AVAHO

Individuals working near intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), may be at higher risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) according to a preprint analysis conducted on missileers at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. The study, which has not undergone peer review, found higher rates of NHL diagnosis at younger ages compared with the general population. The study also found a statistically significant increase in NHL diagnoses among older missileers, with such rates surpassing expected benchmarks.

The findings build on anecdotal and evidentiary data gathered in the last 50-plus years, including from the Torchlight Initiative, established in 2023 to collect self-reported cancer diagnoses and related fatalities from personnel and family members associated with the ICBM community. 

The report shows patterns that “warranted a detailed statistical analysis,” leading to a granular examination of the registry and categorization of the data by cancer type, geographical location, and specific demographics. This narrowed the focus to 18 missileers who served at Malmstrom and were diagnosed with NHL.

In 2001, the Air Force Institute for Operational Health did a site evaluation and sampled for potential chemical and biological contaminants at Malmstrom following various reports of cancers from missileers, including 2 who died after being diagnosed with NHL. In a 2005 review, the Air Force said, “there is not sufficient evidence to consider the possibility of a cancer clustering to justify further investigation.” 

In 2022, Lt. Col. Daniel Sebeck, a vice commander of Space Delta 8 in Colorado who served at Malmstrom and a close friend and fellow missileer were diagnosed with NHL. Sebeck discovered 36 cancer cases among missileers who had been stationed at Malmstrom. Ten developed NHL, 2 developed Hodgkin lymphoma, and 24 developed another form of cancer. The Air Force has acknowledged the concerns. 

In 2023, US Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM) approved the Missile Community Cancer Study (MCCS) to assess “specific cancer concerns raised by missile community members across related career fields and also examines the possibility of clusters of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at intercontinental ballistic missile bases.” The study compares 14 common cancers in the general population with that of missile-related career fields. The USAFSAM is reviewing records from former and current Missile Community members on active duty from 1976-2010, as well as state and national cancer data from multiple registries.

Early results from the MCCS suggested elevated rates of some cancers—mainly breast and prostate cancer—among missileers, maintainers, and other ICMB-related job positions, which aligns with other national cancer data.

At a June 2024 AFGSC town hall, officials announced that missileers would now have their information submitted to the Defense Occupational and Environmental Health Readiness System (DOEHRS), a Pentagon database for reporting occupational and exposure hazards.

"This info from DOEHRS flows into the recently developed Individual Longitudinal Exposure Record, a system that compiles occupational and environmental health data throughout a person's career," Lt. Col. John Severns, a spokesperson for Air Force Global Strike Command, said. DOEHRS, which has tracked Air Force records since 2010, allows US Department of Defense and US Department of Veterans Affairs clinical staff to access the information.

MCCS considers potential PCB exposures an occupational hazard. The Air Force says researchers are working with the System Program Offices and leadership to determine the timeframe of PCB removal from bases.

The lack of incontrovertible evidence connecting workplace toxins to NHL has often stymied patients and their family members from receiving appropriate benefits. An “informal talk” in April led by Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) focused on exposures to hazardous materials at US military bases. Participants included various advocacy groups like the Torchlight Initiative, the Invisible Enemy, and Burn Pits 360.

More than a dozen veterans spoke about serving at military bases where they were exposed to a variety of harmful substances, and issues they faced in receiving coverage. David Crete, a veteran and chairman of The Invisible Enemy, said, “I am asking Congress to please allow us to get the benefits every other veteran earned. We are not asking to be special but to be treated equal.”

Rep. Takano called for greater focus on toxic exposures at US military bases: “We must push back against the idea that service members are only in harm’s way in war zones.”

Individuals working near intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), may be at higher risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) according to a preprint analysis conducted on missileers at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. The study, which has not undergone peer review, found higher rates of NHL diagnosis at younger ages compared with the general population. The study also found a statistically significant increase in NHL diagnoses among older missileers, with such rates surpassing expected benchmarks.

The findings build on anecdotal and evidentiary data gathered in the last 50-plus years, including from the Torchlight Initiative, established in 2023 to collect self-reported cancer diagnoses and related fatalities from personnel and family members associated with the ICBM community. 

The report shows patterns that “warranted a detailed statistical analysis,” leading to a granular examination of the registry and categorization of the data by cancer type, geographical location, and specific demographics. This narrowed the focus to 18 missileers who served at Malmstrom and were diagnosed with NHL.

In 2001, the Air Force Institute for Operational Health did a site evaluation and sampled for potential chemical and biological contaminants at Malmstrom following various reports of cancers from missileers, including 2 who died after being diagnosed with NHL. In a 2005 review, the Air Force said, “there is not sufficient evidence to consider the possibility of a cancer clustering to justify further investigation.” 

In 2022, Lt. Col. Daniel Sebeck, a vice commander of Space Delta 8 in Colorado who served at Malmstrom and a close friend and fellow missileer were diagnosed with NHL. Sebeck discovered 36 cancer cases among missileers who had been stationed at Malmstrom. Ten developed NHL, 2 developed Hodgkin lymphoma, and 24 developed another form of cancer. The Air Force has acknowledged the concerns. 

In 2023, US Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM) approved the Missile Community Cancer Study (MCCS) to assess “specific cancer concerns raised by missile community members across related career fields and also examines the possibility of clusters of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at intercontinental ballistic missile bases.” The study compares 14 common cancers in the general population with that of missile-related career fields. The USAFSAM is reviewing records from former and current Missile Community members on active duty from 1976-2010, as well as state and national cancer data from multiple registries.

Early results from the MCCS suggested elevated rates of some cancers—mainly breast and prostate cancer—among missileers, maintainers, and other ICMB-related job positions, which aligns with other national cancer data.

At a June 2024 AFGSC town hall, officials announced that missileers would now have their information submitted to the Defense Occupational and Environmental Health Readiness System (DOEHRS), a Pentagon database for reporting occupational and exposure hazards.

"This info from DOEHRS flows into the recently developed Individual Longitudinal Exposure Record, a system that compiles occupational and environmental health data throughout a person's career," Lt. Col. John Severns, a spokesperson for Air Force Global Strike Command, said. DOEHRS, which has tracked Air Force records since 2010, allows US Department of Defense and US Department of Veterans Affairs clinical staff to access the information.

MCCS considers potential PCB exposures an occupational hazard. The Air Force says researchers are working with the System Program Offices and leadership to determine the timeframe of PCB removal from bases.

The lack of incontrovertible evidence connecting workplace toxins to NHL has often stymied patients and their family members from receiving appropriate benefits. An “informal talk” in April led by Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) focused on exposures to hazardous materials at US military bases. Participants included various advocacy groups like the Torchlight Initiative, the Invisible Enemy, and Burn Pits 360.

More than a dozen veterans spoke about serving at military bases where they were exposed to a variety of harmful substances, and issues they faced in receiving coverage. David Crete, a veteran and chairman of The Invisible Enemy, said, “I am asking Congress to please allow us to get the benefits every other veteran earned. We are not asking to be special but to be treated equal.”

Rep. Takano called for greater focus on toxic exposures at US military bases: “We must push back against the idea that service members are only in harm’s way in war zones.”

Individuals working near intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), may be at higher risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) according to a preprint analysis conducted on missileers at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. The study, which has not undergone peer review, found higher rates of NHL diagnosis at younger ages compared with the general population. The study also found a statistically significant increase in NHL diagnoses among older missileers, with such rates surpassing expected benchmarks.

The findings build on anecdotal and evidentiary data gathered in the last 50-plus years, including from the Torchlight Initiative, established in 2023 to collect self-reported cancer diagnoses and related fatalities from personnel and family members associated with the ICBM community. 

The report shows patterns that “warranted a detailed statistical analysis,” leading to a granular examination of the registry and categorization of the data by cancer type, geographical location, and specific demographics. This narrowed the focus to 18 missileers who served at Malmstrom and were diagnosed with NHL.

In 2001, the Air Force Institute for Operational Health did a site evaluation and sampled for potential chemical and biological contaminants at Malmstrom following various reports of cancers from missileers, including 2 who died after being diagnosed with NHL. In a 2005 review, the Air Force said, “there is not sufficient evidence to consider the possibility of a cancer clustering to justify further investigation.” 

In 2022, Lt. Col. Daniel Sebeck, a vice commander of Space Delta 8 in Colorado who served at Malmstrom and a close friend and fellow missileer were diagnosed with NHL. Sebeck discovered 36 cancer cases among missileers who had been stationed at Malmstrom. Ten developed NHL, 2 developed Hodgkin lymphoma, and 24 developed another form of cancer. The Air Force has acknowledged the concerns. 

In 2023, US Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine (USAFSAM) approved the Missile Community Cancer Study (MCCS) to assess “specific cancer concerns raised by missile community members across related career fields and also examines the possibility of clusters of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma at intercontinental ballistic missile bases.” The study compares 14 common cancers in the general population with that of missile-related career fields. The USAFSAM is reviewing records from former and current Missile Community members on active duty from 1976-2010, as well as state and national cancer data from multiple registries.

Early results from the MCCS suggested elevated rates of some cancers—mainly breast and prostate cancer—among missileers, maintainers, and other ICMB-related job positions, which aligns with other national cancer data.

At a June 2024 AFGSC town hall, officials announced that missileers would now have their information submitted to the Defense Occupational and Environmental Health Readiness System (DOEHRS), a Pentagon database for reporting occupational and exposure hazards.

"This info from DOEHRS flows into the recently developed Individual Longitudinal Exposure Record, a system that compiles occupational and environmental health data throughout a person's career," Lt. Col. John Severns, a spokesperson for Air Force Global Strike Command, said. DOEHRS, which has tracked Air Force records since 2010, allows US Department of Defense and US Department of Veterans Affairs clinical staff to access the information.

MCCS considers potential PCB exposures an occupational hazard. The Air Force says researchers are working with the System Program Offices and leadership to determine the timeframe of PCB removal from bases.

The lack of incontrovertible evidence connecting workplace toxins to NHL has often stymied patients and their family members from receiving appropriate benefits. An “informal talk” in April led by Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) focused on exposures to hazardous materials at US military bases. Participants included various advocacy groups like the Torchlight Initiative, the Invisible Enemy, and Burn Pits 360.

More than a dozen veterans spoke about serving at military bases where they were exposed to a variety of harmful substances, and issues they faced in receiving coverage. David Crete, a veteran and chairman of The Invisible Enemy, said, “I am asking Congress to please allow us to get the benefits every other veteran earned. We are not asking to be special but to be treated equal.”

Rep. Takano called for greater focus on toxic exposures at US military bases: “We must push back against the idea that service members are only in harm’s way in war zones.”

Lingering fatigue and depression are more common among women than men cancer survivors and often lead to a decrease in recreational physical activities in all patients, new data showed.

However, moderate physical activity was linked to an almost 50% lower risk for cancer-related fatigue, and both moderate and vigorous physical activity were associated with a two- to fivefold reduced risk for depression among cancer survivors, according to the analysis presented at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2025.

The findings “highlight the importance of providing special attention and tailored interventions such as exercise programs, support groups, and mind-body behavioral techniques for vulnerable groups to help effectively manage fatigue and improve participation in recreational activities as they are an essential aspect of quality of life,” Simo Du, MD, a resident at NYC Health + Hospitals and Jacobi Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, said in a news release.

Du noted that, during her residency, cancer-related fatigue was a common complaint among patients, affecting “not just their daily activities but also their overall quality of life and mental health, making tasks like climbing stairs, doing groceries, or laundry overwhelming.”

Cancer-related fatigue affects more than 80% of patients who receive chemotherapy or radiation therapy, while depression affects around 25% of patients. Unlike typical fatigue, cancer-related fatigue can linger for weeks, months, or even years after treatment, Du explained.

Despite its high prevalence, cancer-related fatigue remains “overlooked and undertreated,” she noted during a conference press briefing. In addition, cancer-related fatigue can affect men and women differently.

To investigate further, Du and her colleagues analyzed National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 1552 cancer survivors (736 men and 816 women).

After adjusting for age, race, socioeconomic status, and comorbidities, women cancer survivors were more likely to experience fatigue (odds ratio [OR], 1.54; P < .017) and depression (OR, 1.32; P = .341) related to their cancer compared with men cancer survivors.

Du said there are likely multiple reasons behind the sex differences observed.

Women may, for instance, be more likely to experience side effects from chemotherapy, radiation, and long-term use of endocrine treatments because of slower drug clearance, which can lead to higher concentrations and a stronger immune response that may heighten inflammatory side effects.

In multivariate logistic regression analysis, cancer-related fatigue (OR, 1.93; P = .002) and depression (OR, 2.28; P = .011) were both strongly associated with reduced moderate recreational activities, such as brisk walking, biking, golfing, and light yard work.

The data also showed a protective role for physical activity. For patients who engaged in moderate physical activity, their risk for cancer-related fatigue (OR, 0.52; P = .002) and depression (OR, 0.41; P = .006) was significantly reduced, Du reported.

For depression (but not cancer-related fatigue), “the higher the intensity of physical activity, the higher the protective effects, with almost 4-5 times the reduction of the depression,” Du noted.

Although the NHANES uses standardized protocols designed to minimize biases, Du said a limitation of the current study is the use of self-reported data and the fact that women could potentially overreport fatigue symptoms and men could potentially underreport symptoms of depression.

Looking ahead, Du and her colleagues are planning studies to assess the effectiveness of tailored interventions on cancer-related fatigue and explore the connection between cancer-related fatigue and different mechanisms, such as inflammatory markers, to see if gender modifies the association.

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jennifer Ligibel, MD, a senior physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said that, because the dataset is cross-sectional, it is unclear whether people who were more tired weren’t exercising or if people who weren’t exercising were more tired.

However, Ligibel explained, a huge body of literature has demonstrated that exercise is “the most efficient remedy for fatigue,” and it likely helps with depression too.

In fact, in a recent survey of patients with cancer conducted by the American Society for Clinical Oncology, slightly more than half of patients reported that their oncologist talked about exercise and diet during clinic visits, Ligibel said. Provider recommendations for exercise and diet were associated with positive changes in these behaviors.

“Roughly half of oncologists now give exercise advice; that figure is a lot more than it was a few years ago, but it’s still not universal,” Ligibel said.

The study had no specific funding. Du and Ligibel had no disclosures.

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

Lingering fatigue and depression are more common among women than men cancer survivors and often lead to a decrease in recreational physical activities in all patients, new data showed.

However, moderate physical activity was linked to an almost 50% lower risk for cancer-related fatigue, and both moderate and vigorous physical activity were associated with a two- to fivefold reduced risk for depression among cancer survivors, according to the analysis presented at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2025.

The findings “highlight the importance of providing special attention and tailored interventions such as exercise programs, support groups, and mind-body behavioral techniques for vulnerable groups to help effectively manage fatigue and improve participation in recreational activities as they are an essential aspect of quality of life,” Simo Du, MD, a resident at NYC Health + Hospitals and Jacobi Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, said in a news release.

Du noted that, during her residency, cancer-related fatigue was a common complaint among patients, affecting “not just their daily activities but also their overall quality of life and mental health, making tasks like climbing stairs, doing groceries, or laundry overwhelming.”

Cancer-related fatigue affects more than 80% of patients who receive chemotherapy or radiation therapy, while depression affects around 25% of patients. Unlike typical fatigue, cancer-related fatigue can linger for weeks, months, or even years after treatment, Du explained.

Despite its high prevalence, cancer-related fatigue remains “overlooked and undertreated,” she noted during a conference press briefing. In addition, cancer-related fatigue can affect men and women differently.

To investigate further, Du and her colleagues analyzed National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 1552 cancer survivors (736 men and 816 women).

After adjusting for age, race, socioeconomic status, and comorbidities, women cancer survivors were more likely to experience fatigue (odds ratio [OR], 1.54; P < .017) and depression (OR, 1.32; P = .341) related to their cancer compared with men cancer survivors.

Du said there are likely multiple reasons behind the sex differences observed.

Women may, for instance, be more likely to experience side effects from chemotherapy, radiation, and long-term use of endocrine treatments because of slower drug clearance, which can lead to higher concentrations and a stronger immune response that may heighten inflammatory side effects.

In multivariate logistic regression analysis, cancer-related fatigue (OR, 1.93; P = .002) and depression (OR, 2.28; P = .011) were both strongly associated with reduced moderate recreational activities, such as brisk walking, biking, golfing, and light yard work.

The data also showed a protective role for physical activity. For patients who engaged in moderate physical activity, their risk for cancer-related fatigue (OR, 0.52; P = .002) and depression (OR, 0.41; P = .006) was significantly reduced, Du reported.

For depression (but not cancer-related fatigue), “the higher the intensity of physical activity, the higher the protective effects, with almost 4-5 times the reduction of the depression,” Du noted.

Although the NHANES uses standardized protocols designed to minimize biases, Du said a limitation of the current study is the use of self-reported data and the fact that women could potentially overreport fatigue symptoms and men could potentially underreport symptoms of depression.

Looking ahead, Du and her colleagues are planning studies to assess the effectiveness of tailored interventions on cancer-related fatigue and explore the connection between cancer-related fatigue and different mechanisms, such as inflammatory markers, to see if gender modifies the association.

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jennifer Ligibel, MD, a senior physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said that, because the dataset is cross-sectional, it is unclear whether people who were more tired weren’t exercising or if people who weren’t exercising were more tired.

However, Ligibel explained, a huge body of literature has demonstrated that exercise is “the most efficient remedy for fatigue,” and it likely helps with depression too.

In fact, in a recent survey of patients with cancer conducted by the American Society for Clinical Oncology, slightly more than half of patients reported that their oncologist talked about exercise and diet during clinic visits, Ligibel said. Provider recommendations for exercise and diet were associated with positive changes in these behaviors.

“Roughly half of oncologists now give exercise advice; that figure is a lot more than it was a few years ago, but it’s still not universal,” Ligibel said.

The study had no specific funding. Du and Ligibel had no disclosures.

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

Lingering fatigue and depression are more common among women than men cancer survivors and often lead to a decrease in recreational physical activities in all patients, new data showed.

However, moderate physical activity was linked to an almost 50% lower risk for cancer-related fatigue, and both moderate and vigorous physical activity were associated with a two- to fivefold reduced risk for depression among cancer survivors, according to the analysis presented at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting 2025.

The findings “highlight the importance of providing special attention and tailored interventions such as exercise programs, support groups, and mind-body behavioral techniques for vulnerable groups to help effectively manage fatigue and improve participation in recreational activities as they are an essential aspect of quality of life,” Simo Du, MD, a resident at NYC Health + Hospitals and Jacobi Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York City, said in a news release.

Du noted that, during her residency, cancer-related fatigue was a common complaint among patients, affecting “not just their daily activities but also their overall quality of life and mental health, making tasks like climbing stairs, doing groceries, or laundry overwhelming.”

Cancer-related fatigue affects more than 80% of patients who receive chemotherapy or radiation therapy, while depression affects around 25% of patients. Unlike typical fatigue, cancer-related fatigue can linger for weeks, months, or even years after treatment, Du explained.

Despite its high prevalence, cancer-related fatigue remains “overlooked and undertreated,” she noted during a conference press briefing. In addition, cancer-related fatigue can affect men and women differently.

To investigate further, Du and her colleagues analyzed National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 1552 cancer survivors (736 men and 816 women).

After adjusting for age, race, socioeconomic status, and comorbidities, women cancer survivors were more likely to experience fatigue (odds ratio [OR], 1.54; P < .017) and depression (OR, 1.32; P = .341) related to their cancer compared with men cancer survivors.

Du said there are likely multiple reasons behind the sex differences observed.

Women may, for instance, be more likely to experience side effects from chemotherapy, radiation, and long-term use of endocrine treatments because of slower drug clearance, which can lead to higher concentrations and a stronger immune response that may heighten inflammatory side effects.

In multivariate logistic regression analysis, cancer-related fatigue (OR, 1.93; P = .002) and depression (OR, 2.28; P = .011) were both strongly associated with reduced moderate recreational activities, such as brisk walking, biking, golfing, and light yard work.

The data also showed a protective role for physical activity. For patients who engaged in moderate physical activity, their risk for cancer-related fatigue (OR, 0.52; P = .002) and depression (OR, 0.41; P = .006) was significantly reduced, Du reported.

For depression (but not cancer-related fatigue), “the higher the intensity of physical activity, the higher the protective effects, with almost 4-5 times the reduction of the depression,” Du noted.

Although the NHANES uses standardized protocols designed to minimize biases, Du said a limitation of the current study is the use of self-reported data and the fact that women could potentially overreport fatigue symptoms and men could potentially underreport symptoms of depression.

Looking ahead, Du and her colleagues are planning studies to assess the effectiveness of tailored interventions on cancer-related fatigue and explore the connection between cancer-related fatigue and different mechanisms, such as inflammatory markers, to see if gender modifies the association.

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jennifer Ligibel, MD, a senior physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said that, because the dataset is cross-sectional, it is unclear whether people who were more tired weren’t exercising or if people who weren’t exercising were more tired.

However, Ligibel explained, a huge body of literature has demonstrated that exercise is “the most efficient remedy for fatigue,” and it likely helps with depression too.

In fact, in a recent survey of patients with cancer conducted by the American Society for Clinical Oncology, slightly more than half of patients reported that their oncologist talked about exercise and diet during clinic visits, Ligibel said. Provider recommendations for exercise and diet were associated with positive changes in these behaviors.

“Roughly half of oncologists now give exercise advice; that figure is a lot more than it was a few years ago, but it’s still not universal,” Ligibel said.

The study had no specific funding. Du and Ligibel had no disclosures.

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

Patients who received a single antiplatelet drug therapy — usually aspirin — after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) had about half the risk of dying in the subsequent 6 months compared with patients who received dual antiplatelet drug therapy. The findings were similar in men and women and in patients with and without coronary artery disease.

“This is one of the first demonstrations in real-world data that single antiplatelet therapy is not only associated with a lower risk of bleeding but also lower mortality,” said lead author Francesco Pelliccia, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at Sapienza University in Rome, Italy. Mortality rates for those who received dual antiplatelet therapy increased steadily during the 6 months after the procedure, he reported at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) 2025 Scientific Sessions in Washington, DC.

Ischemic and major bleeding events were dramatically reduced in those receiving a single drug, according to a real-world study of 5514 patients undergoing TAVR at 20 centers. The centers participate in the Transfusion Requirements in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TRITAVI) registry.

In the 6 months after the procedure, 2.4% of the 3197 patients who received a single antiplatelet drug died of any cause, as did 5.4% of 2317 patients who received two antiplatelet drugs (hazard ratio [HR], 1.65). Dual therapy was associated with a higher risk for death in both men (HR, 2.08) and women (HR, 1.53). Risk for death was also higher in patients with coronary artery disease (HR, 1.83) and without coronary artery disease (HR, 1.52). All results were statistically significant.

 

Balancing Risks and Benefits

The popularity of TAVR, which was introduced in 2002, has grown to the point that, in 2019, it surpassed the use of surgical aortic valve replacement. But the procedure is associated with an increased risk for both thrombosis and bleeding. Antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel helps prevent thrombosis but can increase the risk of bleeding. This has led to a debate about the best balance for antiplatelet therapy after TAVR with either single therapy — usually with aspirin — or dual therapy with both aspirin and clopidogrel.

A series of studies have addressed this problem. Dual therapy did not show any benefits over single therapy in terms of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events in a 2011 small randomized study. A 2014 small randomized study also showed no benefit for morbidity or mortality from dual therapy. A larger 2017 randomized trial showed that single therapy reduced the risk for major or life-threatening events but did not increase the risk for myocardial infarction or stroke.

Bleeding and bleeding plus thromboembolic events were significantly lower with aspirin than with aspirin plus clopidogrel after a year’s follow-up in the 2020 POPular TAVI trial. Findings from three of these trials were pooled in a 2018 meta-analysis, which showed that dual therapy increased the risk for major adverse events after TAVR and did not prevent ischemic events any more than single therapy.

Based on this evidence, many centers changed their practice. And current European guidelines recommend a single antiplatelet drug for patients undergoing TAVR who do not have additional indications for oral anticoagulation therapy.

 

By the Numbers

Randomized trials are generally considered the best evidence for medical questions such as this one. “But randomized trials often do not reflect real-world reality. We have to look at what really happens,” Pelliccia said.

Retrospective data from registries can also provide large numbers of patients; in this case, TRITAVI provided data on thousands of patients rather than the hundreds examined in combined randomized trials.

“The results, for the first time, provide clinicians more information on how to treat their patients who are at high risk for bleeding and provide evidence that single antiplatelet therapy should be considered the standard of care in all patients undergoing TAVR,” Pelliccia said.

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

Patients who received a single antiplatelet drug therapy — usually aspirin — after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) had about half the risk of dying in the subsequent 6 months compared with patients who received dual antiplatelet drug therapy. The findings were similar in men and women and in patients with and without coronary artery disease.

“This is one of the first demonstrations in real-world data that single antiplatelet therapy is not only associated with a lower risk of bleeding but also lower mortality,” said lead author Francesco Pelliccia, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at Sapienza University in Rome, Italy. Mortality rates for those who received dual antiplatelet therapy increased steadily during the 6 months after the procedure, he reported at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) 2025 Scientific Sessions in Washington, DC.

Ischemic and major bleeding events were dramatically reduced in those receiving a single drug, according to a real-world study of 5514 patients undergoing TAVR at 20 centers. The centers participate in the Transfusion Requirements in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TRITAVI) registry.

In the 6 months after the procedure, 2.4% of the 3197 patients who received a single antiplatelet drug died of any cause, as did 5.4% of 2317 patients who received two antiplatelet drugs (hazard ratio [HR], 1.65). Dual therapy was associated with a higher risk for death in both men (HR, 2.08) and women (HR, 1.53). Risk for death was also higher in patients with coronary artery disease (HR, 1.83) and without coronary artery disease (HR, 1.52). All results were statistically significant.

 

Balancing Risks and Benefits

The popularity of TAVR, which was introduced in 2002, has grown to the point that, in 2019, it surpassed the use of surgical aortic valve replacement. But the procedure is associated with an increased risk for both thrombosis and bleeding. Antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel helps prevent thrombosis but can increase the risk of bleeding. This has led to a debate about the best balance for antiplatelet therapy after TAVR with either single therapy — usually with aspirin — or dual therapy with both aspirin and clopidogrel.

A series of studies have addressed this problem. Dual therapy did not show any benefits over single therapy in terms of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events in a 2011 small randomized study. A 2014 small randomized study also showed no benefit for morbidity or mortality from dual therapy. A larger 2017 randomized trial showed that single therapy reduced the risk for major or life-threatening events but did not increase the risk for myocardial infarction or stroke.

Bleeding and bleeding plus thromboembolic events were significantly lower with aspirin than with aspirin plus clopidogrel after a year’s follow-up in the 2020 POPular TAVI trial. Findings from three of these trials were pooled in a 2018 meta-analysis, which showed that dual therapy increased the risk for major adverse events after TAVR and did not prevent ischemic events any more than single therapy.

Based on this evidence, many centers changed their practice. And current European guidelines recommend a single antiplatelet drug for patients undergoing TAVR who do not have additional indications for oral anticoagulation therapy.

 

By the Numbers

Randomized trials are generally considered the best evidence for medical questions such as this one. “But randomized trials often do not reflect real-world reality. We have to look at what really happens,” Pelliccia said.

Retrospective data from registries can also provide large numbers of patients; in this case, TRITAVI provided data on thousands of patients rather than the hundreds examined in combined randomized trials.

“The results, for the first time, provide clinicians more information on how to treat their patients who are at high risk for bleeding and provide evidence that single antiplatelet therapy should be considered the standard of care in all patients undergoing TAVR,” Pelliccia said.

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

Patients who received a single antiplatelet drug therapy — usually aspirin — after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) had about half the risk of dying in the subsequent 6 months compared with patients who received dual antiplatelet drug therapy. The findings were similar in men and women and in patients with and without coronary artery disease.

“This is one of the first demonstrations in real-world data that single antiplatelet therapy is not only associated with a lower risk of bleeding but also lower mortality,” said lead author Francesco Pelliccia, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at Sapienza University in Rome, Italy. Mortality rates for those who received dual antiplatelet therapy increased steadily during the 6 months after the procedure, he reported at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) 2025 Scientific Sessions in Washington, DC.

Ischemic and major bleeding events were dramatically reduced in those receiving a single drug, according to a real-world study of 5514 patients undergoing TAVR at 20 centers. The centers participate in the Transfusion Requirements in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TRITAVI) registry.

In the 6 months after the procedure, 2.4% of the 3197 patients who received a single antiplatelet drug died of any cause, as did 5.4% of 2317 patients who received two antiplatelet drugs (hazard ratio [HR], 1.65). Dual therapy was associated with a higher risk for death in both men (HR, 2.08) and women (HR, 1.53). Risk for death was also higher in patients with coronary artery disease (HR, 1.83) and without coronary artery disease (HR, 1.52). All results were statistically significant.

 

Balancing Risks and Benefits

The popularity of TAVR, which was introduced in 2002, has grown to the point that, in 2019, it surpassed the use of surgical aortic valve replacement. But the procedure is associated with an increased risk for both thrombosis and bleeding. Antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel helps prevent thrombosis but can increase the risk of bleeding. This has led to a debate about the best balance for antiplatelet therapy after TAVR with either single therapy — usually with aspirin — or dual therapy with both aspirin and clopidogrel.

A series of studies have addressed this problem. Dual therapy did not show any benefits over single therapy in terms of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events in a 2011 small randomized study. A 2014 small randomized study also showed no benefit for morbidity or mortality from dual therapy. A larger 2017 randomized trial showed that single therapy reduced the risk for major or life-threatening events but did not increase the risk for myocardial infarction or stroke.

Bleeding and bleeding plus thromboembolic events were significantly lower with aspirin than with aspirin plus clopidogrel after a year’s follow-up in the 2020 POPular TAVI trial. Findings from three of these trials were pooled in a 2018 meta-analysis, which showed that dual therapy increased the risk for major adverse events after TAVR and did not prevent ischemic events any more than single therapy.

Based on this evidence, many centers changed their practice. And current European guidelines recommend a single antiplatelet drug for patients undergoing TAVR who do not have additional indications for oral anticoagulation therapy.

 

By the Numbers

Randomized trials are generally considered the best evidence for medical questions such as this one. “But randomized trials often do not reflect real-world reality. We have to look at what really happens,” Pelliccia said.

Retrospective data from registries can also provide large numbers of patients; in this case, TRITAVI provided data on thousands of patients rather than the hundreds examined in combined randomized trials.

“The results, for the first time, provide clinicians more information on how to treat their patients who are at high risk for bleeding and provide evidence that single antiplatelet therapy should be considered the standard of care in all patients undergoing TAVR,” Pelliccia said.

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

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide and a leading cause of cancer-related deaths. The most common form of breast cancer is invasive ductal carcinoma, which accounts for 75%-80% of breast cancers. The second most common form is invasive lobular carcinoma, which accounts for 10%-15% of cases.

Surgical treatment of breast cancer involves removal and pathological staging of the cancerous tissue. Breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy are two surgical treatment options for patients with breast cancer. Breast-conserving surgery, which involves resection of the tumor and the surrounding margin of healthy tissue to achieve clean margins, is usually combined with radiotherapy. Mastectomy is considered in patients with relative and absolute contraindications to breast-conserving therapeutic options (eg, patients with a genetic predisposition to breast cancer, tumors > 5 cm, extensive margins, prior radiation to breast or chest wall, first-trimester pregnancy, extensive ductal carcinoma in situ, inflammatory breast cancer). Although surgical treatment of breast cancer is widely used, there have been calls to minimize unnecessary invasive surgical interventions in patients with early-stage breast cancer.

 

Reassessing the Role of Surgery in the Early Stages 

Some surgical procedures, including axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), once considered standard treatment for early-stage breast cancer, are now being recognized as unnecessary in most cases of early-stage breast cancer without sentinel node metastases. Although ALND, which involves removal of all lymphatic tissue in the axilla, has been used for decades in the surgical management of early-stage breast cancer, this intervention typically results in lymphedema and significant morbidity. 

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is a surgical option chosen by some women with early-stage unilateral breast cancer. However, this procedure is considered controversial in this patient population since evidence shows no survival advantage with CPM. A large-scale survey by Jagsi et al of female patients with in situ or early-stage breast cancer concluded that CPM was more common in patients who were White, had a higher level of education, and had private health insurance. In the study, 598 of the 1569 patients without an identified mutation or high genetic risk reported that a surgeon recommended against CPM. Of this group, only 1.9% underwent CPM. In contrast, of the 746 patients who reported that they did not receive any recommendation from a surgeon, 19% underwent CPM. 

Re-excision and mastectomy are considered in patients with early-stage breast cancer when clear margins are not achieved with breast-conserving surgery. To prevent unnecessary reoperations and mastectomies, the 2013 invasive cancer margin consensus guideline by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and the Society of Surgical Oncology, defined adequate margins in breast-conserving surgery in invasive breast cancer as “no ink on tumor.” The guideline is endorsed by the American Society of Breast Surgeons, ASTRO, and the St Gallen Consensus Conference. 

 

A Shift in Practice: Moving Away From Routine Node Dissection

Based on findings from multiple clinical trials, experts recommend sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) over ANLD and omit axillary surgery in certain patients. Findings from ACOSOG Z1071, SENTINA, and SN FNAC prospective multi-institutional trials support the use of SLNB as the initial diagnostic procedure. Sentinel lobe biopsy involves removal and evaluation of the first lymph node which receives lymphatic drainage from the breast cancer site. Negative biopsy findings on SLNB can avoid ALND as it is less likely that metastasis has occurred.

Although SLNB is preferred in younger patients with early-stage breast cancer, it is not routinely recommended for women aged ≥ 70 years of age with clinically node-negative, early-stage, HR-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer. This recommendation is based on study findings showing no difference in survival of women aged > 70 years with HR-positive clinical stage I breast cancer who did and did not undergo axillary evaluation. 

The Z0011 trial by the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group found SLNB alone was not inferior to ALND regarding overall and disease-free survival in patients with clinically node-negative cancer undergoing breast conservation surgery and radiation therapy.

 

SLNB: A Less Invasive Alternative to ALND

Compared to SLNB, ALND is associated with more morbidity, physical symptoms, and poorer quality of life. A systemic review by Bakri et al evaluating the impact of ALND vs SLNB found higher rates of lymphedema, pain, reduced strength, and range of motion in patients who underwent ALND. In addition, an analysis of the National Cancer Database by Cocco et al found that patients with limited CN+ T1-2 breast cancer had favorable survival outcomes after undergoing SLNB and regional node irradiation vs ALND.

 

Rethinking First Steps: Non-Surgical Strategies

While surgical intervention with or without radiation therapy remains a primary treatment in early-stage breast cancer, there is an increased emphasis on de-escalation to minimize surgery and consider nonsurgical options in this patient population. A neoadjuvant systemic therapeutic approach by Kuerer et al for HER2-positive breast cancer and triple-negative breast cancer yielded a pathological complete response in 62% of patients. This multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 trial evaluated patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and a residual breast lesion < 2 cm or unicentric cT1-2N0-1M0 triple-negative breast cancer. Patients in the study underwent radiotherapy alone after excluding invasive in-situ disease. 

 

The Clinician’s Role in Shaping Conservative Surgical Approaches

De-escalating surgery in breast cancer should involve acknowledging the patient’s fears and misperceptions regarding the risks of cancer recurrence that can lead them to opt for more invasive surgical treatments. Patients may not or fully regard the long-term effects of electing an invasive procedure in the absence of clinical indications. For example, patients undergoing more invasive interventions may experience worse body image and quality of life. 

Clinicians may also not adequately estimate other harms associated with unnecessary surgical interventions. Providing clinicians with data that focuses on the psychological outcomes and satisfaction of patients post surgery may help them to better interpret and consider patient values and wishes and minimize future unnecessary surgeries.

Breast cancer remains one of the best-studied cancers with multiple high-quality randomized controlled trials supporting de-escalation of surgery. De-escalation of breast cancer surgery has been successful in multiple ways, including the implementation of ALND in early-stage breast cancer. However, other options such as CPM remain common. Proper patient and physician education involving data from clinical trials and reports of patient satisfaction may further decrease unnecessary surgical interventions.

Nameera Temkar has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide and a leading cause of cancer-related deaths. The most common form of breast cancer is invasive ductal carcinoma, which accounts for 75%-80% of breast cancers. The second most common form is invasive lobular carcinoma, which accounts for 10%-15% of cases.

Surgical treatment of breast cancer involves removal and pathological staging of the cancerous tissue. Breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy are two surgical treatment options for patients with breast cancer. Breast-conserving surgery, which involves resection of the tumor and the surrounding margin of healthy tissue to achieve clean margins, is usually combined with radiotherapy. Mastectomy is considered in patients with relative and absolute contraindications to breast-conserving therapeutic options (eg, patients with a genetic predisposition to breast cancer, tumors > 5 cm, extensive margins, prior radiation to breast or chest wall, first-trimester pregnancy, extensive ductal carcinoma in situ, inflammatory breast cancer). Although surgical treatment of breast cancer is widely used, there have been calls to minimize unnecessary invasive surgical interventions in patients with early-stage breast cancer.

 

Reassessing the Role of Surgery in the Early Stages 

Some surgical procedures, including axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), once considered standard treatment for early-stage breast cancer, are now being recognized as unnecessary in most cases of early-stage breast cancer without sentinel node metastases. Although ALND, which involves removal of all lymphatic tissue in the axilla, has been used for decades in the surgical management of early-stage breast cancer, this intervention typically results in lymphedema and significant morbidity. 

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is a surgical option chosen by some women with early-stage unilateral breast cancer. However, this procedure is considered controversial in this patient population since evidence shows no survival advantage with CPM. A large-scale survey by Jagsi et al of female patients with in situ or early-stage breast cancer concluded that CPM was more common in patients who were White, had a higher level of education, and had private health insurance. In the study, 598 of the 1569 patients without an identified mutation or high genetic risk reported that a surgeon recommended against CPM. Of this group, only 1.9% underwent CPM. In contrast, of the 746 patients who reported that they did not receive any recommendation from a surgeon, 19% underwent CPM. 

Re-excision and mastectomy are considered in patients with early-stage breast cancer when clear margins are not achieved with breast-conserving surgery. To prevent unnecessary reoperations and mastectomies, the 2013 invasive cancer margin consensus guideline by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and the Society of Surgical Oncology, defined adequate margins in breast-conserving surgery in invasive breast cancer as “no ink on tumor.” The guideline is endorsed by the American Society of Breast Surgeons, ASTRO, and the St Gallen Consensus Conference. 

 

A Shift in Practice: Moving Away From Routine Node Dissection

Based on findings from multiple clinical trials, experts recommend sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) over ANLD and omit axillary surgery in certain patients. Findings from ACOSOG Z1071, SENTINA, and SN FNAC prospective multi-institutional trials support the use of SLNB as the initial diagnostic procedure. Sentinel lobe biopsy involves removal and evaluation of the first lymph node which receives lymphatic drainage from the breast cancer site. Negative biopsy findings on SLNB can avoid ALND as it is less likely that metastasis has occurred.

Although SLNB is preferred in younger patients with early-stage breast cancer, it is not routinely recommended for women aged ≥ 70 years of age with clinically node-negative, early-stage, HR-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer. This recommendation is based on study findings showing no difference in survival of women aged > 70 years with HR-positive clinical stage I breast cancer who did and did not undergo axillary evaluation. 

The Z0011 trial by the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group found SLNB alone was not inferior to ALND regarding overall and disease-free survival in patients with clinically node-negative cancer undergoing breast conservation surgery and radiation therapy.

 

SLNB: A Less Invasive Alternative to ALND

Compared to SLNB, ALND is associated with more morbidity, physical symptoms, and poorer quality of life. A systemic review by Bakri et al evaluating the impact of ALND vs SLNB found higher rates of lymphedema, pain, reduced strength, and range of motion in patients who underwent ALND. In addition, an analysis of the National Cancer Database by Cocco et al found that patients with limited CN+ T1-2 breast cancer had favorable survival outcomes after undergoing SLNB and regional node irradiation vs ALND.

 

Rethinking First Steps: Non-Surgical Strategies

While surgical intervention with or without radiation therapy remains a primary treatment in early-stage breast cancer, there is an increased emphasis on de-escalation to minimize surgery and consider nonsurgical options in this patient population. A neoadjuvant systemic therapeutic approach by Kuerer et al for HER2-positive breast cancer and triple-negative breast cancer yielded a pathological complete response in 62% of patients. This multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 trial evaluated patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and a residual breast lesion < 2 cm or unicentric cT1-2N0-1M0 triple-negative breast cancer. Patients in the study underwent radiotherapy alone after excluding invasive in-situ disease. 

 

The Clinician’s Role in Shaping Conservative Surgical Approaches

De-escalating surgery in breast cancer should involve acknowledging the patient’s fears and misperceptions regarding the risks of cancer recurrence that can lead them to opt for more invasive surgical treatments. Patients may not or fully regard the long-term effects of electing an invasive procedure in the absence of clinical indications. For example, patients undergoing more invasive interventions may experience worse body image and quality of life. 

Clinicians may also not adequately estimate other harms associated with unnecessary surgical interventions. Providing clinicians with data that focuses on the psychological outcomes and satisfaction of patients post surgery may help them to better interpret and consider patient values and wishes and minimize future unnecessary surgeries.

Breast cancer remains one of the best-studied cancers with multiple high-quality randomized controlled trials supporting de-escalation of surgery. De-escalation of breast cancer surgery has been successful in multiple ways, including the implementation of ALND in early-stage breast cancer. However, other options such as CPM remain common. Proper patient and physician education involving data from clinical trials and reports of patient satisfaction may further decrease unnecessary surgical interventions.

Nameera Temkar has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide and a leading cause of cancer-related deaths. The most common form of breast cancer is invasive ductal carcinoma, which accounts for 75%-80% of breast cancers. The second most common form is invasive lobular carcinoma, which accounts for 10%-15% of cases.

Surgical treatment of breast cancer involves removal and pathological staging of the cancerous tissue. Breast-conserving surgery and mastectomy are two surgical treatment options for patients with breast cancer. Breast-conserving surgery, which involves resection of the tumor and the surrounding margin of healthy tissue to achieve clean margins, is usually combined with radiotherapy. Mastectomy is considered in patients with relative and absolute contraindications to breast-conserving therapeutic options (eg, patients with a genetic predisposition to breast cancer, tumors > 5 cm, extensive margins, prior radiation to breast or chest wall, first-trimester pregnancy, extensive ductal carcinoma in situ, inflammatory breast cancer). Although surgical treatment of breast cancer is widely used, there have been calls to minimize unnecessary invasive surgical interventions in patients with early-stage breast cancer.

 

Reassessing the Role of Surgery in the Early Stages 

Some surgical procedures, including axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), once considered standard treatment for early-stage breast cancer, are now being recognized as unnecessary in most cases of early-stage breast cancer without sentinel node metastases. Although ALND, which involves removal of all lymphatic tissue in the axilla, has been used for decades in the surgical management of early-stage breast cancer, this intervention typically results in lymphedema and significant morbidity. 

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is a surgical option chosen by some women with early-stage unilateral breast cancer. However, this procedure is considered controversial in this patient population since evidence shows no survival advantage with CPM. A large-scale survey by Jagsi et al of female patients with in situ or early-stage breast cancer concluded that CPM was more common in patients who were White, had a higher level of education, and had private health insurance. In the study, 598 of the 1569 patients without an identified mutation or high genetic risk reported that a surgeon recommended against CPM. Of this group, only 1.9% underwent CPM. In contrast, of the 746 patients who reported that they did not receive any recommendation from a surgeon, 19% underwent CPM. 

Re-excision and mastectomy are considered in patients with early-stage breast cancer when clear margins are not achieved with breast-conserving surgery. To prevent unnecessary reoperations and mastectomies, the 2013 invasive cancer margin consensus guideline by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and the Society of Surgical Oncology, defined adequate margins in breast-conserving surgery in invasive breast cancer as “no ink on tumor.” The guideline is endorsed by the American Society of Breast Surgeons, ASTRO, and the St Gallen Consensus Conference. 

 

A Shift in Practice: Moving Away From Routine Node Dissection

Based on findings from multiple clinical trials, experts recommend sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) over ANLD and omit axillary surgery in certain patients. Findings from ACOSOG Z1071, SENTINA, and SN FNAC prospective multi-institutional trials support the use of SLNB as the initial diagnostic procedure. Sentinel lobe biopsy involves removal and evaluation of the first lymph node which receives lymphatic drainage from the breast cancer site. Negative biopsy findings on SLNB can avoid ALND as it is less likely that metastasis has occurred.

Although SLNB is preferred in younger patients with early-stage breast cancer, it is not routinely recommended for women aged ≥ 70 years of age with clinically node-negative, early-stage, HR-positive and HER2-negative breast cancer. This recommendation is based on study findings showing no difference in survival of women aged > 70 years with HR-positive clinical stage I breast cancer who did and did not undergo axillary evaluation. 

The Z0011 trial by the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group found SLNB alone was not inferior to ALND regarding overall and disease-free survival in patients with clinically node-negative cancer undergoing breast conservation surgery and radiation therapy.

 

SLNB: A Less Invasive Alternative to ALND

Compared to SLNB, ALND is associated with more morbidity, physical symptoms, and poorer quality of life. A systemic review by Bakri et al evaluating the impact of ALND vs SLNB found higher rates of lymphedema, pain, reduced strength, and range of motion in patients who underwent ALND. In addition, an analysis of the National Cancer Database by Cocco et al found that patients with limited CN+ T1-2 breast cancer had favorable survival outcomes after undergoing SLNB and regional node irradiation vs ALND.

 

Rethinking First Steps: Non-Surgical Strategies

While surgical intervention with or without radiation therapy remains a primary treatment in early-stage breast cancer, there is an increased emphasis on de-escalation to minimize surgery and consider nonsurgical options in this patient population. A neoadjuvant systemic therapeutic approach by Kuerer et al for HER2-positive breast cancer and triple-negative breast cancer yielded a pathological complete response in 62% of patients. This multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 trial evaluated patients with HER2-positive breast cancer and a residual breast lesion < 2 cm or unicentric cT1-2N0-1M0 triple-negative breast cancer. Patients in the study underwent radiotherapy alone after excluding invasive in-situ disease. 

 

The Clinician’s Role in Shaping Conservative Surgical Approaches

De-escalating surgery in breast cancer should involve acknowledging the patient’s fears and misperceptions regarding the risks of cancer recurrence that can lead them to opt for more invasive surgical treatments. Patients may not or fully regard the long-term effects of electing an invasive procedure in the absence of clinical indications. For example, patients undergoing more invasive interventions may experience worse body image and quality of life. 

Clinicians may also not adequately estimate other harms associated with unnecessary surgical interventions. Providing clinicians with data that focuses on the psychological outcomes and satisfaction of patients post surgery may help them to better interpret and consider patient values and wishes and minimize future unnecessary surgeries.

Breast cancer remains one of the best-studied cancers with multiple high-quality randomized controlled trials supporting de-escalation of surgery. De-escalation of breast cancer surgery has been successful in multiple ways, including the implementation of ALND in early-stage breast cancer. However, other options such as CPM remain common. Proper patient and physician education involving data from clinical trials and reports of patient satisfaction may further decrease unnecessary surgical interventions.

Nameera Temkar has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE: A national survey of 8996 females reveals comparable mammography screening rates between those who identify as veterans (57.9%) and nonveterans (55.2%).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey, a cross-sectional national survey tracking health information.

• Female respondents aged 40 to 74 years without history of breast cancer were included in the analysis.

• Analysis evaluated the association between screening and veteran status through logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounders.

• Survey procedures accounted for complex sampling design to obtain valid estimates for the civilian, noninstitutionalized US population.

TAKEAWAY:

• Analysis included 8996 female survey respondents, including 169 veterans (1.9%) and 320 (3.2%) reported having military health coverage.

• Mammography screening rates within the last year were comparable between veterans (57.9%) and nonveterans (55.2%).

• Veteran status showed no significant association with differences in mammography screening percentages (P = .96).

• Among insured participants, military health insurance demonstrated no significant association with mammography screening percentages (P = .13).

• The authors suggest that radiology practices should design proactive outreach strategies to address the needs of the growing number of female veterans who may face increased breast cancer risk due to military environmental exposures.

IN PRACTICE: “Although the results from our study demonstrate comparable mammography screening percentages, veterans may face additional risk factors for breast cancer due to occupational,” the authors argue.

SOURCE: This summary is based on a preprint published online in the Journal of the American College of Radiology: Milton A, Miles R, Gettle LM, Van Geertruyden P, Narayan AK. Utilization of Mammography Screening in Female Veterans: Cross-Sectional Survey Results from the National Health Interview Survey. J Am Coll Radiol. Published online April 24, 2025. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2025.04.017

LIMITATIONS: The study relied on self-reported adherence data, which could overestimate screening percentages. Data collection occurred prior to updated United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines recommending routine mammography screening for women starting at age 40 years every 2 years. The relatively small number of female veteran respondents limited the precision of population estimates. Additionally, the data were collected before the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been associated with reduced mammographic screening, particularly in medically underserved populations.

DISCLOSURES: Anand Narayan disclosed receiving financial support from Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and National Academy of Medicine. The study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The remaining authors reported no potential conflicts of interest. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: A national survey of 8996 females reveals comparable mammography screening rates between those who identify as veterans (57.9%) and nonveterans (55.2%).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey, a cross-sectional national survey tracking health information.

• Female respondents aged 40 to 74 years without history of breast cancer were included in the analysis.

• Analysis evaluated the association between screening and veteran status through logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounders.

• Survey procedures accounted for complex sampling design to obtain valid estimates for the civilian, noninstitutionalized US population.

TAKEAWAY:

• Analysis included 8996 female survey respondents, including 169 veterans (1.9%) and 320 (3.2%) reported having military health coverage.

• Mammography screening rates within the last year were comparable between veterans (57.9%) and nonveterans (55.2%).

• Veteran status showed no significant association with differences in mammography screening percentages (P = .96).

• Among insured participants, military health insurance demonstrated no significant association with mammography screening percentages (P = .13).

• The authors suggest that radiology practices should design proactive outreach strategies to address the needs of the growing number of female veterans who may face increased breast cancer risk due to military environmental exposures.

IN PRACTICE: “Although the results from our study demonstrate comparable mammography screening percentages, veterans may face additional risk factors for breast cancer due to occupational,” the authors argue.

SOURCE: This summary is based on a preprint published online in the Journal of the American College of Radiology: Milton A, Miles R, Gettle LM, Van Geertruyden P, Narayan AK. Utilization of Mammography Screening in Female Veterans: Cross-Sectional Survey Results from the National Health Interview Survey. J Am Coll Radiol. Published online April 24, 2025. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2025.04.017

LIMITATIONS: The study relied on self-reported adherence data, which could overestimate screening percentages. Data collection occurred prior to updated United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines recommending routine mammography screening for women starting at age 40 years every 2 years. The relatively small number of female veteran respondents limited the precision of population estimates. Additionally, the data were collected before the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been associated with reduced mammographic screening, particularly in medically underserved populations.

DISCLOSURES: Anand Narayan disclosed receiving financial support from Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and National Academy of Medicine. The study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The remaining authors reported no potential conflicts of interest. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: A national survey of 8996 females reveals comparable mammography screening rates between those who identify as veterans (57.9%) and nonveterans (55.2%).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey, a cross-sectional national survey tracking health information.

• Female respondents aged 40 to 74 years without history of breast cancer were included in the analysis.

• Analysis evaluated the association between screening and veteran status through logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounders.

• Survey procedures accounted for complex sampling design to obtain valid estimates for the civilian, noninstitutionalized US population.

TAKEAWAY:

• Analysis included 8996 female survey respondents, including 169 veterans (1.9%) and 320 (3.2%) reported having military health coverage.

• Mammography screening rates within the last year were comparable between veterans (57.9%) and nonveterans (55.2%).

• Veteran status showed no significant association with differences in mammography screening percentages (P = .96).

• Among insured participants, military health insurance demonstrated no significant association with mammography screening percentages (P = .13).

• The authors suggest that radiology practices should design proactive outreach strategies to address the needs of the growing number of female veterans who may face increased breast cancer risk due to military environmental exposures.

IN PRACTICE: “Although the results from our study demonstrate comparable mammography screening percentages, veterans may face additional risk factors for breast cancer due to occupational,” the authors argue.

SOURCE: This summary is based on a preprint published online in the Journal of the American College of Radiology: Milton A, Miles R, Gettle LM, Van Geertruyden P, Narayan AK. Utilization of Mammography Screening in Female Veterans: Cross-Sectional Survey Results from the National Health Interview Survey. J Am Coll Radiol. Published online April 24, 2025. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2025.04.017

LIMITATIONS: The study relied on self-reported adherence data, which could overestimate screening percentages. Data collection occurred prior to updated United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines recommending routine mammography screening for women starting at age 40 years every 2 years. The relatively small number of female veteran respondents limited the precision of population estimates. Additionally, the data were collected before the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been associated with reduced mammographic screening, particularly in medically underserved populations.

DISCLOSURES: Anand Narayan disclosed receiving financial support from Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation and National Academy of Medicine. The study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The remaining authors reported no potential conflicts of interest. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A clinical trial of a promising blood test that could offer faster and more accurate diagnoses for common cancers has received funding from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).

The miONCO-Dx test  detects cancer at an early stage by analysing microRNA expression in blood. 

It uses artificial intelligence to identify the presence and origin of the disease. 

The test was developed by Xgenera, a University of Southampton spinout, in collaboration with the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Initial analysis of data from more than 20,000 patients showed that the test detected 12 of the most common and lethal cancers at an early stage and with over 99% accuracy.

 

Bowel Cancer Among Key Targets

Bowel cancer, the fourth most common cancer in the United Kingdom, is a principal target for the test. 

Around 44,000 people in the UK are diagnosed with bowel cancer each year. At stage 1, approximately 90% of people survive for 5 years or more, but this drops to around 10% at stage 4. 

Wes Streeting, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, said in a press release, “The key to surviving cancer is catching it as early as possible, so this government is taking the urgent action needed to make sure that happens.”

 

£2.4 Million Awarded for Clinical Trial

The DHSC has awarded Xgenera £2.4 million to advance development of the test, which has now been refined into a cheaper, faster, and more scalable version. 

The funding will support a clinical trial involving 8000 patients. The DHSC described this as “a formal and significant step towards bringing the test closer to patients by ensuring it is fit for purpose in the NHS.”

The trial will be run by Cancer Research UK Southampton Clinical Trials Unit.

 

Potential for NHS Use

Dr Victoria Goss, head of early diagnosis and translational research at the trials unit, said in a press release, “A reliable test such as this could have the potential to see a major shift in cancer screening, making it easier and cheaper to provide on the NHS, cutting health inequalities, and ultimately reducing the number of people who die from the disease.”

Xgenera co-founder Dr Andy Shapanis, a research fellow at the University of Southampton, said that the new study would evaluate the useability, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness of the test for use within the NHS in future. 

“The hope is that if the test is shown to be successful in the early diagnosis of the 12 cancers we have currently identified biomarkers for, then it could be expanded to look at over 50 other cancers in the future,” he said.

 

Comparison With Other Tests

The miONCO-Dx test follows other attempts at multicancer early detection, such as the Galleri test from Grail, which is already being trialled in the NHS.

Galleri screens for altered DNA methylation patterns in blood and claims to detect more than 50 types of cancer. It raised hopes for earlier diagnosis, less invasive treatment, and potential cost savings.

However, critics have raised concerns about low detection rates in early-stage cancers, high false-positive rates, imprecise cancer origin analysis, cost, and unproven mortality gains. Questions have also been expressed about possible political influence in its selection for NHS trials.

 

A Broader Screening Platform

Xgenera co-founder Professor Paul Skipp, director of the Centre for Proteomic Research at the University of Southampton, said earlier this year that the miONCO-Dx test was “a real game-changer.” 

The test can detect lung, breast, prostate, pancreatic, colorectal, ovarian, liver, brain, oesophageal, bladder, and gastric cancer and bone and soft-tissue sarcoma. It works by identifying imbalances in microRNAs, a class of small noncoding RNAs with functions in posttranscriptional regulation of gene expression, influencing cellular activities including cell growth, differentiation, development, and apoptosis.

The presence of microRNA imbalances can be identified from just 10-15 drops of blood, across all stages of tumour growth. 

In comparison, according to Skipp, screening is only available currently for three types of cancer in the UK, and each test targets a single type.

Xgenera has also received external investment from the innovation investment companies Qantx, Empirical Ventures, and Ascension Ventures to further develop the test.

Dr Sheena Meredith is an established medical writer, editor, and consultant in healthcare communications, with extensive experience writing for medical professionals and the general public. She is qualified in medicine and in law and medical ethics.

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

A clinical trial of a promising blood test that could offer faster and more accurate diagnoses for common cancers has received funding from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).

The miONCO-Dx test  detects cancer at an early stage by analysing microRNA expression in blood. 

It uses artificial intelligence to identify the presence and origin of the disease. 

The test was developed by Xgenera, a University of Southampton spinout, in collaboration with the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Initial analysis of data from more than 20,000 patients showed that the test detected 12 of the most common and lethal cancers at an early stage and with over 99% accuracy.

 

Bowel Cancer Among Key Targets

Bowel cancer, the fourth most common cancer in the United Kingdom, is a principal target for the test. 

Around 44,000 people in the UK are diagnosed with bowel cancer each year. At stage 1, approximately 90% of people survive for 5 years or more, but this drops to around 10% at stage 4. 

Wes Streeting, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, said in a press release, “The key to surviving cancer is catching it as early as possible, so this government is taking the urgent action needed to make sure that happens.”

 

£2.4 Million Awarded for Clinical Trial

The DHSC has awarded Xgenera £2.4 million to advance development of the test, which has now been refined into a cheaper, faster, and more scalable version. 

The funding will support a clinical trial involving 8000 patients. The DHSC described this as “a formal and significant step towards bringing the test closer to patients by ensuring it is fit for purpose in the NHS.”

The trial will be run by Cancer Research UK Southampton Clinical Trials Unit.

 

Potential for NHS Use

Dr Victoria Goss, head of early diagnosis and translational research at the trials unit, said in a press release, “A reliable test such as this could have the potential to see a major shift in cancer screening, making it easier and cheaper to provide on the NHS, cutting health inequalities, and ultimately reducing the number of people who die from the disease.”

Xgenera co-founder Dr Andy Shapanis, a research fellow at the University of Southampton, said that the new study would evaluate the useability, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness of the test for use within the NHS in future. 

“The hope is that if the test is shown to be successful in the early diagnosis of the 12 cancers we have currently identified biomarkers for, then it could be expanded to look at over 50 other cancers in the future,” he said.

 

Comparison With Other Tests

The miONCO-Dx test follows other attempts at multicancer early detection, such as the Galleri test from Grail, which is already being trialled in the NHS.

Galleri screens for altered DNA methylation patterns in blood and claims to detect more than 50 types of cancer. It raised hopes for earlier diagnosis, less invasive treatment, and potential cost savings.

However, critics have raised concerns about low detection rates in early-stage cancers, high false-positive rates, imprecise cancer origin analysis, cost, and unproven mortality gains. Questions have also been expressed about possible political influence in its selection for NHS trials.

 

A Broader Screening Platform

Xgenera co-founder Professor Paul Skipp, director of the Centre for Proteomic Research at the University of Southampton, said earlier this year that the miONCO-Dx test was “a real game-changer.” 

The test can detect lung, breast, prostate, pancreatic, colorectal, ovarian, liver, brain, oesophageal, bladder, and gastric cancer and bone and soft-tissue sarcoma. It works by identifying imbalances in microRNAs, a class of small noncoding RNAs with functions in posttranscriptional regulation of gene expression, influencing cellular activities including cell growth, differentiation, development, and apoptosis.

The presence of microRNA imbalances can be identified from just 10-15 drops of blood, across all stages of tumour growth. 

In comparison, according to Skipp, screening is only available currently for three types of cancer in the UK, and each test targets a single type.

Xgenera has also received external investment from the innovation investment companies Qantx, Empirical Ventures, and Ascension Ventures to further develop the test.

Dr Sheena Meredith is an established medical writer, editor, and consultant in healthcare communications, with extensive experience writing for medical professionals and the general public. She is qualified in medicine and in law and medical ethics.

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

A clinical trial of a promising blood test that could offer faster and more accurate diagnoses for common cancers has received funding from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).

The miONCO-Dx test  detects cancer at an early stage by analysing microRNA expression in blood. 

It uses artificial intelligence to identify the presence and origin of the disease. 

The test was developed by Xgenera, a University of Southampton spinout, in collaboration with the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Initial analysis of data from more than 20,000 patients showed that the test detected 12 of the most common and lethal cancers at an early stage and with over 99% accuracy.

 

Bowel Cancer Among Key Targets

Bowel cancer, the fourth most common cancer in the United Kingdom, is a principal target for the test. 

Around 44,000 people in the UK are diagnosed with bowel cancer each year. At stage 1, approximately 90% of people survive for 5 years or more, but this drops to around 10% at stage 4. 

Wes Streeting, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, said in a press release, “The key to surviving cancer is catching it as early as possible, so this government is taking the urgent action needed to make sure that happens.”

 

£2.4 Million Awarded for Clinical Trial

The DHSC has awarded Xgenera £2.4 million to advance development of the test, which has now been refined into a cheaper, faster, and more scalable version. 

The funding will support a clinical trial involving 8000 patients. The DHSC described this as “a formal and significant step towards bringing the test closer to patients by ensuring it is fit for purpose in the NHS.”

The trial will be run by Cancer Research UK Southampton Clinical Trials Unit.

 

Potential for NHS Use

Dr Victoria Goss, head of early diagnosis and translational research at the trials unit, said in a press release, “A reliable test such as this could have the potential to see a major shift in cancer screening, making it easier and cheaper to provide on the NHS, cutting health inequalities, and ultimately reducing the number of people who die from the disease.”

Xgenera co-founder Dr Andy Shapanis, a research fellow at the University of Southampton, said that the new study would evaluate the useability, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness of the test for use within the NHS in future. 

“The hope is that if the test is shown to be successful in the early diagnosis of the 12 cancers we have currently identified biomarkers for, then it could be expanded to look at over 50 other cancers in the future,” he said.

 

Comparison With Other Tests

The miONCO-Dx test follows other attempts at multicancer early detection, such as the Galleri test from Grail, which is already being trialled in the NHS.

Galleri screens for altered DNA methylation patterns in blood and claims to detect more than 50 types of cancer. It raised hopes for earlier diagnosis, less invasive treatment, and potential cost savings.

However, critics have raised concerns about low detection rates in early-stage cancers, high false-positive rates, imprecise cancer origin analysis, cost, and unproven mortality gains. Questions have also been expressed about possible political influence in its selection for NHS trials.

 

A Broader Screening Platform

Xgenera co-founder Professor Paul Skipp, director of the Centre for Proteomic Research at the University of Southampton, said earlier this year that the miONCO-Dx test was “a real game-changer.” 

The test can detect lung, breast, prostate, pancreatic, colorectal, ovarian, liver, brain, oesophageal, bladder, and gastric cancer and bone and soft-tissue sarcoma. It works by identifying imbalances in microRNAs, a class of small noncoding RNAs with functions in posttranscriptional regulation of gene expression, influencing cellular activities including cell growth, differentiation, development, and apoptosis.

The presence of microRNA imbalances can be identified from just 10-15 drops of blood, across all stages of tumour growth. 

In comparison, according to Skipp, screening is only available currently for three types of cancer in the UK, and each test targets a single type.

Xgenera has also received external investment from the innovation investment companies Qantx, Empirical Ventures, and Ascension Ventures to further develop the test.

Dr Sheena Meredith is an established medical writer, editor, and consultant in healthcare communications, with extensive experience writing for medical professionals and the general public. She is qualified in medicine and in law and medical ethics.

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

Incorporating a polygenic risk score into prostate cancer screening could enhance the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer that conventional screening may miss, according to results of the BARCODE 1 clinical trial conducted in the United Kingdom.

The study found that about 72% of participants with high polygenic risk scores were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancers, which would not have been detected with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing or MRI.

“With this test, it could be possible to turn the tide on prostate cancer,” study author Ros Eeles, PhD, professor of oncogenetics at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, England, said in a statement following the publication of the analysis in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Prostate cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among men. As a screening tool, PSA testing has been criticized for leading to a high rate of false positive results and overdiagnosis — defined as a screen-detected cancer that would take longer to progress to clinical cancer than the patient’s lifetime. Both issues can result in overtreatment.

Given prostate cancer’s high heritability and the proliferation of genome-wide association studies identifying common genetic variants, there has been growing interest in using polygenic risk scores to improve risk stratification and guide screening.

“Building on decades of research into the genetic markers of prostate cancer, our study shows that the theory does work in practice — we can identify men at risk of aggressive cancers who need further tests and spare the men who are at lower risk from unnecessary treatments,” said Eeles.

 

An Adjunct to Screening?

The BARCODE 1 study, conducted in the United Kingdom, tested the clinical utility of a polygenic risk score as an adjunct to screening.

The researchers recruited men aged 55-69 years from primary care centers in the United Kingdom. Using germline DNA extracted from saliva, they derived polygenic risk scores from 130 genetic variants known to be associated with an increased risk for prostate cancer.

Among a total of 6393 men who had their scores calculated, 745 (12%) had a score in the top 10% of genetic risk (≥ 90th percentile) and were invited to undergo further screening.

Of these, 468 (63%) accepted the invite and underwent multiparametric MRI and transperineal prostate biopsy, irrespective of the PSA level. Overall, 187 (40%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer following biopsy. Of the 187 men with prostate cancer, 55% (n = 103) had disease classified as intermediate or high risk (Gleason score ≥ 7) per National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and therefore warranted further treatment.

Researchers then compared screening that incorporated polygenic risk scores with standard screening with PSA levels and MRI.

When participants’ risk was stratified by their polygenic risk score, 103 patients (55%) with prostate cancer could be classified as intermediate or higher risk, thus warranting treatment. Overall, 74 (71.8%) of those cancers would have been missed using the standard diagnostic pathway in the United Kingdom, which requires patients to have a high PSA level (> 3.0 μg/L) as well as a positive MRI result. These 74 patients either had PSA levels ≤ 3.0 μg/L or negative MRIs, which would mean these patients would typically fall below the action threshold for further testing.

Of the 103 participants warranting treatment, 40 of these men would have been classified as unfavorable intermediate, high, or very high risk, which would require radical treatment. Among this group, roughly 43% would have been missed using the UK diagnostic pathway. 

However, the investigators estimated a rate of overdiagnosis with the use of polygenic risk scores of 16%-21%, similar to the overdiagnosis estimates in two prior PSA-based screening studies, signaling that the addition of polygenic risk scores does not necessarily reduce the risk for overdiagnosis.

Overall, “this study is the strongest evidence to date on the clinical utility of a polygenic score for prostate cancer screening,” commented Michael Inouye, professor of systems genomics & population health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre (SMC).

“I suspect we will look back on this as a landmark study that really made the clinical case for polygenic scores as a new tool that moved health systems from disease management to early detection and prevention,” said Inouye, who was not involved in the study.

However, other experts were more cautious about the findings.

Dusko Ilic, MD, professor of stem cell sciences, King’s College London, London, England, said the results are “promising, especially in identifying significant cancers that would otherwise be missed,” but cautioned that “there is no direct evidence yet that using [polygenic risk scores] improves long-term outcomes such as mortality or quality-adjusted life years.”

“Modeling suggests benefit, but empirical confirmation is needed,” Ilic said in the SMC statement.

The hope is that the recently launched TRANSFORM trial will help answer some of these outstanding questions.

The current study suggests that polygenic risk scores for prostate cancer “would be a useful component of a multimodality screening program that assesses age, family history of prostate cancer, PSA, and MRI results as triage tools before biopsy is recommended,” David Hunter, MPH, ScD, with Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and University of Oxford, Oxford, England, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.

“To make this integrated program a reality, however, changes to infrastructure would be needed to make running and analyzing a regulated genome array as easy as requesting a PSA level or ordering an MRI. Clearly, we are far from that future,” Hunter cautioned. 

“A possible first step that would require less infrastructure could be to order a polygenic risk score only for men with a positive PSA result, then use the polygenic risk score to determine who should undergo an MRI, and then use all the information to determine whether biopsy is recommended,” Hunter said.

In his view, the current study is a “first step on a long road to evaluating new components of any disease screening pathway.”

The research received funding from the European Research Council, the Bob Willis Fund, Cancer Research UK, the Peacock Trust, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research. Disclosures for authors and editorialists are available with the original article. Inouye and Ilic reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Incorporating a polygenic risk score into prostate cancer screening could enhance the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer that conventional screening may miss, according to results of the BARCODE 1 clinical trial conducted in the United Kingdom.

The study found that about 72% of participants with high polygenic risk scores were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancers, which would not have been detected with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing or MRI.

“With this test, it could be possible to turn the tide on prostate cancer,” study author Ros Eeles, PhD, professor of oncogenetics at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, England, said in a statement following the publication of the analysis in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Prostate cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among men. As a screening tool, PSA testing has been criticized for leading to a high rate of false positive results and overdiagnosis — defined as a screen-detected cancer that would take longer to progress to clinical cancer than the patient’s lifetime. Both issues can result in overtreatment.

Given prostate cancer’s high heritability and the proliferation of genome-wide association studies identifying common genetic variants, there has been growing interest in using polygenic risk scores to improve risk stratification and guide screening.

“Building on decades of research into the genetic markers of prostate cancer, our study shows that the theory does work in practice — we can identify men at risk of aggressive cancers who need further tests and spare the men who are at lower risk from unnecessary treatments,” said Eeles.

 

An Adjunct to Screening?

The BARCODE 1 study, conducted in the United Kingdom, tested the clinical utility of a polygenic risk score as an adjunct to screening.

The researchers recruited men aged 55-69 years from primary care centers in the United Kingdom. Using germline DNA extracted from saliva, they derived polygenic risk scores from 130 genetic variants known to be associated with an increased risk for prostate cancer.

Among a total of 6393 men who had their scores calculated, 745 (12%) had a score in the top 10% of genetic risk (≥ 90th percentile) and were invited to undergo further screening.

Of these, 468 (63%) accepted the invite and underwent multiparametric MRI and transperineal prostate biopsy, irrespective of the PSA level. Overall, 187 (40%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer following biopsy. Of the 187 men with prostate cancer, 55% (n = 103) had disease classified as intermediate or high risk (Gleason score ≥ 7) per National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and therefore warranted further treatment.

Researchers then compared screening that incorporated polygenic risk scores with standard screening with PSA levels and MRI.

When participants’ risk was stratified by their polygenic risk score, 103 patients (55%) with prostate cancer could be classified as intermediate or higher risk, thus warranting treatment. Overall, 74 (71.8%) of those cancers would have been missed using the standard diagnostic pathway in the United Kingdom, which requires patients to have a high PSA level (> 3.0 μg/L) as well as a positive MRI result. These 74 patients either had PSA levels ≤ 3.0 μg/L or negative MRIs, which would mean these patients would typically fall below the action threshold for further testing.

Of the 103 participants warranting treatment, 40 of these men would have been classified as unfavorable intermediate, high, or very high risk, which would require radical treatment. Among this group, roughly 43% would have been missed using the UK diagnostic pathway. 

However, the investigators estimated a rate of overdiagnosis with the use of polygenic risk scores of 16%-21%, similar to the overdiagnosis estimates in two prior PSA-based screening studies, signaling that the addition of polygenic risk scores does not necessarily reduce the risk for overdiagnosis.

Overall, “this study is the strongest evidence to date on the clinical utility of a polygenic score for prostate cancer screening,” commented Michael Inouye, professor of systems genomics & population health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre (SMC).

“I suspect we will look back on this as a landmark study that really made the clinical case for polygenic scores as a new tool that moved health systems from disease management to early detection and prevention,” said Inouye, who was not involved in the study.

However, other experts were more cautious about the findings.

Dusko Ilic, MD, professor of stem cell sciences, King’s College London, London, England, said the results are “promising, especially in identifying significant cancers that would otherwise be missed,” but cautioned that “there is no direct evidence yet that using [polygenic risk scores] improves long-term outcomes such as mortality or quality-adjusted life years.”

“Modeling suggests benefit, but empirical confirmation is needed,” Ilic said in the SMC statement.

The hope is that the recently launched TRANSFORM trial will help answer some of these outstanding questions.

The current study suggests that polygenic risk scores for prostate cancer “would be a useful component of a multimodality screening program that assesses age, family history of prostate cancer, PSA, and MRI results as triage tools before biopsy is recommended,” David Hunter, MPH, ScD, with Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and University of Oxford, Oxford, England, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.

“To make this integrated program a reality, however, changes to infrastructure would be needed to make running and analyzing a regulated genome array as easy as requesting a PSA level or ordering an MRI. Clearly, we are far from that future,” Hunter cautioned. 

“A possible first step that would require less infrastructure could be to order a polygenic risk score only for men with a positive PSA result, then use the polygenic risk score to determine who should undergo an MRI, and then use all the information to determine whether biopsy is recommended,” Hunter said.

In his view, the current study is a “first step on a long road to evaluating new components of any disease screening pathway.”

The research received funding from the European Research Council, the Bob Willis Fund, Cancer Research UK, the Peacock Trust, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research. Disclosures for authors and editorialists are available with the original article. Inouye and Ilic reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Incorporating a polygenic risk score into prostate cancer screening could enhance the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer that conventional screening may miss, according to results of the BARCODE 1 clinical trial conducted in the United Kingdom.

The study found that about 72% of participants with high polygenic risk scores were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancers, which would not have been detected with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing or MRI.

“With this test, it could be possible to turn the tide on prostate cancer,” study author Ros Eeles, PhD, professor of oncogenetics at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, England, said in a statement following the publication of the analysis in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Prostate cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among men. As a screening tool, PSA testing has been criticized for leading to a high rate of false positive results and overdiagnosis — defined as a screen-detected cancer that would take longer to progress to clinical cancer than the patient’s lifetime. Both issues can result in overtreatment.

Given prostate cancer’s high heritability and the proliferation of genome-wide association studies identifying common genetic variants, there has been growing interest in using polygenic risk scores to improve risk stratification and guide screening.

“Building on decades of research into the genetic markers of prostate cancer, our study shows that the theory does work in practice — we can identify men at risk of aggressive cancers who need further tests and spare the men who are at lower risk from unnecessary treatments,” said Eeles.

 

An Adjunct to Screening?

The BARCODE 1 study, conducted in the United Kingdom, tested the clinical utility of a polygenic risk score as an adjunct to screening.

The researchers recruited men aged 55-69 years from primary care centers in the United Kingdom. Using germline DNA extracted from saliva, they derived polygenic risk scores from 130 genetic variants known to be associated with an increased risk for prostate cancer.

Among a total of 6393 men who had their scores calculated, 745 (12%) had a score in the top 10% of genetic risk (≥ 90th percentile) and were invited to undergo further screening.

Of these, 468 (63%) accepted the invite and underwent multiparametric MRI and transperineal prostate biopsy, irrespective of the PSA level. Overall, 187 (40%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer following biopsy. Of the 187 men with prostate cancer, 55% (n = 103) had disease classified as intermediate or high risk (Gleason score ≥ 7) per National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and therefore warranted further treatment.

Researchers then compared screening that incorporated polygenic risk scores with standard screening with PSA levels and MRI.

When participants’ risk was stratified by their polygenic risk score, 103 patients (55%) with prostate cancer could be classified as intermediate or higher risk, thus warranting treatment. Overall, 74 (71.8%) of those cancers would have been missed using the standard diagnostic pathway in the United Kingdom, which requires patients to have a high PSA level (> 3.0 μg/L) as well as a positive MRI result. These 74 patients either had PSA levels ≤ 3.0 μg/L or negative MRIs, which would mean these patients would typically fall below the action threshold for further testing.

Of the 103 participants warranting treatment, 40 of these men would have been classified as unfavorable intermediate, high, or very high risk, which would require radical treatment. Among this group, roughly 43% would have been missed using the UK diagnostic pathway. 

However, the investigators estimated a rate of overdiagnosis with the use of polygenic risk scores of 16%-21%, similar to the overdiagnosis estimates in two prior PSA-based screening studies, signaling that the addition of polygenic risk scores does not necessarily reduce the risk for overdiagnosis.

Overall, “this study is the strongest evidence to date on the clinical utility of a polygenic score for prostate cancer screening,” commented Michael Inouye, professor of systems genomics & population health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre (SMC).

“I suspect we will look back on this as a landmark study that really made the clinical case for polygenic scores as a new tool that moved health systems from disease management to early detection and prevention,” said Inouye, who was not involved in the study.

However, other experts were more cautious about the findings.

Dusko Ilic, MD, professor of stem cell sciences, King’s College London, London, England, said the results are “promising, especially in identifying significant cancers that would otherwise be missed,” but cautioned that “there is no direct evidence yet that using [polygenic risk scores] improves long-term outcomes such as mortality or quality-adjusted life years.”

“Modeling suggests benefit, but empirical confirmation is needed,” Ilic said in the SMC statement.

The hope is that the recently launched TRANSFORM trial will help answer some of these outstanding questions.

The current study suggests that polygenic risk scores for prostate cancer “would be a useful component of a multimodality screening program that assesses age, family history of prostate cancer, PSA, and MRI results as triage tools before biopsy is recommended,” David Hunter, MPH, ScD, with Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and University of Oxford, Oxford, England, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.

“To make this integrated program a reality, however, changes to infrastructure would be needed to make running and analyzing a regulated genome array as easy as requesting a PSA level or ordering an MRI. Clearly, we are far from that future,” Hunter cautioned. 

“A possible first step that would require less infrastructure could be to order a polygenic risk score only for men with a positive PSA result, then use the polygenic risk score to determine who should undergo an MRI, and then use all the information to determine whether biopsy is recommended,” Hunter said.

In his view, the current study is a “first step on a long road to evaluating new components of any disease screening pathway.”

The research received funding from the European Research Council, the Bob Willis Fund, Cancer Research UK, the Peacock Trust, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research. Disclosures for authors and editorialists are available with the original article. Inouye and Ilic reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Hello. I’m Dr. David Johnson, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School and Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. 

The American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) recently issued a clinical guideline on the diagnosis and management of gastric premalignant conditions. 

Coincidentally, earlier this year, the ACG and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) collaborated to issue recommendations on quality indicators for upper endoscopy. 

In this overview, I’ll focus on gastric premalignant conditions while drawing upon some of the quality indicators from ACG/ASGE. Together, these publications highlight several things that we may be overlooking and clearly need to do better at addressing, given the emerging data in this area.

 

Gastric Premalignant Conditions: Increased Risk for Progression

Gastric premalignant conditions are common and include atrophic gastritis, gastric intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, and certain gastric epithelial polyps. 

The increased risk for progression to gastric adenocarcinoma in the United States is quite striking. It also reveals an important cancer disparity in certain high-risk groups. 

The incidence rates of gastric cancer are two- to 13-fold greater in non-White individuals, particularly among immigrants from high-risk areas. The rates exceed those for esophageal cancer and approach those for colorectal cancer. We have had a dramatic oversight in recognizing the risk for gastric carcinoma in underserved areas. 

Gastric carcinoma is not a good diagnosis. The 5-year survival rate is 36%. Approximately 40% of cases are metastatic at the time of diagnosis; only about 15% are caught at a curable early stage. 

These rates are in far contrast to Asia and areas that do programmatic screening, where the numbers are dramatically reduced. However, in the United States, we’re simply not there yet.

 

Endoscopic Evaluation

There are three phases of endoscopic evaluation for gastric premalignant conditions on which I’d like to focus: pre-endoscopy, intra-endoscopy, and post-endoscopy.

Pre-endoscopy — that is, before you even put in the endoscope — it’s important to assess patients’ potential risk for certain conditions, regardless of the reason for performing the endoscopy. 

Gastric carcinoma is in the top eight leading causes of cancer death in the United States, with the risk being particularly high in Hispanics and Asians. 

According to 2020 data, 40 million people living in the United States were born in another country, with over 70% coming from areas that have a high incidence of gastric carcinoma. 

Accounting for the increased risk in these groups will become even more important. By 2065, it is projected that Asian and Hispanic individuals — the immigrant groups with the highest risk for gastric cancer — will comprise 70% of the US population. Therefore, we need to do a better job on pre-endoscopic assessment if we want to address this major cancer disparity in the United States. 

However, it’s a potentially fixable problem because, in most cases, gastric carcinoma is preceded by a typical asymptomatic precancerous cascade known as the “Correa’s cascade.” It is analogous to what we see in Barrett’s esophagus or even in colorectal neoplasia as it evolves. 

This histologic cascade is important to recognize in patients before they get to the stage of progression. Doing so is highly dependent on the assessment prior to the endoscopy. 

You should also be thinking about high-risk groups before a pre-endoscopy evaluation.

During intra-endoscopy, it’s important to plan your actions while performing the procedure, even if you are not specifically screening for gastric carcinoma. We must be held accountable to established recommendations, standards, and best practices for accurately defining observations, determining appropriate actions, and effectively implementing screening protocols.

A high-quality evaluation of the gastric mucosa is critically important, as an estimated 5%-11% of neoplastic lesions are missed on upper endoscopy completed within 3 years of a gastric cancer diagnosis. With less-experienced endoscopists, the rate of missed neoplastic lesions may be as high as 25%. 

A quality endoscopy begins (as it would in the colon) with mucosal cleaning. This may not be achieved by water alone and requires the use of mucolytic and defoaming agents, such as simethicone or N-acetylcysteine, which can be inordinately helpful. 

Complete mucosal evaluation entails using insufflation to adequately distend the gastric folds.

Atrophic gastritis is observed in a high percentage of patients, and I’m always on the lookout for it when performing endoscopies. One way to identify atrophic gastritis is to look for the loss of gastric folds, which has an approximate sensitivity of 67% and specificity of 85%. The increased visibility of the submucosal venules is another sign of atrophic gastritis, although its sensitivity and specificity are relatively lower at 48% and 87%, respectively. 

Full photo documentation of the gastric mucosa should be included. It is an important part of the intra-endoscopy procedure and also is mentioned as part of the recently published quality indicators for upper endoscopy from ACG/ASGE. 

Recognizing which patients require a biopsy is important. Appropriate biopsy samples should be obtained in patients with recognizable abnormalities. We’re often looking for changes that may be quite subtle. Dysplasia and even adenocarcinoma in the stomach sometimes just cannot be appreciated based on pure endoscopic evaluation.

When it comes to the biopsy protocol, the recommendation is to follow the Sydney system, which was developed in the 1990s. Simply put, this protocol calls for the biopsy samples to be obtained and placed in two separate jars. You look at the greater and lesser curvature of the antrum and the incisura (jar one), and the greater and lesser curvature of the corpus (jar two) in any identified incidental focused biopsy. This is what we do in the colon and the esophagus. 

You should do this after you appropriately clean the mucosa and distend the gastric lumen, ideally using CO2, to avoid the retention of gas. 

Time is another important quality measure. This is similar to the colon, where we see that withdrawal times have increased from 6 minutes to 8-9 minutes. In the stomach, there were initial data about a minimum of 2-3 minutes. However, more recent data in the ACG guideline and the ACG/ASGE quality indicators indicate that detection rates increase after mucosal clearance and dissension when the gastric evaluation is 6-7 minutes. These are numbers we need to pay attention to. The ACG guideline notes that a 2- to 3-minute withdrawal time for upper endoscopy is substandard and not acceptable. If you’re still at that level, then you’re below the standard of care. 

Again, consider time and photo documentation while examining four to six specific areas of both the greater and lesser curvature of the antrum and corpus, and the incisura angularis. It is ideal to use high-definition endoscopy along with the available virtual imaging enhancers. This is the basic requirement for achieving high-quality assessments. 

When it comes to post-endoscopy, it’s essential to talk to your pathologist about using validated instruments of reporting what gastric precancerous lesions involve. There are two different systems: the Operative Link for Gastritis Assessment (OLGA) and the Operative Link on Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia (OLGIM). Although not routinely used in the United States, they are the best recommendations we have for validated histologic scoring systems.

Your pathologist needs to be up to speed on understanding how to report the extent of intestinal metaplasia (complete, incomplete, and mixed) and identifying the areas of focality or abnormalities. It defines what the subsequent surveillance recommendations should be.

 

Know What’s Required

Let’s review what’s required when it comes to diagnosing and managing gastric premalignant conditions.

First, pre-endoscopy must involve the assessment of risk. Before we put in the endoscope, it’s critical to know, regardless of why the patient is there, who needs to be assessed for gastric premalignant conditions. 

Second, during the intra-endoscopy phase, don’t forget the assessments and documentation. If you’re assessing for gastric intestinal metaplasia, use the Sydney system.

Time is a big component. Withdrawal times are discussed much more frequently now, with the takeaway being that longer is better. Aiming for 6-7 minutes is best, according to recommendations from international endoscopy societies and quality measures from the United States. The ACG guideline says that withdrawal times of 2-3 minutes are not best practice and fall short of standard of care. 

For post-endoscopy, talk to your pathologist to ensure better communication and understanding. Make sure that you have a quality gastrointestinal pathologist interpreting these lesions so patients can either enter surveillance or discontinue surveillance after potentially two exams negative for evidence of progressive change.

To do better, we need to understand these guidelines, which are all applicable now. 

I’m Dr. David Johnson. Thanks for listening. See you next time.

David A. Johnson, MD, a regular contributor to Medscape, is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease.

He has disclosed the relevant financial relationships: Advisor to ISOTHRIVE.

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

Hello. I’m Dr. David Johnson, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School and Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. 

The American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) recently issued a clinical guideline on the diagnosis and management of gastric premalignant conditions. 

Coincidentally, earlier this year, the ACG and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) collaborated to issue recommendations on quality indicators for upper endoscopy. 

In this overview, I’ll focus on gastric premalignant conditions while drawing upon some of the quality indicators from ACG/ASGE. Together, these publications highlight several things that we may be overlooking and clearly need to do better at addressing, given the emerging data in this area.

 

Gastric Premalignant Conditions: Increased Risk for Progression

Gastric premalignant conditions are common and include atrophic gastritis, gastric intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, and certain gastric epithelial polyps. 

The increased risk for progression to gastric adenocarcinoma in the United States is quite striking. It also reveals an important cancer disparity in certain high-risk groups. 

The incidence rates of gastric cancer are two- to 13-fold greater in non-White individuals, particularly among immigrants from high-risk areas. The rates exceed those for esophageal cancer and approach those for colorectal cancer. We have had a dramatic oversight in recognizing the risk for gastric carcinoma in underserved areas. 

Gastric carcinoma is not a good diagnosis. The 5-year survival rate is 36%. Approximately 40% of cases are metastatic at the time of diagnosis; only about 15% are caught at a curable early stage. 

These rates are in far contrast to Asia and areas that do programmatic screening, where the numbers are dramatically reduced. However, in the United States, we’re simply not there yet.

 

Endoscopic Evaluation

There are three phases of endoscopic evaluation for gastric premalignant conditions on which I’d like to focus: pre-endoscopy, intra-endoscopy, and post-endoscopy.

Pre-endoscopy — that is, before you even put in the endoscope — it’s important to assess patients’ potential risk for certain conditions, regardless of the reason for performing the endoscopy. 

Gastric carcinoma is in the top eight leading causes of cancer death in the United States, with the risk being particularly high in Hispanics and Asians. 

According to 2020 data, 40 million people living in the United States were born in another country, with over 70% coming from areas that have a high incidence of gastric carcinoma. 

Accounting for the increased risk in these groups will become even more important. By 2065, it is projected that Asian and Hispanic individuals — the immigrant groups with the highest risk for gastric cancer — will comprise 70% of the US population. Therefore, we need to do a better job on pre-endoscopic assessment if we want to address this major cancer disparity in the United States. 

However, it’s a potentially fixable problem because, in most cases, gastric carcinoma is preceded by a typical asymptomatic precancerous cascade known as the “Correa’s cascade.” It is analogous to what we see in Barrett’s esophagus or even in colorectal neoplasia as it evolves. 

This histologic cascade is important to recognize in patients before they get to the stage of progression. Doing so is highly dependent on the assessment prior to the endoscopy. 

You should also be thinking about high-risk groups before a pre-endoscopy evaluation.

During intra-endoscopy, it’s important to plan your actions while performing the procedure, even if you are not specifically screening for gastric carcinoma. We must be held accountable to established recommendations, standards, and best practices for accurately defining observations, determining appropriate actions, and effectively implementing screening protocols.

A high-quality evaluation of the gastric mucosa is critically important, as an estimated 5%-11% of neoplastic lesions are missed on upper endoscopy completed within 3 years of a gastric cancer diagnosis. With less-experienced endoscopists, the rate of missed neoplastic lesions may be as high as 25%. 

A quality endoscopy begins (as it would in the colon) with mucosal cleaning. This may not be achieved by water alone and requires the use of mucolytic and defoaming agents, such as simethicone or N-acetylcysteine, which can be inordinately helpful. 

Complete mucosal evaluation entails using insufflation to adequately distend the gastric folds.

Atrophic gastritis is observed in a high percentage of patients, and I’m always on the lookout for it when performing endoscopies. One way to identify atrophic gastritis is to look for the loss of gastric folds, which has an approximate sensitivity of 67% and specificity of 85%. The increased visibility of the submucosal venules is another sign of atrophic gastritis, although its sensitivity and specificity are relatively lower at 48% and 87%, respectively. 

Full photo documentation of the gastric mucosa should be included. It is an important part of the intra-endoscopy procedure and also is mentioned as part of the recently published quality indicators for upper endoscopy from ACG/ASGE. 

Recognizing which patients require a biopsy is important. Appropriate biopsy samples should be obtained in patients with recognizable abnormalities. We’re often looking for changes that may be quite subtle. Dysplasia and even adenocarcinoma in the stomach sometimes just cannot be appreciated based on pure endoscopic evaluation.

When it comes to the biopsy protocol, the recommendation is to follow the Sydney system, which was developed in the 1990s. Simply put, this protocol calls for the biopsy samples to be obtained and placed in two separate jars. You look at the greater and lesser curvature of the antrum and the incisura (jar one), and the greater and lesser curvature of the corpus (jar two) in any identified incidental focused biopsy. This is what we do in the colon and the esophagus. 

You should do this after you appropriately clean the mucosa and distend the gastric lumen, ideally using CO2, to avoid the retention of gas. 

Time is another important quality measure. This is similar to the colon, where we see that withdrawal times have increased from 6 minutes to 8-9 minutes. In the stomach, there were initial data about a minimum of 2-3 minutes. However, more recent data in the ACG guideline and the ACG/ASGE quality indicators indicate that detection rates increase after mucosal clearance and dissension when the gastric evaluation is 6-7 minutes. These are numbers we need to pay attention to. The ACG guideline notes that a 2- to 3-minute withdrawal time for upper endoscopy is substandard and not acceptable. If you’re still at that level, then you’re below the standard of care. 

Again, consider time and photo documentation while examining four to six specific areas of both the greater and lesser curvature of the antrum and corpus, and the incisura angularis. It is ideal to use high-definition endoscopy along with the available virtual imaging enhancers. This is the basic requirement for achieving high-quality assessments. 

When it comes to post-endoscopy, it’s essential to talk to your pathologist about using validated instruments of reporting what gastric precancerous lesions involve. There are two different systems: the Operative Link for Gastritis Assessment (OLGA) and the Operative Link on Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia (OLGIM). Although not routinely used in the United States, they are the best recommendations we have for validated histologic scoring systems.

Your pathologist needs to be up to speed on understanding how to report the extent of intestinal metaplasia (complete, incomplete, and mixed) and identifying the areas of focality or abnormalities. It defines what the subsequent surveillance recommendations should be.

 

Know What’s Required

Let’s review what’s required when it comes to diagnosing and managing gastric premalignant conditions.

First, pre-endoscopy must involve the assessment of risk. Before we put in the endoscope, it’s critical to know, regardless of why the patient is there, who needs to be assessed for gastric premalignant conditions. 

Second, during the intra-endoscopy phase, don’t forget the assessments and documentation. If you’re assessing for gastric intestinal metaplasia, use the Sydney system.

Time is a big component. Withdrawal times are discussed much more frequently now, with the takeaway being that longer is better. Aiming for 6-7 minutes is best, according to recommendations from international endoscopy societies and quality measures from the United States. The ACG guideline says that withdrawal times of 2-3 minutes are not best practice and fall short of standard of care. 

For post-endoscopy, talk to your pathologist to ensure better communication and understanding. Make sure that you have a quality gastrointestinal pathologist interpreting these lesions so patients can either enter surveillance or discontinue surveillance after potentially two exams negative for evidence of progressive change.

To do better, we need to understand these guidelines, which are all applicable now. 

I’m Dr. David Johnson. Thanks for listening. See you next time.

David A. Johnson, MD, a regular contributor to Medscape, is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease.

He has disclosed the relevant financial relationships: Advisor to ISOTHRIVE.

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

Hello. I’m Dr. David Johnson, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School and Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. 

The American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) recently issued a clinical guideline on the diagnosis and management of gastric premalignant conditions. 

Coincidentally, earlier this year, the ACG and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) collaborated to issue recommendations on quality indicators for upper endoscopy. 

In this overview, I’ll focus on gastric premalignant conditions while drawing upon some of the quality indicators from ACG/ASGE. Together, these publications highlight several things that we may be overlooking and clearly need to do better at addressing, given the emerging data in this area.

 

Gastric Premalignant Conditions: Increased Risk for Progression

Gastric premalignant conditions are common and include atrophic gastritis, gastric intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, and certain gastric epithelial polyps. 

The increased risk for progression to gastric adenocarcinoma in the United States is quite striking. It also reveals an important cancer disparity in certain high-risk groups. 

The incidence rates of gastric cancer are two- to 13-fold greater in non-White individuals, particularly among immigrants from high-risk areas. The rates exceed those for esophageal cancer and approach those for colorectal cancer. We have had a dramatic oversight in recognizing the risk for gastric carcinoma in underserved areas. 

Gastric carcinoma is not a good diagnosis. The 5-year survival rate is 36%. Approximately 40% of cases are metastatic at the time of diagnosis; only about 15% are caught at a curable early stage. 

These rates are in far contrast to Asia and areas that do programmatic screening, where the numbers are dramatically reduced. However, in the United States, we’re simply not there yet.

 

Endoscopic Evaluation

There are three phases of endoscopic evaluation for gastric premalignant conditions on which I’d like to focus: pre-endoscopy, intra-endoscopy, and post-endoscopy.

Pre-endoscopy — that is, before you even put in the endoscope — it’s important to assess patients’ potential risk for certain conditions, regardless of the reason for performing the endoscopy. 

Gastric carcinoma is in the top eight leading causes of cancer death in the United States, with the risk being particularly high in Hispanics and Asians. 

According to 2020 data, 40 million people living in the United States were born in another country, with over 70% coming from areas that have a high incidence of gastric carcinoma. 

Accounting for the increased risk in these groups will become even more important. By 2065, it is projected that Asian and Hispanic individuals — the immigrant groups with the highest risk for gastric cancer — will comprise 70% of the US population. Therefore, we need to do a better job on pre-endoscopic assessment if we want to address this major cancer disparity in the United States. 

However, it’s a potentially fixable problem because, in most cases, gastric carcinoma is preceded by a typical asymptomatic precancerous cascade known as the “Correa’s cascade.” It is analogous to what we see in Barrett’s esophagus or even in colorectal neoplasia as it evolves. 

This histologic cascade is important to recognize in patients before they get to the stage of progression. Doing so is highly dependent on the assessment prior to the endoscopy. 

You should also be thinking about high-risk groups before a pre-endoscopy evaluation.

During intra-endoscopy, it’s important to plan your actions while performing the procedure, even if you are not specifically screening for gastric carcinoma. We must be held accountable to established recommendations, standards, and best practices for accurately defining observations, determining appropriate actions, and effectively implementing screening protocols.

A high-quality evaluation of the gastric mucosa is critically important, as an estimated 5%-11% of neoplastic lesions are missed on upper endoscopy completed within 3 years of a gastric cancer diagnosis. With less-experienced endoscopists, the rate of missed neoplastic lesions may be as high as 25%. 

A quality endoscopy begins (as it would in the colon) with mucosal cleaning. This may not be achieved by water alone and requires the use of mucolytic and defoaming agents, such as simethicone or N-acetylcysteine, which can be inordinately helpful. 

Complete mucosal evaluation entails using insufflation to adequately distend the gastric folds.

Atrophic gastritis is observed in a high percentage of patients, and I’m always on the lookout for it when performing endoscopies. One way to identify atrophic gastritis is to look for the loss of gastric folds, which has an approximate sensitivity of 67% and specificity of 85%. The increased visibility of the submucosal venules is another sign of atrophic gastritis, although its sensitivity and specificity are relatively lower at 48% and 87%, respectively. 

Full photo documentation of the gastric mucosa should be included. It is an important part of the intra-endoscopy procedure and also is mentioned as part of the recently published quality indicators for upper endoscopy from ACG/ASGE. 

Recognizing which patients require a biopsy is important. Appropriate biopsy samples should be obtained in patients with recognizable abnormalities. We’re often looking for changes that may be quite subtle. Dysplasia and even adenocarcinoma in the stomach sometimes just cannot be appreciated based on pure endoscopic evaluation.

When it comes to the biopsy protocol, the recommendation is to follow the Sydney system, which was developed in the 1990s. Simply put, this protocol calls for the biopsy samples to be obtained and placed in two separate jars. You look at the greater and lesser curvature of the antrum and the incisura (jar one), and the greater and lesser curvature of the corpus (jar two) in any identified incidental focused biopsy. This is what we do in the colon and the esophagus. 

You should do this after you appropriately clean the mucosa and distend the gastric lumen, ideally using CO2, to avoid the retention of gas. 

Time is another important quality measure. This is similar to the colon, where we see that withdrawal times have increased from 6 minutes to 8-9 minutes. In the stomach, there were initial data about a minimum of 2-3 minutes. However, more recent data in the ACG guideline and the ACG/ASGE quality indicators indicate that detection rates increase after mucosal clearance and dissension when the gastric evaluation is 6-7 minutes. These are numbers we need to pay attention to. The ACG guideline notes that a 2- to 3-minute withdrawal time for upper endoscopy is substandard and not acceptable. If you’re still at that level, then you’re below the standard of care. 

Again, consider time and photo documentation while examining four to six specific areas of both the greater and lesser curvature of the antrum and corpus, and the incisura angularis. It is ideal to use high-definition endoscopy along with the available virtual imaging enhancers. This is the basic requirement for achieving high-quality assessments. 

When it comes to post-endoscopy, it’s essential to talk to your pathologist about using validated instruments of reporting what gastric precancerous lesions involve. There are two different systems: the Operative Link for Gastritis Assessment (OLGA) and the Operative Link on Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia (OLGIM). Although not routinely used in the United States, they are the best recommendations we have for validated histologic scoring systems.

Your pathologist needs to be up to speed on understanding how to report the extent of intestinal metaplasia (complete, incomplete, and mixed) and identifying the areas of focality or abnormalities. It defines what the subsequent surveillance recommendations should be.

 

Know What’s Required

Let’s review what’s required when it comes to diagnosing and managing gastric premalignant conditions.

First, pre-endoscopy must involve the assessment of risk. Before we put in the endoscope, it’s critical to know, regardless of why the patient is there, who needs to be assessed for gastric premalignant conditions. 

Second, during the intra-endoscopy phase, don’t forget the assessments and documentation. If you’re assessing for gastric intestinal metaplasia, use the Sydney system.

Time is a big component. Withdrawal times are discussed much more frequently now, with the takeaway being that longer is better. Aiming for 6-7 minutes is best, according to recommendations from international endoscopy societies and quality measures from the United States. The ACG guideline says that withdrawal times of 2-3 minutes are not best practice and fall short of standard of care. 

For post-endoscopy, talk to your pathologist to ensure better communication and understanding. Make sure that you have a quality gastrointestinal pathologist interpreting these lesions so patients can either enter surveillance or discontinue surveillance after potentially two exams negative for evidence of progressive change.

To do better, we need to understand these guidelines, which are all applicable now. 

I’m Dr. David Johnson. Thanks for listening. See you next time.

David A. Johnson, MD, a regular contributor to Medscape, is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease.

He has disclosed the relevant financial relationships: Advisor to ISOTHRIVE.

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

Incorporating a polygenic risk score into prostate cancer screening could enhance the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer that conventional screening may miss, according to results of the BARCODE 1 clinical trial conducted in the United Kingdom.

The study found that about 72% of participants with high polygenic risk scores were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancers, which would not have been detected with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing or MRI.

“With this test, it could be possible to turn the tide on prostate cancer,” study author Ros Eeles, PhD, professor of oncogenetics at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, England, said in a statement following the publication of the analysis in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Prostate cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among men. As a screening tool, PSA testing has been criticized for leading to a high rate of false positive results and overdiagnosis — defined as a screen-detected cancer that would take longer to progress to clinical cancer than the patient’s lifetime. Both issues can result in overtreatment.

Given prostate cancer’s high heritability and the proliferation of genome-wide association studies identifying common genetic variants, there has been growing interest in using polygenic risk scores to improve risk stratification and guide screening.

“Building on decades of research into the genetic markers of prostate cancer, our study shows that the theory does work in practice — we can identify men at risk of aggressive cancers who need further tests and spare the men who are at lower risk from unnecessary treatments,” said Eeles.

 

An Adjunct to Screening?

The BARCODE 1 study, conducted in the United Kingdom, tested the clinical utility of a polygenic risk score as an adjunct to screening.

The researchers recruited men aged 55-69 years from primary care centers in the United Kingdom. Using germline DNA extracted from saliva, they derived polygenic risk scores from 130 genetic variants known to be associated with an increased risk for prostate cancer.

Among a total of 6393 men who had their scores calculated, 745 (12%) had a score in the top 10% of genetic risk (≥ 90th percentile) and were invited to undergo further screening.

Of these, 468 (63%) accepted the invite and underwent multiparametric MRI and transperineal prostate biopsy, irrespective of the PSA level. Overall, 187 (40%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer following biopsy. Of the 187 men with prostate cancer, 55% (n = 103) had disease classified as intermediate or high risk (Gleason score ≥ 7) per National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and therefore warranted further treatment.

Researchers then compared screening that incorporated polygenic risk scores with standard screening with PSA levels and MRI.

When participants’ risk was stratified by their polygenic risk score, 103 patients (55%) with prostate cancer could be classified as intermediate or higher risk, thus warranting treatment. Overall, 74 (71.8%) of those cancers would have been missed using the standard diagnostic pathway in the United Kingdom, which requires patients to have a high PSA level (> 3.0 μg/L) as well as a positive MRI result. These 74 patients either had PSA levels ≤ 3.0 μg/L or negative MRIs, which would mean these patients would typically fall below the action threshold for further testing.

Of the 103 participants warranting treatment, 40 of these men would have been classified as unfavorable intermediate, high, or very high risk, which would require radical treatment. Among this group, roughly 43% would have been missed using the UK diagnostic pathway. 

However, the investigators estimated a rate of overdiagnosis with the use of polygenic risk scores of 16%-21%, similar to the overdiagnosis estimates in two prior PSA-based screening studies, signaling that the addition of polygenic risk scores does not necessarily reduce the risk for overdiagnosis.

Overall, “this study is the strongest evidence to date on the clinical utility of a polygenic score for prostate cancer screening,” commented Michael Inouye, professor of systems genomics & population health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre (SMC).

“I suspect we will look back on this as a landmark study that really made the clinical case for polygenic scores as a new tool that moved health systems from disease management to early detection and prevention,” said Inouye, who was not involved in the study.

However, other experts were more cautious about the findings.

Dusko Ilic, MD, professor of stem cell sciences, King’s College London, London, England, said the results are “promising, especially in identifying significant cancers that would otherwise be missed,” but cautioned that “there is no direct evidence yet that using [polygenic risk scores] improves long-term outcomes such as mortality or quality-adjusted life years.”

“Modeling suggests benefit, but empirical confirmation is needed,” Ilic said in the SMC statement.

The hope is that the recently launched TRANSFORM trial will help answer some of these outstanding questions.

The current study suggests that polygenic risk scores for prostate cancer “would be a useful component of a multimodality screening program that assesses age, family history of prostate cancer, PSA, and MRI results as triage tools before biopsy is recommended,” David Hunter, MPH, ScD, with Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and University of Oxford, Oxford, England, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.

“To make this integrated program a reality, however, changes to infrastructure would be needed to make running and analyzing a regulated genome array as easy as requesting a PSA level or ordering an MRI. Clearly, we are far from that future,” Hunter cautioned. 

“A possible first step that would require less infrastructure could be to order a polygenic risk score only for men with a positive PSA result, then use the polygenic risk score to determine who should undergo an MRI, and then use all the information to determine whether biopsy is recommended,” Hunter said.

In his view, the current study is a “first step on a long road to evaluating new components of any disease screening pathway.”

The research received funding from the European Research Council, the Bob Willis Fund, Cancer Research UK, the Peacock Trust, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research. Disclosures for authors and editorialists are available with the original article. Inouye and Ilic reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Incorporating a polygenic risk score into prostate cancer screening could enhance the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer that conventional screening may miss, according to results of the BARCODE 1 clinical trial conducted in the United Kingdom.

The study found that about 72% of participants with high polygenic risk scores were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancers, which would not have been detected with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing or MRI.

“With this test, it could be possible to turn the tide on prostate cancer,” study author Ros Eeles, PhD, professor of oncogenetics at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, England, said in a statement following the publication of the analysis in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Prostate cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among men. As a screening tool, PSA testing has been criticized for leading to a high rate of false positive results and overdiagnosis — defined as a screen-detected cancer that would take longer to progress to clinical cancer than the patient’s lifetime. Both issues can result in overtreatment.

Given prostate cancer’s high heritability and the proliferation of genome-wide association studies identifying common genetic variants, there has been growing interest in using polygenic risk scores to improve risk stratification and guide screening.

“Building on decades of research into the genetic markers of prostate cancer, our study shows that the theory does work in practice — we can identify men at risk of aggressive cancers who need further tests and spare the men who are at lower risk from unnecessary treatments,” said Eeles.

 

An Adjunct to Screening?

The BARCODE 1 study, conducted in the United Kingdom, tested the clinical utility of a polygenic risk score as an adjunct to screening.

The researchers recruited men aged 55-69 years from primary care centers in the United Kingdom. Using germline DNA extracted from saliva, they derived polygenic risk scores from 130 genetic variants known to be associated with an increased risk for prostate cancer.

Among a total of 6393 men who had their scores calculated, 745 (12%) had a score in the top 10% of genetic risk (≥ 90th percentile) and were invited to undergo further screening.

Of these, 468 (63%) accepted the invite and underwent multiparametric MRI and transperineal prostate biopsy, irrespective of the PSA level. Overall, 187 (40%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer following biopsy. Of the 187 men with prostate cancer, 55% (n = 103) had disease classified as intermediate or high risk (Gleason score ≥ 7) per National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and therefore warranted further treatment.

Researchers then compared screening that incorporated polygenic risk scores with standard screening with PSA levels and MRI.

When participants’ risk was stratified by their polygenic risk score, 103 patients (55%) with prostate cancer could be classified as intermediate or higher risk, thus warranting treatment. Overall, 74 (71.8%) of those cancers would have been missed using the standard diagnostic pathway in the United Kingdom, which requires patients to have a high PSA level (> 3.0 μg/L) as well as a positive MRI result. These 74 patients either had PSA levels ≤ 3.0 μg/L or negative MRIs, which would mean these patients would typically fall below the action threshold for further testing.

Of the 103 participants warranting treatment, 40 of these men would have been classified as unfavorable intermediate, high, or very high risk, which would require radical treatment. Among this group, roughly 43% would have been missed using the UK diagnostic pathway. 

However, the investigators estimated a rate of overdiagnosis with the use of polygenic risk scores of 16%-21%, similar to the overdiagnosis estimates in two prior PSA-based screening studies, signaling that the addition of polygenic risk scores does not necessarily reduce the risk for overdiagnosis.

Overall, “this study is the strongest evidence to date on the clinical utility of a polygenic score for prostate cancer screening,” commented Michael Inouye, professor of systems genomics & population health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre (SMC).

“I suspect we will look back on this as a landmark study that really made the clinical case for polygenic scores as a new tool that moved health systems from disease management to early detection and prevention,” said Inouye, who was not involved in the study.

However, other experts were more cautious about the findings.

Dusko Ilic, MD, professor of stem cell sciences, King’s College London, London, England, said the results are “promising, especially in identifying significant cancers that would otherwise be missed,” but cautioned that “there is no direct evidence yet that using [polygenic risk scores] improves long-term outcomes such as mortality or quality-adjusted life years.”

“Modeling suggests benefit, but empirical confirmation is needed,” Ilic said in the SMC statement.

The hope is that the recently launched TRANSFORM trial will help answer some of these outstanding questions.

The current study suggests that polygenic risk scores for prostate cancer “would be a useful component of a multimodality screening program that assesses age, family history of prostate cancer, PSA, and MRI results as triage tools before biopsy is recommended,” David Hunter, MPH, ScD, with Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and University of Oxford, Oxford, England, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.

“To make this integrated program a reality, however, changes to infrastructure would be needed to make running and analyzing a regulated genome array as easy as requesting a PSA level or ordering an MRI. Clearly, we are far from that future,” Hunter cautioned. 

“A possible first step that would require less infrastructure could be to order a polygenic risk score only for men with a positive PSA result, then use the polygenic risk score to determine who should undergo an MRI, and then use all the information to determine whether biopsy is recommended,” Hunter said.

In his view, the current study is a “first step on a long road to evaluating new components of any disease screening pathway.”

The research received funding from the European Research Council, the Bob Willis Fund, Cancer Research UK, the Peacock Trust, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research. Disclosures for authors and editorialists are available with the original article. Inouye and Ilic reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Incorporating a polygenic risk score into prostate cancer screening could enhance the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer that conventional screening may miss, according to results of the BARCODE 1 clinical trial conducted in the United Kingdom.

The study found that about 72% of participants with high polygenic risk scores were diagnosed with clinically significant prostate cancers, which would not have been detected with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing or MRI.

“With this test, it could be possible to turn the tide on prostate cancer,” study author Ros Eeles, PhD, professor of oncogenetics at The Institute of Cancer Research, London, England, said in a statement following the publication of the analysis in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Prostate cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among men. As a screening tool, PSA testing has been criticized for leading to a high rate of false positive results and overdiagnosis — defined as a screen-detected cancer that would take longer to progress to clinical cancer than the patient’s lifetime. Both issues can result in overtreatment.

Given prostate cancer’s high heritability and the proliferation of genome-wide association studies identifying common genetic variants, there has been growing interest in using polygenic risk scores to improve risk stratification and guide screening.

“Building on decades of research into the genetic markers of prostate cancer, our study shows that the theory does work in practice — we can identify men at risk of aggressive cancers who need further tests and spare the men who are at lower risk from unnecessary treatments,” said Eeles.

 

An Adjunct to Screening?

The BARCODE 1 study, conducted in the United Kingdom, tested the clinical utility of a polygenic risk score as an adjunct to screening.

The researchers recruited men aged 55-69 years from primary care centers in the United Kingdom. Using germline DNA extracted from saliva, they derived polygenic risk scores from 130 genetic variants known to be associated with an increased risk for prostate cancer.

Among a total of 6393 men who had their scores calculated, 745 (12%) had a score in the top 10% of genetic risk (≥ 90th percentile) and were invited to undergo further screening.

Of these, 468 (63%) accepted the invite and underwent multiparametric MRI and transperineal prostate biopsy, irrespective of the PSA level. Overall, 187 (40%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer following biopsy. Of the 187 men with prostate cancer, 55% (n = 103) had disease classified as intermediate or high risk (Gleason score ≥ 7) per National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria and therefore warranted further treatment.

Researchers then compared screening that incorporated polygenic risk scores with standard screening with PSA levels and MRI.

When participants’ risk was stratified by their polygenic risk score, 103 patients (55%) with prostate cancer could be classified as intermediate or higher risk, thus warranting treatment. Overall, 74 (71.8%) of those cancers would have been missed using the standard diagnostic pathway in the United Kingdom, which requires patients to have a high PSA level (> 3.0 μg/L) as well as a positive MRI result. These 74 patients either had PSA levels ≤ 3.0 μg/L or negative MRIs, which would mean these patients would typically fall below the action threshold for further testing.

Of the 103 participants warranting treatment, 40 of these men would have been classified as unfavorable intermediate, high, or very high risk, which would require radical treatment. Among this group, roughly 43% would have been missed using the UK diagnostic pathway. 

However, the investigators estimated a rate of overdiagnosis with the use of polygenic risk scores of 16%-21%, similar to the overdiagnosis estimates in two prior PSA-based screening studies, signaling that the addition of polygenic risk scores does not necessarily reduce the risk for overdiagnosis.

Overall, “this study is the strongest evidence to date on the clinical utility of a polygenic score for prostate cancer screening,” commented Michael Inouye, professor of systems genomics & population health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre (SMC).

“I suspect we will look back on this as a landmark study that really made the clinical case for polygenic scores as a new tool that moved health systems from disease management to early detection and prevention,” said Inouye, who was not involved in the study.

However, other experts were more cautious about the findings.

Dusko Ilic, MD, professor of stem cell sciences, King’s College London, London, England, said the results are “promising, especially in identifying significant cancers that would otherwise be missed,” but cautioned that “there is no direct evidence yet that using [polygenic risk scores] improves long-term outcomes such as mortality or quality-adjusted life years.”

“Modeling suggests benefit, but empirical confirmation is needed,” Ilic said in the SMC statement.

The hope is that the recently launched TRANSFORM trial will help answer some of these outstanding questions.

The current study suggests that polygenic risk scores for prostate cancer “would be a useful component of a multimodality screening program that assesses age, family history of prostate cancer, PSA, and MRI results as triage tools before biopsy is recommended,” David Hunter, MPH, ScD, with Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and University of Oxford, Oxford, England, wrote in an editorial accompanying the study.

“To make this integrated program a reality, however, changes to infrastructure would be needed to make running and analyzing a regulated genome array as easy as requesting a PSA level or ordering an MRI. Clearly, we are far from that future,” Hunter cautioned. 

“A possible first step that would require less infrastructure could be to order a polygenic risk score only for men with a positive PSA result, then use the polygenic risk score to determine who should undergo an MRI, and then use all the information to determine whether biopsy is recommended,” Hunter said.

In his view, the current study is a “first step on a long road to evaluating new components of any disease screening pathway.”

The research received funding from the European Research Council, the Bob Willis Fund, Cancer Research UK, the Peacock Trust, and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre at The Royal Marsden and The Institute of Cancer Research. Disclosures for authors and editorialists are available with the original article. Inouye and Ilic reported no relevant disclosures.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m Maurie Markman, from City of Hope. I want to briefly discuss a very interesting paper that is probably a bit controversial, but nevertheless, I want to point out the data. The paper is “Alcohol Consumption Patterns and Mortality Among Older Adults With Health-Related or Socioeconomic Risk Factors,” published in JAMA Network Open. 

This involved a little over 135,000 individual participants in a large, multiyear [research project] in the UK; it’s part of the UK Biobank. This is a population-based cohort that they were looking at here and is only a small part of this huge effort in the UK. 

The particular participants that they were looking at here were 60 years or older and defined as current drinkers; that could be occasional all the way up to heavy. Again, that’s the 135,000 individuals I’m referring to. 

The data were analyzed from September 2023 to May 2024. They divided the population into four groups, including what they call occasional drinkers, which I guess are social drinkers; it was not clear how they defined that. Then they defined three other categories, which were low risk, moderate risk, and high risk, which was much more clearly defined as it was stated in the paper the amount of alcohol consumption each individual had per day.

The question there was about the relationship between how much alcohol an individual stated they drank compared with the occasional drinker, and the risk for cancer in each group. The answer is that there was no protection from cancer by only being a low-risk or a low-level drinker. 

All of the populations had a higher risk for cancer compared with the occasional drinkers. The low-risk group was not protected. The high-risk group had a hazard ratio of 1.39, which is a 39% increase. For the moderate-risk group, the hazard ratio was 1.15, and for the low-risk group, 1.11. 

The risk was higher the more an individual drank. However, the point to be made is that if someone says, “Oh, I drink a certain amount each day, but there’s no impact on my risk for cancer,” these data do not support that conclusion. 

There is much more to be discussed about this topic. It’s an interesting, large population-based, very carefully controlled analysis being done here, but an important point for future conversation. 

Thank you for your attention.

Maurie Markman, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m Maurie Markman, from City of Hope. I want to briefly discuss a very interesting paper that is probably a bit controversial, but nevertheless, I want to point out the data. The paper is “Alcohol Consumption Patterns and Mortality Among Older Adults With Health-Related or Socioeconomic Risk Factors,” published in JAMA Network Open. 

This involved a little over 135,000 individual participants in a large, multiyear [research project] in the UK; it’s part of the UK Biobank. This is a population-based cohort that they were looking at here and is only a small part of this huge effort in the UK. 

The particular participants that they were looking at here were 60 years or older and defined as current drinkers; that could be occasional all the way up to heavy. Again, that’s the 135,000 individuals I’m referring to. 

The data were analyzed from September 2023 to May 2024. They divided the population into four groups, including what they call occasional drinkers, which I guess are social drinkers; it was not clear how they defined that. Then they defined three other categories, which were low risk, moderate risk, and high risk, which was much more clearly defined as it was stated in the paper the amount of alcohol consumption each individual had per day.

The question there was about the relationship between how much alcohol an individual stated they drank compared with the occasional drinker, and the risk for cancer in each group. The answer is that there was no protection from cancer by only being a low-risk or a low-level drinker. 

All of the populations had a higher risk for cancer compared with the occasional drinkers. The low-risk group was not protected. The high-risk group had a hazard ratio of 1.39, which is a 39% increase. For the moderate-risk group, the hazard ratio was 1.15, and for the low-risk group, 1.11. 

The risk was higher the more an individual drank. However, the point to be made is that if someone says, “Oh, I drink a certain amount each day, but there’s no impact on my risk for cancer,” these data do not support that conclusion. 

There is much more to be discussed about this topic. It’s an interesting, large population-based, very carefully controlled analysis being done here, but an important point for future conversation. 

Thank you for your attention.

Maurie Markman, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m Maurie Markman, from City of Hope. I want to briefly discuss a very interesting paper that is probably a bit controversial, but nevertheless, I want to point out the data. The paper is “Alcohol Consumption Patterns and Mortality Among Older Adults With Health-Related or Socioeconomic Risk Factors,” published in JAMA Network Open. 

This involved a little over 135,000 individual participants in a large, multiyear [research project] in the UK; it’s part of the UK Biobank. This is a population-based cohort that they were looking at here and is only a small part of this huge effort in the UK. 

The particular participants that they were looking at here were 60 years or older and defined as current drinkers; that could be occasional all the way up to heavy. Again, that’s the 135,000 individuals I’m referring to. 

The data were analyzed from September 2023 to May 2024. They divided the population into four groups, including what they call occasional drinkers, which I guess are social drinkers; it was not clear how they defined that. Then they defined three other categories, which were low risk, moderate risk, and high risk, which was much more clearly defined as it was stated in the paper the amount of alcohol consumption each individual had per day.

The question there was about the relationship between how much alcohol an individual stated they drank compared with the occasional drinker, and the risk for cancer in each group. The answer is that there was no protection from cancer by only being a low-risk or a low-level drinker. 

All of the populations had a higher risk for cancer compared with the occasional drinkers. The low-risk group was not protected. The high-risk group had a hazard ratio of 1.39, which is a 39% increase. For the moderate-risk group, the hazard ratio was 1.15, and for the low-risk group, 1.11. 

The risk was higher the more an individual drank. However, the point to be made is that if someone says, “Oh, I drink a certain amount each day, but there’s no impact on my risk for cancer,” these data do not support that conclusion. 

There is much more to be discussed about this topic. It’s an interesting, large population-based, very carefully controlled analysis being done here, but an important point for future conversation. 

Thank you for your attention.

Maurie Markman, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: GlaxoSmithKline; AstraZeneca.

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