knew her mom, who lived 3.5 hours away in Albany, N.Y., would need a lot of care in the upcoming months.

“I knew this was going to be the last year or so of her life, and I wanted to be there for her,” said Ms. Hadfield.

When Ms. Hadfield quit her job, she and her husband – who was self-employed – purchased health insurance coverage through the New York state marketplace. The monthly insurance payments for Ms. Hadfield, who was pregnant with her second child, her husband, and their toddler cost as much as the family’s monthly mortgage payments.

In addition to providing childcare for her young daughter and making frequent trips to Albany, Ms. Hadfield began a side business as a legal nurse consultant, working mostly at night, to replace a portion of her lost income. During this time, she began to experience pain attacks that would migrate through her body along with intermittent tongue and facial numbness. She ignored these health issues for nearly a year, until after her mother died in November 2021.

Only after her mother passed away did Ms. Hadfield begin seeking answers to her own pain. In September 2022, she finally got them. She had a nerve condition called small-fiber sensory neuropathy.

But even with a diagnosis, she is still facing more tests to root out the cause and understand the best treatment.
 

Is help out there?

What can physicians do to help patients and families at risk for financial toxicity?

Specific guidelines for dealing with financial toxicity do not exist in most professional guidelines, nor are there standard screening tools to identify it, said Dr. Li Smith.

These gaps put pressure on physicians to ask about financial barriers and concerns, but most do not know how to broach the topic or how to help. “Physicians may not know how to fix the problem or what resources exist,” Dr. Li Smith said.

Patients and family members, on the other hand, are often reluctant to bring up cost with physicians. Some may be ashamed to talk about their financial problems while others may fear doing so will prevent them from being offered the best possible treatments, said Ms. MacDonald.

But, experts say, financial toxicity needs to be dealt with head on. That means involving financial navigators or counselors and social workers who can, for instance, help patients and families find financial support for their basic living expenses.

From a research perspective, more clinical trials should include financial toxicity outcomes, said Joshua Palmer, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Palmer and colleagues recently showed that the number of radiation therapy clinical trials including financial toxicity endpoints increased significantly from 2001 to 2020, though the absolute rate of inclusion remains low, at roughly 1.5% of radiation therapy-based clinical trials including financial toxicity endpoints from 2016 to 2020.

“Financial burden is part of the broader discussion about shared decision-making,” said Dr. Palmer.

In shared decision-making, physicians discuss the risks and benefits of different treatment options, empowering the patient to make an informed choice with the physician.

What we want to avoid is patients feeling like they will get inferior care, if they have financial barriers, said Dr. Palmer.

And every little bit can help. In 2006, Ms. MacDonald started the Pink Fund – a nonprofit to help patients with cancer cover nonmedical cost-of-living expenses. Both Ms. Caputo and Ms. Dicks received grants from the Pink Fund. For Ms. Caputo, the funds covered 2 months of car payments and for Ms. Dicks, it covered 2 months of rent.

While the one-time grant was a big help, said Ms. Dicks, “cancer is an everyday thing.” And “we all deserve peace of mind” when trying to heal.

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

SAN DIEGO—Don’t stand when you talk at bedside. Ditch the white gowns, turn away from your computers and pagers, and stop yourself from interrupting all the time.

These tips—and more—can help clinicians provide better and more effective care, said a colorectal surgeon who spoke about communication skills at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).

Research has suggested that nearly half of Americans don’t think their health care practitioners (HCPs) are compassionate, “and that’s really sad,” said Lorene Valdez-Boyle, MD, MS, surgery chief at the New Mexico VA Health Care Service.

To combat this perception, she said, HCPs can adopt multiple strategies as they work with veterans and their families. The goal, she said, is “to try to get them to trust you and want to be part of their treatment. This is how we're going to have better outcomes.”

Some strategies are simple. Dr. Valdez-Boyle, for example, doesn’t wear a white gown when she sees patients. “Obviously, they’re really gross,” she said. “But also, I want them to be comfortable with me. I sit down at their level, and we have a conversation. We talk about our dogs and we bond, because that’s going to help them trust me and want to work with me. I do that with families too. We joke, and we laugh.”

Sitting bedside instead of standing is important, she said, and a 2016 study backs up this idea. “It’s difficult when you’re running around or you want to get to the next one, and the patient just keeps talking,” she said. But research showed that “when the clinician sat, the patient felt like they listened more carefully, and they explained things in a better way that was much easier for them to understand. They definitely had an improved perception of their [clinician’s] communication skills.”

She highlighted another 2016 study that examined a Commit to Sit initiative in which nurses were urged to sit with patients during each shift. Nurse communication scores and overall patient experience scores went up.

The VA now has a Commit to Sit initiative, which urges clinicians to put away computers, smart phones, and pagers. “The patient feels that we’ve listened more intently to their concerns and care more about them as a patient,” Dr. Valdez-Boyle said. “We have an improved understanding of their health as a result of this. It allows the site employee to continue to be efficient while still delivering compassionate care and fosters trusted relationships in an empathetic and respectful manner.”

For more about the initiative, visit the VA PX SharePoint.

The VA, she said, also has a Take a Moment initiative that emphasizes eye contact, face-to-face interaction without electronics for at least the first 5 minutes of each visit, and seated conversations.

Dr. Valdez-Boyle also urged colleagues to pay attention to how often they interrupt. She pointed to a 2019 study that reported that patients had a median of 11 seconds—yes, seconds—to explain their problem in two-thirds of clinician encounters. “I think some of it is because we think we know what they're going to say.”

In the age of COVID-19, she suggested turning to fist or elbow bumps instead of handshakes. And she said, let patients wear street clothes when appropriate so they’re more comfortable. 

In the big picture, she said, good communication and a commitment to shared decision making “really create a shared responsibility. They give your patients ownership over their disease and the ability to make the decisions with their team.

Dr. Valdez-Boyle reported no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO—Don’t stand when you talk at bedside. Ditch the white gowns, turn away from your computers and pagers, and stop yourself from interrupting all the time.

These tips—and more—can help clinicians provide better and more effective care, said a colorectal surgeon who spoke about communication skills at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).

Research has suggested that nearly half of Americans don’t think their health care practitioners (HCPs) are compassionate, “and that’s really sad,” said Lorene Valdez-Boyle, MD, MS, surgery chief at the New Mexico VA Health Care Service.

To combat this perception, she said, HCPs can adopt multiple strategies as they work with veterans and their families. The goal, she said, is “to try to get them to trust you and want to be part of their treatment. This is how we're going to have better outcomes.”

Some strategies are simple. Dr. Valdez-Boyle, for example, doesn’t wear a white gown when she sees patients. “Obviously, they’re really gross,” she said. “But also, I want them to be comfortable with me. I sit down at their level, and we have a conversation. We talk about our dogs and we bond, because that’s going to help them trust me and want to work with me. I do that with families too. We joke, and we laugh.”

Sitting bedside instead of standing is important, she said, and a 2016 study backs up this idea. “It’s difficult when you’re running around or you want to get to the next one, and the patient just keeps talking,” she said. But research showed that “when the clinician sat, the patient felt like they listened more carefully, and they explained things in a better way that was much easier for them to understand. They definitely had an improved perception of their [clinician’s] communication skills.”

She highlighted another 2016 study that examined a Commit to Sit initiative in which nurses were urged to sit with patients during each shift. Nurse communication scores and overall patient experience scores went up.

The VA now has a Commit to Sit initiative, which urges clinicians to put away computers, smart phones, and pagers. “The patient feels that we’ve listened more intently to their concerns and care more about them as a patient,” Dr. Valdez-Boyle said. “We have an improved understanding of their health as a result of this. It allows the site employee to continue to be efficient while still delivering compassionate care and fosters trusted relationships in an empathetic and respectful manner.”

For more about the initiative, visit the VA PX SharePoint.

The VA, she said, also has a Take a Moment initiative that emphasizes eye contact, face-to-face interaction without electronics for at least the first 5 minutes of each visit, and seated conversations.

Dr. Valdez-Boyle also urged colleagues to pay attention to how often they interrupt. She pointed to a 2019 study that reported that patients had a median of 11 seconds—yes, seconds—to explain their problem in two-thirds of clinician encounters. “I think some of it is because we think we know what they're going to say.”

In the age of COVID-19, she suggested turning to fist or elbow bumps instead of handshakes. And she said, let patients wear street clothes when appropriate so they’re more comfortable. 

In the big picture, she said, good communication and a commitment to shared decision making “really create a shared responsibility. They give your patients ownership over their disease and the ability to make the decisions with their team.

Dr. Valdez-Boyle reported no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO—Don’t stand when you talk at bedside. Ditch the white gowns, turn away from your computers and pagers, and stop yourself from interrupting all the time.

These tips—and more—can help clinicians provide better and more effective care, said a colorectal surgeon who spoke about communication skills at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).

Research has suggested that nearly half of Americans don’t think their health care practitioners (HCPs) are compassionate, “and that’s really sad,” said Lorene Valdez-Boyle, MD, MS, surgery chief at the New Mexico VA Health Care Service.

To combat this perception, she said, HCPs can adopt multiple strategies as they work with veterans and their families. The goal, she said, is “to try to get them to trust you and want to be part of their treatment. This is how we're going to have better outcomes.”

Some strategies are simple. Dr. Valdez-Boyle, for example, doesn’t wear a white gown when she sees patients. “Obviously, they’re really gross,” she said. “But also, I want them to be comfortable with me. I sit down at their level, and we have a conversation. We talk about our dogs and we bond, because that’s going to help them trust me and want to work with me. I do that with families too. We joke, and we laugh.”

Sitting bedside instead of standing is important, she said, and a 2016 study backs up this idea. “It’s difficult when you’re running around or you want to get to the next one, and the patient just keeps talking,” she said. But research showed that “when the clinician sat, the patient felt like they listened more carefully, and they explained things in a better way that was much easier for them to understand. They definitely had an improved perception of their [clinician’s] communication skills.”

She highlighted another 2016 study that examined a Commit to Sit initiative in which nurses were urged to sit with patients during each shift. Nurse communication scores and overall patient experience scores went up.

The VA now has a Commit to Sit initiative, which urges clinicians to put away computers, smart phones, and pagers. “The patient feels that we’ve listened more intently to their concerns and care more about them as a patient,” Dr. Valdez-Boyle said. “We have an improved understanding of their health as a result of this. It allows the site employee to continue to be efficient while still delivering compassionate care and fosters trusted relationships in an empathetic and respectful manner.”

For more about the initiative, visit the VA PX SharePoint.

The VA, she said, also has a Take a Moment initiative that emphasizes eye contact, face-to-face interaction without electronics for at least the first 5 minutes of each visit, and seated conversations.

Dr. Valdez-Boyle also urged colleagues to pay attention to how often they interrupt. She pointed to a 2019 study that reported that patients had a median of 11 seconds—yes, seconds—to explain their problem in two-thirds of clinician encounters. “I think some of it is because we think we know what they're going to say.”

In the age of COVID-19, she suggested turning to fist or elbow bumps instead of handshakes. And she said, let patients wear street clothes when appropriate so they’re more comfortable. 

In the big picture, she said, good communication and a commitment to shared decision making “really create a shared responsibility. They give your patients ownership over their disease and the ability to make the decisions with their team.

Dr. Valdez-Boyle reported no disclosures.

New efficacy and safety data from the monarchE study show that chemotherapy administered before treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy, led to a clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival for women with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence.

The study was published earlier this year in JAMA Oncology.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is often provided to such patients in hopes of achieving breast-conserving surgery. Although pathologic complete response rates can be higher than 50% after chemotherapy treatment in triple-negative and ERBB2-positive breast cancer, most patients with HR-positive and ERBB2-negative breast cancer have residual tumor at surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is associated with an increased risk of recurrence.

Adjuvant estrogen therapy can reduce the risk of recurrence in this population, but a significant hazard remains.

“To our knowledge, abemaciclib is the first agent added to standard adjuvant estrogen therapy that has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative early breast cancer with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who were led by Miguel Martin, MD, PhD, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Spain.

In 2021, Food and Drug Administration approved abemaciclib (Verzenio, Lilly) with endocrine therapy for the treatment of HR-positive/ERBB2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer. Their decision was based on data from the monarchE study.

The study is at odds with the previously published Penelope-B study, which found no benefit from treatment with the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (Ibrance, Pfizer) after 42.8 months of follow-up. The authors suggest that the disparate outcomes may be due to pharmacological differences between the two drugs as well as different dosing schedules: In monarchE, patients received abemaciclib on a continuous basis, while patients in Penelope-B received palbociclib for 21 days, followed by 7 days off. The treatment duration was 2 years in monarchE and 1 year in Penelope-B. Abemaciclib can be dosed continuously because it is a stronger inhibitor of CDK4 versus CDK6 compared to abemaciclib, and in vitro studies suggest that continuous dosing could be a key factor in creating profound inhibition of DNA synthesis.

The monarchE study included 5,637 patients who were randomized to receive standard of care estrogen therapy for 5 years with or without abemaciclib (150 mg, twice per day) for 2 years; 36.5% received abemaciclib. The mean age was 49.9 years; 70.8% were White, 22.8% Asian, and 2.7% Black.

The abemaciclib group had a clinically and statistically significant benefit in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) (hazard ratio, 0.61; nominal P < .001) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) (HR, 0.61; nominal P < .001). At 2 years, DRFS was 89.5% in the abemaciclib group and 82.8% in the estrogen therapy–only group. IDFS was 87.2% and 80.6%, respectively. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a similar safety profile to the estrogen therapy–only group, although there was a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common were diarrhea, infections, neutropenia, and fatigue. The most frequent grade treatment-emergent adverse events (of at least 3) were neutropenia and leucopenia.

The researchers noted that patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a worse prognosis than the intent-to-treat arm, as evidenced by a higher risk of 2-year recurrence (19% versus 11%). Exploratory subgroup analyses revealed that treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy conferred IDFS and DRFS benefits regardless of the pathological tumor size and number of positive axillary lymph nodes.

The study was limited by the fact that it was open label, and the subgroup analyses were not powered to find statistically significant associations.

Dr. Martin has received grants from Eli Lilly, which funded monarchE.

New efficacy and safety data from the monarchE study show that chemotherapy administered before treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy, led to a clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival for women with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence.

The study was published earlier this year in JAMA Oncology.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is often provided to such patients in hopes of achieving breast-conserving surgery. Although pathologic complete response rates can be higher than 50% after chemotherapy treatment in triple-negative and ERBB2-positive breast cancer, most patients with HR-positive and ERBB2-negative breast cancer have residual tumor at surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is associated with an increased risk of recurrence.

Adjuvant estrogen therapy can reduce the risk of recurrence in this population, but a significant hazard remains.

“To our knowledge, abemaciclib is the first agent added to standard adjuvant estrogen therapy that has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative early breast cancer with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who were led by Miguel Martin, MD, PhD, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Spain.

In 2021, Food and Drug Administration approved abemaciclib (Verzenio, Lilly) with endocrine therapy for the treatment of HR-positive/ERBB2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer. Their decision was based on data from the monarchE study.

The study is at odds with the previously published Penelope-B study, which found no benefit from treatment with the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (Ibrance, Pfizer) after 42.8 months of follow-up. The authors suggest that the disparate outcomes may be due to pharmacological differences between the two drugs as well as different dosing schedules: In monarchE, patients received abemaciclib on a continuous basis, while patients in Penelope-B received palbociclib for 21 days, followed by 7 days off. The treatment duration was 2 years in monarchE and 1 year in Penelope-B. Abemaciclib can be dosed continuously because it is a stronger inhibitor of CDK4 versus CDK6 compared to abemaciclib, and in vitro studies suggest that continuous dosing could be a key factor in creating profound inhibition of DNA synthesis.

The monarchE study included 5,637 patients who were randomized to receive standard of care estrogen therapy for 5 years with or without abemaciclib (150 mg, twice per day) for 2 years; 36.5% received abemaciclib. The mean age was 49.9 years; 70.8% were White, 22.8% Asian, and 2.7% Black.

The abemaciclib group had a clinically and statistically significant benefit in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) (hazard ratio, 0.61; nominal P < .001) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) (HR, 0.61; nominal P < .001). At 2 years, DRFS was 89.5% in the abemaciclib group and 82.8% in the estrogen therapy–only group. IDFS was 87.2% and 80.6%, respectively. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a similar safety profile to the estrogen therapy–only group, although there was a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common were diarrhea, infections, neutropenia, and fatigue. The most frequent grade treatment-emergent adverse events (of at least 3) were neutropenia and leucopenia.

The researchers noted that patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a worse prognosis than the intent-to-treat arm, as evidenced by a higher risk of 2-year recurrence (19% versus 11%). Exploratory subgroup analyses revealed that treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy conferred IDFS and DRFS benefits regardless of the pathological tumor size and number of positive axillary lymph nodes.

The study was limited by the fact that it was open label, and the subgroup analyses were not powered to find statistically significant associations.

Dr. Martin has received grants from Eli Lilly, which funded monarchE.

New efficacy and safety data from the monarchE study show that chemotherapy administered before treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy, led to a clinically meaningful improvement in invasive disease-free survival and distant relapse-free survival for women with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative, node-positive, early breast cancer at high risk of recurrence.

The study was published earlier this year in JAMA Oncology.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is often provided to such patients in hopes of achieving breast-conserving surgery. Although pathologic complete response rates can be higher than 50% after chemotherapy treatment in triple-negative and ERBB2-positive breast cancer, most patients with HR-positive and ERBB2-negative breast cancer have residual tumor at surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is associated with an increased risk of recurrence.

Adjuvant estrogen therapy can reduce the risk of recurrence in this population, but a significant hazard remains.

“To our knowledge, abemaciclib is the first agent added to standard adjuvant estrogen therapy that has been shown to reduce the risk of recurrence in patients with HR-positive, ERBB2-negative early breast cancer with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” wrote the authors, who were led by Miguel Martin, MD, PhD, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Spain.

In 2021, Food and Drug Administration approved abemaciclib (Verzenio, Lilly) with endocrine therapy for the treatment of HR-positive/ERBB2-negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer. Their decision was based on data from the monarchE study.

The study is at odds with the previously published Penelope-B study, which found no benefit from treatment with the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (Ibrance, Pfizer) after 42.8 months of follow-up. The authors suggest that the disparate outcomes may be due to pharmacological differences between the two drugs as well as different dosing schedules: In monarchE, patients received abemaciclib on a continuous basis, while patients in Penelope-B received palbociclib for 21 days, followed by 7 days off. The treatment duration was 2 years in monarchE and 1 year in Penelope-B. Abemaciclib can be dosed continuously because it is a stronger inhibitor of CDK4 versus CDK6 compared to abemaciclib, and in vitro studies suggest that continuous dosing could be a key factor in creating profound inhibition of DNA synthesis.

The monarchE study included 5,637 patients who were randomized to receive standard of care estrogen therapy for 5 years with or without abemaciclib (150 mg, twice per day) for 2 years; 36.5% received abemaciclib. The mean age was 49.9 years; 70.8% were White, 22.8% Asian, and 2.7% Black.

The abemaciclib group had a clinically and statistically significant benefit in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) (hazard ratio, 0.61; nominal P < .001) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) (HR, 0.61; nominal P < .001). At 2 years, DRFS was 89.5% in the abemaciclib group and 82.8% in the estrogen therapy–only group. IDFS was 87.2% and 80.6%, respectively. Patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a similar safety profile to the estrogen therapy–only group, although there was a higher incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common were diarrhea, infections, neutropenia, and fatigue. The most frequent grade treatment-emergent adverse events (of at least 3) were neutropenia and leucopenia.

The researchers noted that patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy had a worse prognosis than the intent-to-treat arm, as evidenced by a higher risk of 2-year recurrence (19% versus 11%). Exploratory subgroup analyses revealed that treatment with abemaciclib and estrogen therapy conferred IDFS and DRFS benefits regardless of the pathological tumor size and number of positive axillary lymph nodes.

The study was limited by the fact that it was open label, and the subgroup analyses were not powered to find statistically significant associations.

Dr. Martin has received grants from Eli Lilly, which funded monarchE.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – In a small proof-of-concept study, patients with small unresectable pancreatic cancers treated with endoscopic ultrasound–guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) had a more than twofold improvement in overall survival compared with historical controls with a similar disease history, investigators in Thailand found.

In a weighted analysis, median weighted overall survival – the primary outcome – was 14 months among 11 patients who underwent EUS-RFA, compared with 6.1 months for 35 matched controls, translating into a hazard ratio for death with EUS-RFA of 0.38 (P = .016), reported Chawin Lopimpisuth, MD, from King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand.

Median weighted progression-free survival (PFS) was longer among cases than controls, but did not differ significantly, at 6.1 months and 3.9 months, respectively.

“In patients with unresectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas that are less than 4 cm, EUS-RFA alone or combined with chemotherapy resulted in significantly improved overall survival and tended to improve progression-free survival with minimal adverse events,” Dr. Lopimpisuth reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
 

Small but unresectable tumors

Endoscopically guided radiofrequency ablation of pancreatic ductal tumors has been shown to be both feasible and safe in previous studies, he said, prompting his group to explore whether EUS-RFA could help to control the primary tumor and improve survival outcomes.

They enrolled 11 patients with primary pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tumors less than 4 cm in diameter that were unresectable due to blood vessel involvement or distant metastasis, and used propensity-score matching to pair them with a total of 35 controls. Controls were matched by tumor size, staging, age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index, chemotherapy regimen received, and interactions between CCI, regimen, and staging.

The results were weighted to assure that covariate distribution among patients treated with chemotherapy only equaled that of patients who underwent EUS-RFA.

Patients underwent EUS-RFA with a 19-gauge needle, with 50 watts of energy delivered with an impedance of 100 ohms. Those patients deemed able to tolerate chemotherapy received that as well.

After a minimum of 1 year of follow-up, the median weighted survival, as noted before, was 14 months for patients who received EUS-RFA, compared with 6.1 months for controls.

Adjusted survival probabilities at 6 and 12 months were 73% and 64%, respectively, for patients in the EUS-RFA group, compared with 69% and 17% for controls. Adjusted PFS rates at 6 and 12 months were 55% and 36% in the EUS-RFA group, compared with 28% and 4% in the control group.

The only adverse event of significance was mild abdominal pain, reported by 8.3% of total EUS-RFA procedures.
 

Promising but preliminary

In an interview with this news organization, ACG President Samir A. Shah, MD, from Brown University and Miriam Hospital in Providence, R.I., who was not involved in the study, commented that “we have limited options with these patients, so it’s really exciting to see an initial trend toward efficacy, and their survival improvement was significant by several months.”

Dr. Shah was a moderator of the presidential symposium where the data were presented.

Comoderator Brooks D. Cash, MD, from the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said that the advantage of EUS-RFA is that it’s only minimally invasive and appears to offer a significant survival advantage for patients with few effective treatment options.

He cautioned, however, that “it’s a small study and needs to be replicated in a larger venue and different sites as well, but I think it looks very promising.”

The investigators did not report a funding source for the study. Dr. Lopimpisuth, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Cash all reported having no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – In a small proof-of-concept study, patients with small unresectable pancreatic cancers treated with endoscopic ultrasound–guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) had a more than twofold improvement in overall survival compared with historical controls with a similar disease history, investigators in Thailand found.

In a weighted analysis, median weighted overall survival – the primary outcome – was 14 months among 11 patients who underwent EUS-RFA, compared with 6.1 months for 35 matched controls, translating into a hazard ratio for death with EUS-RFA of 0.38 (P = .016), reported Chawin Lopimpisuth, MD, from King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand.

Median weighted progression-free survival (PFS) was longer among cases than controls, but did not differ significantly, at 6.1 months and 3.9 months, respectively.

“In patients with unresectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas that are less than 4 cm, EUS-RFA alone or combined with chemotherapy resulted in significantly improved overall survival and tended to improve progression-free survival with minimal adverse events,” Dr. Lopimpisuth reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
 

Small but unresectable tumors

Endoscopically guided radiofrequency ablation of pancreatic ductal tumors has been shown to be both feasible and safe in previous studies, he said, prompting his group to explore whether EUS-RFA could help to control the primary tumor and improve survival outcomes.

They enrolled 11 patients with primary pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tumors less than 4 cm in diameter that were unresectable due to blood vessel involvement or distant metastasis, and used propensity-score matching to pair them with a total of 35 controls. Controls were matched by tumor size, staging, age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index, chemotherapy regimen received, and interactions between CCI, regimen, and staging.

The results were weighted to assure that covariate distribution among patients treated with chemotherapy only equaled that of patients who underwent EUS-RFA.

Patients underwent EUS-RFA with a 19-gauge needle, with 50 watts of energy delivered with an impedance of 100 ohms. Those patients deemed able to tolerate chemotherapy received that as well.

After a minimum of 1 year of follow-up, the median weighted survival, as noted before, was 14 months for patients who received EUS-RFA, compared with 6.1 months for controls.

Adjusted survival probabilities at 6 and 12 months were 73% and 64%, respectively, for patients in the EUS-RFA group, compared with 69% and 17% for controls. Adjusted PFS rates at 6 and 12 months were 55% and 36% in the EUS-RFA group, compared with 28% and 4% in the control group.

The only adverse event of significance was mild abdominal pain, reported by 8.3% of total EUS-RFA procedures.
 

Promising but preliminary

In an interview with this news organization, ACG President Samir A. Shah, MD, from Brown University and Miriam Hospital in Providence, R.I., who was not involved in the study, commented that “we have limited options with these patients, so it’s really exciting to see an initial trend toward efficacy, and their survival improvement was significant by several months.”

Dr. Shah was a moderator of the presidential symposium where the data were presented.

Comoderator Brooks D. Cash, MD, from the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said that the advantage of EUS-RFA is that it’s only minimally invasive and appears to offer a significant survival advantage for patients with few effective treatment options.

He cautioned, however, that “it’s a small study and needs to be replicated in a larger venue and different sites as well, but I think it looks very promising.”

The investigators did not report a funding source for the study. Dr. Lopimpisuth, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Cash all reported having no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – In a small proof-of-concept study, patients with small unresectable pancreatic cancers treated with endoscopic ultrasound–guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) had a more than twofold improvement in overall survival compared with historical controls with a similar disease history, investigators in Thailand found.

In a weighted analysis, median weighted overall survival – the primary outcome – was 14 months among 11 patients who underwent EUS-RFA, compared with 6.1 months for 35 matched controls, translating into a hazard ratio for death with EUS-RFA of 0.38 (P = .016), reported Chawin Lopimpisuth, MD, from King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand.

Median weighted progression-free survival (PFS) was longer among cases than controls, but did not differ significantly, at 6.1 months and 3.9 months, respectively.

“In patients with unresectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas that are less than 4 cm, EUS-RFA alone or combined with chemotherapy resulted in significantly improved overall survival and tended to improve progression-free survival with minimal adverse events,” Dr. Lopimpisuth reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
 

Small but unresectable tumors

Endoscopically guided radiofrequency ablation of pancreatic ductal tumors has been shown to be both feasible and safe in previous studies, he said, prompting his group to explore whether EUS-RFA could help to control the primary tumor and improve survival outcomes.

They enrolled 11 patients with primary pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tumors less than 4 cm in diameter that were unresectable due to blood vessel involvement or distant metastasis, and used propensity-score matching to pair them with a total of 35 controls. Controls were matched by tumor size, staging, age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index, chemotherapy regimen received, and interactions between CCI, regimen, and staging.

The results were weighted to assure that covariate distribution among patients treated with chemotherapy only equaled that of patients who underwent EUS-RFA.

Patients underwent EUS-RFA with a 19-gauge needle, with 50 watts of energy delivered with an impedance of 100 ohms. Those patients deemed able to tolerate chemotherapy received that as well.

After a minimum of 1 year of follow-up, the median weighted survival, as noted before, was 14 months for patients who received EUS-RFA, compared with 6.1 months for controls.

Adjusted survival probabilities at 6 and 12 months were 73% and 64%, respectively, for patients in the EUS-RFA group, compared with 69% and 17% for controls. Adjusted PFS rates at 6 and 12 months were 55% and 36% in the EUS-RFA group, compared with 28% and 4% in the control group.

The only adverse event of significance was mild abdominal pain, reported by 8.3% of total EUS-RFA procedures.
 

Promising but preliminary

In an interview with this news organization, ACG President Samir A. Shah, MD, from Brown University and Miriam Hospital in Providence, R.I., who was not involved in the study, commented that “we have limited options with these patients, so it’s really exciting to see an initial trend toward efficacy, and their survival improvement was significant by several months.”

Dr. Shah was a moderator of the presidential symposium where the data were presented.

Comoderator Brooks D. Cash, MD, from the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said that the advantage of EUS-RFA is that it’s only minimally invasive and appears to offer a significant survival advantage for patients with few effective treatment options.

He cautioned, however, that “it’s a small study and needs to be replicated in a larger venue and different sites as well, but I think it looks very promising.”

The investigators did not report a funding source for the study. Dr. Lopimpisuth, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Cash all reported having no relevant financial relationships to disclose.