AVAHO

It was 2 a.m. And Rebecca Shatsky, MD, could not sleep.

The breast oncologist was thinking about a patient of hers with metastatic cancer.

The patient’s disease had been asymptomatic for some time. Then without warning, her cancer suddenly exploded. Her bone marrow was failing, and her liver was not far behind.

Dr. Shatsky had a treatment plan ready to go but still, she felt uneasy.

“I had to be honest with her that I didn’t know if this plan would work,” says Dr. Shatsky, a medical oncologist at University of California, San Diego (UCSD).

That night, after visiting the patient in the hospital, Dr. Shatsky lay awake going over her next move, making sure it was the right one and hoping it would help keep the disease at bay.

“It’s so much pressure when someone is depending on you to make life or death decisions,” Dr. Shatsky said.

And in the quiet hours of night, these concerns grow louder.

Dr. Shatsky is not alone. Oncologists face difficult decisions every day, and many wrestle with these choices long after their day in the clinic is over.

“There’s no off button,” says Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist at UCSD Health who goes by “Papa Heme” on Twitter. “I’m always thinking about my patients. Constantly.”

The public rarely gets a glimpse of these private moments. On occasion, oncologists will share a personal story, but more often, insights come from broad research on the ethical, emotional, and psychological toll of practicing medicine.

Many oncologists carry this baggage home with them because they have no other option.

“There is simply no time to process the weight of the day when I’ve got seven more patients who need my full attention before lunch,” Mark Lewis, MD, director, department of gastrointestinal oncology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah. “That is why my processing happens outside of the office, when my brain can be quiet.”
 

What am I missing?

Dr. Goodman recognizes the gravity of each decision he makes. He pores over every detail of a patient’s scans, lab results, history, and symptoms.

But no matter how many times he checks and rechecks, one question nags at him: What am I missing?

For Dr. Goodman, this exhaustive level of attention is worth it.

“When errors are made, it’s someone’s life,” Dr. Goodman said. “Nothing would have prepared me for this responsibility. Until it lies on you, it’s impossible to understand how much trust patients put into us.”

That trust becomes most apparent for Dr. Goodman when facing a decision about how to treat a patient with acute myeloid leukemia who’s in remission.

Give more chemotherapy to root out the leukemia cells still lurking in the body, and the patient faces a high risk of the cancer returning. Pick stem cell transplant, and the chance of being cured goes up significantly, but the patient could also die within 100 days of the transplant.

“All together, the data show I’m helping patients with a transplant, but for the individual, I could be causing harm. Someone could be living less because of a decision I made,” Dr. Goodman said.

For patients with advanced cancer, oncologists may need to think several moves ahead. Mapping out a patient’s treatment options can feel like a game of chess. Dr. Shatsky is always trying to anticipate how the tumor will behave, what is driving it, and how lifestyle factors may influence a patient’s response in the present and the future.

“It is a mind game,” she says. “Like in chess, I try to outsmart my opponent. But with advanced cancer, there are not necessarily clear-cut guidelines or one way to manage the disease, and I have to do the best I can with drugs I have.”

That’s the art of oncology: Balancing the many knowns and unknowns of a person’s cancer alongside the toxicities of treatment and a patient’s hopes and goals.

Throughout the year, Don Dizon, MD, will see a number of patients with advanced disease. In these instances, the question he often wrestles with is if the patient can’t be cured, whether more treatment will just cause greater harm.

Dr. Dizon recently faced this dilemma with an older patient with metastatic disease who had not done well with an initial treatment regimen. After outlining the risks for more chemotherapy, he explained one option would be to forgo it and simply treat her symptoms.

“It’s an impossible choice,” says Dr. Dizon, director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.

Chemotherapy can provide symptom relief, but it can also be toxic – and patients may be so frail, they can die from more therapy.

“I told my patient, if in your heart, you want to try more therapy, that’s okay. But it’s also okay if you don’t,” Dr. Dizon recalled.

Her response: “You’re supposed to give me the answer.”

However, for patients approaching the end of life, there often is no right answer. 

“It’s part of the discomfort you live with as a patient and oncologist, and when I leave the clinic, that’s one thing that follows me home,” Dr. Dizon said. “At the end of the day, I need to look in the mirror and know I did the best I could.”
 

The difficult conversation

Every Sunday, Dr. Lewis feels the weight of the week ahead. He and his wife, a pediatrician, call it the “Sunday scaries.”

It’s when Dr. Lewis begins thinking about the delicate conversations to come, rehearsing how he’s going to share the news that a person has advanced cancer or that a cancer, once in remission, has returned.

“Before the pandemic, I had 36 people come to a visit where I delivered some very heavy news and it became a Greek chorus of sobbing,” he recalls.

For every oncologist, delivering bad news is an integral part of the job. But after spending months, sometimes years, with a patient and the family, Dr. Lewis knows how to take the temperature of the room – who will likely prefer a more blunt style and who might need a gentler touch.

“The longer you know a patient and family, the better you can gauge the best approach,” Dr. Lewis said. “And for some, you know it’ll be complete devastation no matter what.”

When Jennifer Lycette, MD, prepares for a difficult conversation, she’ll run down all the possible ways it could go. Sometimes her brain will get stuck in a loop, cycling through the different trajectories on repeat.

“For years, I didn’t know how to cope with that,” said Dr. Lycette, medical director at Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic in Seaside, Ore. “I wasn’t taught the tools to cope with that in my medical training. It took midcareer professional coaching that I sought out on my own to learn to remind myself that no matter what the person says, I have the experience and skill set to handle what comes next and to simply be present in the moment with the patient.”

The question that now sits with Dr. Lycette hours after a visit is what she could have done better. She knows from experience how important it is to choose her words carefully.

Early in her career, Dr. Lycette had a patient with stage IV cancer who wanted to know more about the death process. Because most people ask about pain, she assured him that he likely wouldn’t experience too much pain with his type of cancer.

“It will probably be like falling asleep,” said Dr. Lycette, hoping she was offering comfort. “When I saw him next, he told me he hadn’t slept.”

He was afraid that if he did, he wouldn’t wake up.

In that moment, Dr. Lycette realized the power that her words carry and the importance of trying to understand the inner lives of her patients.
 

Life outside the clinic

Sometimes an oncologist’s late-night ruminations have little to do with cancer itself.

Manali Patel, MD, finds herself worrying if her patients will have enough to eat and whether she will be able to help.

“I was up at 3 a.m. one morning, thinking about how we’re going to fund a project for patients from low-income households who we discovered were experiencing severe food insecurity – what grants we need, what foundations we can work with,” said Dr. Patel, a medical oncologist at Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California.

The past few years of the pandemic have added a new layer of worry for Dr. Patel.

“I don’t want my patients to die from a preventable virus when they’ve already been through so much suffering,” Dr. Patel said.

This thought feeds worries about how her actions outside the clinic could unintentionally harm her patients. Should she go to a big medical conference? A family gathering? The grocery store?

“There are some places you can’t avoid, but these decisions have caused a lot of strife for me,” she said. “The health and safety of our patients – that’s in our wheelhouse – but so many of the policies are outside of our control.”
 

The inevitable losses and the wins

For patients with metastatic disease, eventually the treatment options will run out.

Dr. Shatsky likes to be up front with patients about that reality: “There will come a day when I will tell you there’s nothing more I can do, and you need to trust that I’m being honest with you and that’s the truth.”

For Dr. Goodman, the devastation that bad news brings patients and families is glaring. He knows there will be no more normalcy in their lives.

“I see a lot of suffering, but I know the suffering happens regardless of whether I see it or not,” Dr. Goodman said.

That’s why holding on to the victories can be so important. Dr. Goodman recalled a young patient who came to him with a 20-cm tumor and is now cured. “Had I not met that individual and done what I had done, he’d be dead, but now he’s going to live his life,” Dr. Goodman said. “But I don’t wake up at 2 a.m. thinking about that.”

Dr. Shatsky gets a lot of joy from the wins – the patients who do really well, the times when she can help a friend or colleagues – and those moments go a long way to outweigh the hurt, worry, and workload.

When dealing with so much gray, “the wins are important, knowing you can make a difference is important,” Dr. Dizon said.

And there’s a delicate balance.

“I think patients want an oncologist who cares and is genuinely invested in their outcomes but not someone who is so sad all the time,” Dr. Lewis said. “When I lose a patient, I still grieve each loss, but I can’t mourn every patient’s death like it’s a family member. Otherwise, I’d break.”

What would you do if you had terminal cancer?

Dr. Dizon recalled how a friend handled the news. She went home and made dinner, he said.

Ultimately, she lived for many years. She saw her kids get married, met her first grandchild, and had time to prepare, something not everyone gets the chance to do.

That’s why it’s important to “do what you normally do as long as you can,” Dr. Dizon said. “Live your life.”

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

It was 2 a.m. And Rebecca Shatsky, MD, could not sleep.

The breast oncologist was thinking about a patient of hers with metastatic cancer.

The patient’s disease had been asymptomatic for some time. Then without warning, her cancer suddenly exploded. Her bone marrow was failing, and her liver was not far behind.

Dr. Shatsky had a treatment plan ready to go but still, she felt uneasy.

“I had to be honest with her that I didn’t know if this plan would work,” says Dr. Shatsky, a medical oncologist at University of California, San Diego (UCSD).

That night, after visiting the patient in the hospital, Dr. Shatsky lay awake going over her next move, making sure it was the right one and hoping it would help keep the disease at bay.

“It’s so much pressure when someone is depending on you to make life or death decisions,” Dr. Shatsky said.

And in the quiet hours of night, these concerns grow louder.

Dr. Shatsky is not alone. Oncologists face difficult decisions every day, and many wrestle with these choices long after their day in the clinic is over.

“There’s no off button,” says Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist at UCSD Health who goes by “Papa Heme” on Twitter. “I’m always thinking about my patients. Constantly.”

The public rarely gets a glimpse of these private moments. On occasion, oncologists will share a personal story, but more often, insights come from broad research on the ethical, emotional, and psychological toll of practicing medicine.

Many oncologists carry this baggage home with them because they have no other option.

“There is simply no time to process the weight of the day when I’ve got seven more patients who need my full attention before lunch,” Mark Lewis, MD, director, department of gastrointestinal oncology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah. “That is why my processing happens outside of the office, when my brain can be quiet.”
 

What am I missing?

Dr. Goodman recognizes the gravity of each decision he makes. He pores over every detail of a patient’s scans, lab results, history, and symptoms.

But no matter how many times he checks and rechecks, one question nags at him: What am I missing?

For Dr. Goodman, this exhaustive level of attention is worth it.

“When errors are made, it’s someone’s life,” Dr. Goodman said. “Nothing would have prepared me for this responsibility. Until it lies on you, it’s impossible to understand how much trust patients put into us.”

That trust becomes most apparent for Dr. Goodman when facing a decision about how to treat a patient with acute myeloid leukemia who’s in remission.

Give more chemotherapy to root out the leukemia cells still lurking in the body, and the patient faces a high risk of the cancer returning. Pick stem cell transplant, and the chance of being cured goes up significantly, but the patient could also die within 100 days of the transplant.

“All together, the data show I’m helping patients with a transplant, but for the individual, I could be causing harm. Someone could be living less because of a decision I made,” Dr. Goodman said.

For patients with advanced cancer, oncologists may need to think several moves ahead. Mapping out a patient’s treatment options can feel like a game of chess. Dr. Shatsky is always trying to anticipate how the tumor will behave, what is driving it, and how lifestyle factors may influence a patient’s response in the present and the future.

“It is a mind game,” she says. “Like in chess, I try to outsmart my opponent. But with advanced cancer, there are not necessarily clear-cut guidelines or one way to manage the disease, and I have to do the best I can with drugs I have.”

That’s the art of oncology: Balancing the many knowns and unknowns of a person’s cancer alongside the toxicities of treatment and a patient’s hopes and goals.

Throughout the year, Don Dizon, MD, will see a number of patients with advanced disease. In these instances, the question he often wrestles with is if the patient can’t be cured, whether more treatment will just cause greater harm.

Dr. Dizon recently faced this dilemma with an older patient with metastatic disease who had not done well with an initial treatment regimen. After outlining the risks for more chemotherapy, he explained one option would be to forgo it and simply treat her symptoms.

“It’s an impossible choice,” says Dr. Dizon, director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.

Chemotherapy can provide symptom relief, but it can also be toxic – and patients may be so frail, they can die from more therapy.

“I told my patient, if in your heart, you want to try more therapy, that’s okay. But it’s also okay if you don’t,” Dr. Dizon recalled.

Her response: “You’re supposed to give me the answer.”

However, for patients approaching the end of life, there often is no right answer. 

“It’s part of the discomfort you live with as a patient and oncologist, and when I leave the clinic, that’s one thing that follows me home,” Dr. Dizon said. “At the end of the day, I need to look in the mirror and know I did the best I could.”
 

The difficult conversation

Every Sunday, Dr. Lewis feels the weight of the week ahead. He and his wife, a pediatrician, call it the “Sunday scaries.”

It’s when Dr. Lewis begins thinking about the delicate conversations to come, rehearsing how he’s going to share the news that a person has advanced cancer or that a cancer, once in remission, has returned.

“Before the pandemic, I had 36 people come to a visit where I delivered some very heavy news and it became a Greek chorus of sobbing,” he recalls.

For every oncologist, delivering bad news is an integral part of the job. But after spending months, sometimes years, with a patient and the family, Dr. Lewis knows how to take the temperature of the room – who will likely prefer a more blunt style and who might need a gentler touch.

“The longer you know a patient and family, the better you can gauge the best approach,” Dr. Lewis said. “And for some, you know it’ll be complete devastation no matter what.”

When Jennifer Lycette, MD, prepares for a difficult conversation, she’ll run down all the possible ways it could go. Sometimes her brain will get stuck in a loop, cycling through the different trajectories on repeat.

“For years, I didn’t know how to cope with that,” said Dr. Lycette, medical director at Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic in Seaside, Ore. “I wasn’t taught the tools to cope with that in my medical training. It took midcareer professional coaching that I sought out on my own to learn to remind myself that no matter what the person says, I have the experience and skill set to handle what comes next and to simply be present in the moment with the patient.”

The question that now sits with Dr. Lycette hours after a visit is what she could have done better. She knows from experience how important it is to choose her words carefully.

Early in her career, Dr. Lycette had a patient with stage IV cancer who wanted to know more about the death process. Because most people ask about pain, she assured him that he likely wouldn’t experience too much pain with his type of cancer.

“It will probably be like falling asleep,” said Dr. Lycette, hoping she was offering comfort. “When I saw him next, he told me he hadn’t slept.”

He was afraid that if he did, he wouldn’t wake up.

In that moment, Dr. Lycette realized the power that her words carry and the importance of trying to understand the inner lives of her patients.
 

Life outside the clinic

Sometimes an oncologist’s late-night ruminations have little to do with cancer itself.

Manali Patel, MD, finds herself worrying if her patients will have enough to eat and whether she will be able to help.

“I was up at 3 a.m. one morning, thinking about how we’re going to fund a project for patients from low-income households who we discovered were experiencing severe food insecurity – what grants we need, what foundations we can work with,” said Dr. Patel, a medical oncologist at Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California.

The past few years of the pandemic have added a new layer of worry for Dr. Patel.

“I don’t want my patients to die from a preventable virus when they’ve already been through so much suffering,” Dr. Patel said.

This thought feeds worries about how her actions outside the clinic could unintentionally harm her patients. Should she go to a big medical conference? A family gathering? The grocery store?

“There are some places you can’t avoid, but these decisions have caused a lot of strife for me,” she said. “The health and safety of our patients – that’s in our wheelhouse – but so many of the policies are outside of our control.”
 

The inevitable losses and the wins

For patients with metastatic disease, eventually the treatment options will run out.

Dr. Shatsky likes to be up front with patients about that reality: “There will come a day when I will tell you there’s nothing more I can do, and you need to trust that I’m being honest with you and that’s the truth.”

For Dr. Goodman, the devastation that bad news brings patients and families is glaring. He knows there will be no more normalcy in their lives.

“I see a lot of suffering, but I know the suffering happens regardless of whether I see it or not,” Dr. Goodman said.

That’s why holding on to the victories can be so important. Dr. Goodman recalled a young patient who came to him with a 20-cm tumor and is now cured. “Had I not met that individual and done what I had done, he’d be dead, but now he’s going to live his life,” Dr. Goodman said. “But I don’t wake up at 2 a.m. thinking about that.”

Dr. Shatsky gets a lot of joy from the wins – the patients who do really well, the times when she can help a friend or colleagues – and those moments go a long way to outweigh the hurt, worry, and workload.

When dealing with so much gray, “the wins are important, knowing you can make a difference is important,” Dr. Dizon said.

And there’s a delicate balance.

“I think patients want an oncologist who cares and is genuinely invested in their outcomes but not someone who is so sad all the time,” Dr. Lewis said. “When I lose a patient, I still grieve each loss, but I can’t mourn every patient’s death like it’s a family member. Otherwise, I’d break.”

What would you do if you had terminal cancer?

Dr. Dizon recalled how a friend handled the news. She went home and made dinner, he said.

Ultimately, she lived for many years. She saw her kids get married, met her first grandchild, and had time to prepare, something not everyone gets the chance to do.

That’s why it’s important to “do what you normally do as long as you can,” Dr. Dizon said. “Live your life.”

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

It was 2 a.m. And Rebecca Shatsky, MD, could not sleep.

The breast oncologist was thinking about a patient of hers with metastatic cancer.

The patient’s disease had been asymptomatic for some time. Then without warning, her cancer suddenly exploded. Her bone marrow was failing, and her liver was not far behind.

Dr. Shatsky had a treatment plan ready to go but still, she felt uneasy.

“I had to be honest with her that I didn’t know if this plan would work,” says Dr. Shatsky, a medical oncologist at University of California, San Diego (UCSD).

That night, after visiting the patient in the hospital, Dr. Shatsky lay awake going over her next move, making sure it was the right one and hoping it would help keep the disease at bay.

“It’s so much pressure when someone is depending on you to make life or death decisions,” Dr. Shatsky said.

And in the quiet hours of night, these concerns grow louder.

Dr. Shatsky is not alone. Oncologists face difficult decisions every day, and many wrestle with these choices long after their day in the clinic is over.

“There’s no off button,” says Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist at UCSD Health who goes by “Papa Heme” on Twitter. “I’m always thinking about my patients. Constantly.”

The public rarely gets a glimpse of these private moments. On occasion, oncologists will share a personal story, but more often, insights come from broad research on the ethical, emotional, and psychological toll of practicing medicine.

Many oncologists carry this baggage home with them because they have no other option.

“There is simply no time to process the weight of the day when I’ve got seven more patients who need my full attention before lunch,” Mark Lewis, MD, director, department of gastrointestinal oncology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah. “That is why my processing happens outside of the office, when my brain can be quiet.”
 

What am I missing?

Dr. Goodman recognizes the gravity of each decision he makes. He pores over every detail of a patient’s scans, lab results, history, and symptoms.

But no matter how many times he checks and rechecks, one question nags at him: What am I missing?

For Dr. Goodman, this exhaustive level of attention is worth it.

“When errors are made, it’s someone’s life,” Dr. Goodman said. “Nothing would have prepared me for this responsibility. Until it lies on you, it’s impossible to understand how much trust patients put into us.”

That trust becomes most apparent for Dr. Goodman when facing a decision about how to treat a patient with acute myeloid leukemia who’s in remission.

Give more chemotherapy to root out the leukemia cells still lurking in the body, and the patient faces a high risk of the cancer returning. Pick stem cell transplant, and the chance of being cured goes up significantly, but the patient could also die within 100 days of the transplant.

“All together, the data show I’m helping patients with a transplant, but for the individual, I could be causing harm. Someone could be living less because of a decision I made,” Dr. Goodman said.

For patients with advanced cancer, oncologists may need to think several moves ahead. Mapping out a patient’s treatment options can feel like a game of chess. Dr. Shatsky is always trying to anticipate how the tumor will behave, what is driving it, and how lifestyle factors may influence a patient’s response in the present and the future.

“It is a mind game,” she says. “Like in chess, I try to outsmart my opponent. But with advanced cancer, there are not necessarily clear-cut guidelines or one way to manage the disease, and I have to do the best I can with drugs I have.”

That’s the art of oncology: Balancing the many knowns and unknowns of a person’s cancer alongside the toxicities of treatment and a patient’s hopes and goals.

Throughout the year, Don Dizon, MD, will see a number of patients with advanced disease. In these instances, the question he often wrestles with is if the patient can’t be cured, whether more treatment will just cause greater harm.

Dr. Dizon recently faced this dilemma with an older patient with metastatic disease who had not done well with an initial treatment regimen. After outlining the risks for more chemotherapy, he explained one option would be to forgo it and simply treat her symptoms.

“It’s an impossible choice,” says Dr. Dizon, director of women’s cancers at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of medical oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.

Chemotherapy can provide symptom relief, but it can also be toxic – and patients may be so frail, they can die from more therapy.

“I told my patient, if in your heart, you want to try more therapy, that’s okay. But it’s also okay if you don’t,” Dr. Dizon recalled.

Her response: “You’re supposed to give me the answer.”

However, for patients approaching the end of life, there often is no right answer. 

“It’s part of the discomfort you live with as a patient and oncologist, and when I leave the clinic, that’s one thing that follows me home,” Dr. Dizon said. “At the end of the day, I need to look in the mirror and know I did the best I could.”
 

The difficult conversation

Every Sunday, Dr. Lewis feels the weight of the week ahead. He and his wife, a pediatrician, call it the “Sunday scaries.”

It’s when Dr. Lewis begins thinking about the delicate conversations to come, rehearsing how he’s going to share the news that a person has advanced cancer or that a cancer, once in remission, has returned.

“Before the pandemic, I had 36 people come to a visit where I delivered some very heavy news and it became a Greek chorus of sobbing,” he recalls.

For every oncologist, delivering bad news is an integral part of the job. But after spending months, sometimes years, with a patient and the family, Dr. Lewis knows how to take the temperature of the room – who will likely prefer a more blunt style and who might need a gentler touch.

“The longer you know a patient and family, the better you can gauge the best approach,” Dr. Lewis said. “And for some, you know it’ll be complete devastation no matter what.”

When Jennifer Lycette, MD, prepares for a difficult conversation, she’ll run down all the possible ways it could go. Sometimes her brain will get stuck in a loop, cycling through the different trajectories on repeat.

“For years, I didn’t know how to cope with that,” said Dr. Lycette, medical director at Providence Oncology and Hematology Care Clinic in Seaside, Ore. “I wasn’t taught the tools to cope with that in my medical training. It took midcareer professional coaching that I sought out on my own to learn to remind myself that no matter what the person says, I have the experience and skill set to handle what comes next and to simply be present in the moment with the patient.”

The question that now sits with Dr. Lycette hours after a visit is what she could have done better. She knows from experience how important it is to choose her words carefully.

Early in her career, Dr. Lycette had a patient with stage IV cancer who wanted to know more about the death process. Because most people ask about pain, she assured him that he likely wouldn’t experience too much pain with his type of cancer.

“It will probably be like falling asleep,” said Dr. Lycette, hoping she was offering comfort. “When I saw him next, he told me he hadn’t slept.”

He was afraid that if he did, he wouldn’t wake up.

In that moment, Dr. Lycette realized the power that her words carry and the importance of trying to understand the inner lives of her patients.
 

Life outside the clinic

Sometimes an oncologist’s late-night ruminations have little to do with cancer itself.

Manali Patel, MD, finds herself worrying if her patients will have enough to eat and whether she will be able to help.

“I was up at 3 a.m. one morning, thinking about how we’re going to fund a project for patients from low-income households who we discovered were experiencing severe food insecurity – what grants we need, what foundations we can work with,” said Dr. Patel, a medical oncologist at Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the VA Palo Alto Health Care System in California.

The past few years of the pandemic have added a new layer of worry for Dr. Patel.

“I don’t want my patients to die from a preventable virus when they’ve already been through so much suffering,” Dr. Patel said.

This thought feeds worries about how her actions outside the clinic could unintentionally harm her patients. Should she go to a big medical conference? A family gathering? The grocery store?

“There are some places you can’t avoid, but these decisions have caused a lot of strife for me,” she said. “The health and safety of our patients – that’s in our wheelhouse – but so many of the policies are outside of our control.”
 

The inevitable losses and the wins

For patients with metastatic disease, eventually the treatment options will run out.

Dr. Shatsky likes to be up front with patients about that reality: “There will come a day when I will tell you there’s nothing more I can do, and you need to trust that I’m being honest with you and that’s the truth.”

For Dr. Goodman, the devastation that bad news brings patients and families is glaring. He knows there will be no more normalcy in their lives.

“I see a lot of suffering, but I know the suffering happens regardless of whether I see it or not,” Dr. Goodman said.

That’s why holding on to the victories can be so important. Dr. Goodman recalled a young patient who came to him with a 20-cm tumor and is now cured. “Had I not met that individual and done what I had done, he’d be dead, but now he’s going to live his life,” Dr. Goodman said. “But I don’t wake up at 2 a.m. thinking about that.”

Dr. Shatsky gets a lot of joy from the wins – the patients who do really well, the times when she can help a friend or colleagues – and those moments go a long way to outweigh the hurt, worry, and workload.

When dealing with so much gray, “the wins are important, knowing you can make a difference is important,” Dr. Dizon said.

And there’s a delicate balance.

“I think patients want an oncologist who cares and is genuinely invested in their outcomes but not someone who is so sad all the time,” Dr. Lewis said. “When I lose a patient, I still grieve each loss, but I can’t mourn every patient’s death like it’s a family member. Otherwise, I’d break.”

What would you do if you had terminal cancer?

Dr. Dizon recalled how a friend handled the news. She went home and made dinner, he said.

Ultimately, she lived for many years. She saw her kids get married, met her first grandchild, and had time to prepare, something not everyone gets the chance to do.

That’s why it’s important to “do what you normally do as long as you can,” Dr. Dizon said. “Live your life.”

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

More than half of studies testing anticancer drugs against each other have rules with regard to dose modification and growth support that favor the experimental drug arm, a new analysis suggests.

“We found it sobering that this practice is so common,” Timothée Olivier, MD, with Geneva University Hospital and the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Trials may be “rigged” in a way where the new therapy appears more effective than if the trial would have been designed with fairer rules, he explained.

This leaves open the question of whether new drugs are truly superior to older ones or if instead different outcomes are caused by more aggressive dosing or growth factor support, the investigators said.

Dr. Olivier, with UCSF coinvestigators Alyson Haslam, PhD, and Vinay Prasad, MD, reported their findings online in the European Journal of Cancer.

‘Highly concerning’

Different drug modification rules or growth factor support guidance may affect the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of testing new cancer agents.

For their study, Dr. Olivier and colleagues did a cross-sectional analysis of all 62 head-to-head registration RCTs that led to Food and Drug Administration approval between 2009 and 2021.

All of the trials examined anticancer drugs in the advanced or metastatic setting where a comparison was made between arms regarding either dose modification rules or myeloid growth factors recommendations.

The researchers assessed imbalance in drug modification rules, myeloid growth factor recommendations, or both, according to prespecified rules.

They discovered that 40 of the 62 trials (65%) had unequal rules for dose medication, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use, or both.

Six trials (10%) had rules favoring the control arm, while 34 (55%) had rules favoring the experimental arm. Among these, 50% had unequal drug modification rules, 41% had unequal G-CSF rules, and 9% had both.

Dr. Olivier said in an interview the results are “highly concerning because when you are investigating the effect of a new drug, you don’t want to have a false sense of a drug’s effect because of other factors not directly related to the drug’s efficacy.”

“If you introduce unfair rules about dose modification or supporting medication that favors the new drug, then you don’t know if a positive trial is due to the effect of the new drug or to the effect of differential dosing or supporting medication,” he added.
 

Blame industry?

Dr. Olivier said the fact that most registration trials are industry-sponsored is likely the primary explanation of the findings.

“Industry-sponsored trials may be designed so that the new drug has the best chance to get the largest ‘win,’ because this means more market share and more profit for the company that manufactures the drug. This is not a criticism of the industry, which runs on a business model that naturally aims to gain more market share and more profit,” Dr. Olivier said.

“However, it is the role and duty of regulators to reconcile industry incentives with the patients’ best interests, and there is accumulating data showing the regulators are failing to do so,” he added.

Addressing this problem will likely take buy-in from multiple stakeholders.

Awareness of the problem is a first step and understanding the influence of commercial incentives in drug development is also key, Dr. Olivier said.

Institutional review boards and drug regulators could also systematically evaluate drug dosing modification and supportive medication rules before a trial gets underway.

Regulators could also incentivize companies to implement balanced rules between arms by not granting drug approval based on trials suffering from such flaws.

“However, financial conflict of interest is present at many levels of drug development, including in drug regulation,” Dr. Olivier noted.

He pointed to a recent study that found when hematology-oncology medical reviewers working at the FDA leave the agency, more than half end up working or consulting for the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Olivier wondered: “How can one fairly and independently appraise a medical intervention if one’s current or future revenue depends on its source?”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures, through a grant paid to UCSF. Dr. Olivier and Dr. Haslam had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Prasad reported receiving royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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

More than half of studies testing anticancer drugs against each other have rules with regard to dose modification and growth support that favor the experimental drug arm, a new analysis suggests.

“We found it sobering that this practice is so common,” Timothée Olivier, MD, with Geneva University Hospital and the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Trials may be “rigged” in a way where the new therapy appears more effective than if the trial would have been designed with fairer rules, he explained.

This leaves open the question of whether new drugs are truly superior to older ones or if instead different outcomes are caused by more aggressive dosing or growth factor support, the investigators said.

Dr. Olivier, with UCSF coinvestigators Alyson Haslam, PhD, and Vinay Prasad, MD, reported their findings online in the European Journal of Cancer.

‘Highly concerning’

Different drug modification rules or growth factor support guidance may affect the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of testing new cancer agents.

For their study, Dr. Olivier and colleagues did a cross-sectional analysis of all 62 head-to-head registration RCTs that led to Food and Drug Administration approval between 2009 and 2021.

All of the trials examined anticancer drugs in the advanced or metastatic setting where a comparison was made between arms regarding either dose modification rules or myeloid growth factors recommendations.

The researchers assessed imbalance in drug modification rules, myeloid growth factor recommendations, or both, according to prespecified rules.

They discovered that 40 of the 62 trials (65%) had unequal rules for dose medication, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use, or both.

Six trials (10%) had rules favoring the control arm, while 34 (55%) had rules favoring the experimental arm. Among these, 50% had unequal drug modification rules, 41% had unequal G-CSF rules, and 9% had both.

Dr. Olivier said in an interview the results are “highly concerning because when you are investigating the effect of a new drug, you don’t want to have a false sense of a drug’s effect because of other factors not directly related to the drug’s efficacy.”

“If you introduce unfair rules about dose modification or supporting medication that favors the new drug, then you don’t know if a positive trial is due to the effect of the new drug or to the effect of differential dosing or supporting medication,” he added.
 

Blame industry?

Dr. Olivier said the fact that most registration trials are industry-sponsored is likely the primary explanation of the findings.

“Industry-sponsored trials may be designed so that the new drug has the best chance to get the largest ‘win,’ because this means more market share and more profit for the company that manufactures the drug. This is not a criticism of the industry, which runs on a business model that naturally aims to gain more market share and more profit,” Dr. Olivier said.

“However, it is the role and duty of regulators to reconcile industry incentives with the patients’ best interests, and there is accumulating data showing the regulators are failing to do so,” he added.

Addressing this problem will likely take buy-in from multiple stakeholders.

Awareness of the problem is a first step and understanding the influence of commercial incentives in drug development is also key, Dr. Olivier said.

Institutional review boards and drug regulators could also systematically evaluate drug dosing modification and supportive medication rules before a trial gets underway.

Regulators could also incentivize companies to implement balanced rules between arms by not granting drug approval based on trials suffering from such flaws.

“However, financial conflict of interest is present at many levels of drug development, including in drug regulation,” Dr. Olivier noted.

He pointed to a recent study that found when hematology-oncology medical reviewers working at the FDA leave the agency, more than half end up working or consulting for the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Olivier wondered: “How can one fairly and independently appraise a medical intervention if one’s current or future revenue depends on its source?”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures, through a grant paid to UCSF. Dr. Olivier and Dr. Haslam had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Prasad reported receiving royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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

More than half of studies testing anticancer drugs against each other have rules with regard to dose modification and growth support that favor the experimental drug arm, a new analysis suggests.

“We found it sobering that this practice is so common,” Timothée Olivier, MD, with Geneva University Hospital and the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

Trials may be “rigged” in a way where the new therapy appears more effective than if the trial would have been designed with fairer rules, he explained.

This leaves open the question of whether new drugs are truly superior to older ones or if instead different outcomes are caused by more aggressive dosing or growth factor support, the investigators said.

Dr. Olivier, with UCSF coinvestigators Alyson Haslam, PhD, and Vinay Prasad, MD, reported their findings online in the European Journal of Cancer.

‘Highly concerning’

Different drug modification rules or growth factor support guidance may affect the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of testing new cancer agents.

For their study, Dr. Olivier and colleagues did a cross-sectional analysis of all 62 head-to-head registration RCTs that led to Food and Drug Administration approval between 2009 and 2021.

All of the trials examined anticancer drugs in the advanced or metastatic setting where a comparison was made between arms regarding either dose modification rules or myeloid growth factors recommendations.

The researchers assessed imbalance in drug modification rules, myeloid growth factor recommendations, or both, according to prespecified rules.

They discovered that 40 of the 62 trials (65%) had unequal rules for dose medication, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) use, or both.

Six trials (10%) had rules favoring the control arm, while 34 (55%) had rules favoring the experimental arm. Among these, 50% had unequal drug modification rules, 41% had unequal G-CSF rules, and 9% had both.

Dr. Olivier said in an interview the results are “highly concerning because when you are investigating the effect of a new drug, you don’t want to have a false sense of a drug’s effect because of other factors not directly related to the drug’s efficacy.”

“If you introduce unfair rules about dose modification or supporting medication that favors the new drug, then you don’t know if a positive trial is due to the effect of the new drug or to the effect of differential dosing or supporting medication,” he added.
 

Blame industry?

Dr. Olivier said the fact that most registration trials are industry-sponsored is likely the primary explanation of the findings.

“Industry-sponsored trials may be designed so that the new drug has the best chance to get the largest ‘win,’ because this means more market share and more profit for the company that manufactures the drug. This is not a criticism of the industry, which runs on a business model that naturally aims to gain more market share and more profit,” Dr. Olivier said.

“However, it is the role and duty of regulators to reconcile industry incentives with the patients’ best interests, and there is accumulating data showing the regulators are failing to do so,” he added.

Addressing this problem will likely take buy-in from multiple stakeholders.

Awareness of the problem is a first step and understanding the influence of commercial incentives in drug development is also key, Dr. Olivier said.

Institutional review boards and drug regulators could also systematically evaluate drug dosing modification and supportive medication rules before a trial gets underway.

Regulators could also incentivize companies to implement balanced rules between arms by not granting drug approval based on trials suffering from such flaws.

“However, financial conflict of interest is present at many levels of drug development, including in drug regulation,” Dr. Olivier noted.

He pointed to a recent study that found when hematology-oncology medical reviewers working at the FDA leave the agency, more than half end up working or consulting for the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Olivier wondered: “How can one fairly and independently appraise a medical intervention if one’s current or future revenue depends on its source?”

The study was funded by Arnold Ventures, through a grant paid to UCSF. Dr. Olivier and Dr. Haslam had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Prasad reported receiving royalties from Arnold Ventures.

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

A new clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association offers practical advice around surveillance and use of new screening technologies for Barrett’s esophagus.

The AGA clinical practice update, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology comes from the AGA’s Center for GI Innovation and Technology. It offers 15 best practice advice statements based on expert review of existing literature combined with discussion and expert opinion. The aim is “to provide an update on advances and innovation” but not to replace current guidelines.

“Guidelines operate on rigorous methodology which requires the use of [Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation] methodology and a higher level of evidence. In gastroenterology especially, innovation is moving quickly and there’s no way for patients to reap their benefits if clinical practice was dictated by guidelines alone. That said, we do need documents that support and drive innovation in clinical practice,” corresponding author Srinadh Komanduri, MD, professor of medicine and surgery in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news publication.

Asked to comment, Vivek Kaul, MD, the Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine in the Center for Advanced Therapeutic Endoscopy in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, said that the document is “an important attempt to not only present the available scientific literature in a very concise and understandable manner, but it goes above and beyond that in terms of diving into some novel paradigms and technologies and procedures that are either emerging or will be emerging in the near future.”
 

Improving detection by dropping GERD requirement

The first of the 15 statements may also be the most paradigm shifting: The panel suggests screening via standard upper endoscopy of people with at least three risk factors for Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma, including those who are male, are non-Hispanic White, are aged above 50 years, and have a history of smoking, chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), obesity, or a family history of Barrett’s esophagus or esophageal adenocarcinoma.

This represents a departure from all current guidelines, which stipulate GERD as a necessary prerequisite for screening. But the reason is simple, according to the authors: A majority of patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer never experience classic GERD symptoms.

“There is growing evidence in high-level publications over the last couple of years that reflux is not the ideal predictor, based on odds, for development of Barrett’s esophagus. So the consensus among the experts was that we need to remove GERD as an absolute prerequisite or we’re never going to make progress. In order to make an impact on the rise of esophageal adenocarcinoma we have to increase the denominator of patients we are seeing,” Dr. Komanduri explained.

While it might be difficult to screen every White male over 50 years of age, the data do suggest screening those who also have obesity and/or are current smokers. “That’s a perfect subset you might want to start with. There are permutations that have greater value that don’t occupy unnecessary resource utilization. Most critical are the family history of esophageal cancer or Barrett’s esophagus,” he noted.

Dr. Kaul said that a one-time Barrett’s esophagus screening of all White males over 50 years old “is not unreasonable, especially given the rising rates of esophageal cancer.”

However, he also noted, “The feasibility, preferred screening modality, incremental costs, and yield of this new strategy will need to be studied further. Access to GI endoscopy in the postpandemic world is already a concern and will need to be factored into execution of this [advice statement] and will likely impact adoption in some way.”

For his part, Dr. Komanduri said that more investigation will be needed to validate which patients most benefit from screening and that the AGA is planning educational programs for clinicians about interpreting this new paradigm.
 

New technology could make screening easier and cheaper

The availability of nonendoscopic cell collection devices, including the swallowable Cytosponge (Medtronic), EsoCheck (Lucid), and EsoCap (Capnostics) could help make screening for Barrett’s esophagus easier and more cost effective. They are designed for in-office use and don’t require sedation. Each one is currently in various stages of development and clinical trials. As of now they’re approved in the United States only for cell collection but not for Barrett’s esophagus screening, but their use is endorsed by some guidelines. The Cytosponge in particular is widely available and has been used extensively in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Kaul commented, “While there is a need for nonendoscopic screening devices, the ideal patient population and practice setting for administration of these devices has not been clearly defined. Also, who will be delivering these tests: Primary care or gastroenterology providers? These devices ... represent a major step forward and a novel paradigm for Barrett’s esophagus screening, and the only platform that non-GI providers could use.”
 

Virtual chromoendoscopy: A must have in 2022

A third best practice advice statement shouldn’t be controversial because it’s in other guidelines already, but data show clinicians aren’t always doing it: Performing screening and surveillance endoscopic examinations using virtual chromoendoscopy in addition to high-definition white light endoscopy, with adequate time spent inspecting the Barrett’s segment. The majority of data supporting this is for narrow-band imaging only.

“The blue light lets you pick up early mucosal and vascular changes which might represent dysplastic lesions. It’s not a question of should. It’s a medicolegal slam dunk; you must do it. It’s been a guideline recommendation in the last few years, and it’s just a switch on the scope. It doesn’t require separate equipment, yet people are often still skipping it,” Dr. Komanduri said.

Indeed, Dr. Kaul concurred, “The importance of a high quality, meticulous endoscopic examination for screening and surveillance in Barrett’s esophagus cannot be overemphasized.”
 

‘Finally pushing the needle in the right direction’

The overall goals, Dr. Komanduri said, are “increasing the denominator, using less invasive screening, but finding more patients. If we find more patients we’ll need to stratify their risk. We hope that all these things eventually tie together in a nice story, all with the aim of preventing an invasive cancer that can’t be treated.”

He believes the new update “is a pivotal document in this field that’s going to be a paradigm changer. A lot of aspects need further validation. It’s by no means the end. But I think we’re finally pushing the needle in the right direction as things move forward with innovation.”

Dr. Kaul agrees. “It’s highlighting the principles that may become established paradigms in the future.”

Dr. Komanduri and the other authors of the update reported relationships, including consulting and research support, with companies like Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Virgo Video Solutions, and Castle Biosciences. Dr. Kaul serves as a consultant and advisory board member for CDx Diagnostics, an advisory board member for Castle Biosciences, and an investigator for Lucid Diagnostics.

A new clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association offers practical advice around surveillance and use of new screening technologies for Barrett’s esophagus.

The AGA clinical practice update, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology comes from the AGA’s Center for GI Innovation and Technology. It offers 15 best practice advice statements based on expert review of existing literature combined with discussion and expert opinion. The aim is “to provide an update on advances and innovation” but not to replace current guidelines.

“Guidelines operate on rigorous methodology which requires the use of [Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation] methodology and a higher level of evidence. In gastroenterology especially, innovation is moving quickly and there’s no way for patients to reap their benefits if clinical practice was dictated by guidelines alone. That said, we do need documents that support and drive innovation in clinical practice,” corresponding author Srinadh Komanduri, MD, professor of medicine and surgery in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news publication.

Asked to comment, Vivek Kaul, MD, the Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine in the Center for Advanced Therapeutic Endoscopy in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, said that the document is “an important attempt to not only present the available scientific literature in a very concise and understandable manner, but it goes above and beyond that in terms of diving into some novel paradigms and technologies and procedures that are either emerging or will be emerging in the near future.”
 

Improving detection by dropping GERD requirement

The first of the 15 statements may also be the most paradigm shifting: The panel suggests screening via standard upper endoscopy of people with at least three risk factors for Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma, including those who are male, are non-Hispanic White, are aged above 50 years, and have a history of smoking, chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), obesity, or a family history of Barrett’s esophagus or esophageal adenocarcinoma.

This represents a departure from all current guidelines, which stipulate GERD as a necessary prerequisite for screening. But the reason is simple, according to the authors: A majority of patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer never experience classic GERD symptoms.

“There is growing evidence in high-level publications over the last couple of years that reflux is not the ideal predictor, based on odds, for development of Barrett’s esophagus. So the consensus among the experts was that we need to remove GERD as an absolute prerequisite or we’re never going to make progress. In order to make an impact on the rise of esophageal adenocarcinoma we have to increase the denominator of patients we are seeing,” Dr. Komanduri explained.

While it might be difficult to screen every White male over 50 years of age, the data do suggest screening those who also have obesity and/or are current smokers. “That’s a perfect subset you might want to start with. There are permutations that have greater value that don’t occupy unnecessary resource utilization. Most critical are the family history of esophageal cancer or Barrett’s esophagus,” he noted.

Dr. Kaul said that a one-time Barrett’s esophagus screening of all White males over 50 years old “is not unreasonable, especially given the rising rates of esophageal cancer.”

However, he also noted, “The feasibility, preferred screening modality, incremental costs, and yield of this new strategy will need to be studied further. Access to GI endoscopy in the postpandemic world is already a concern and will need to be factored into execution of this [advice statement] and will likely impact adoption in some way.”

For his part, Dr. Komanduri said that more investigation will be needed to validate which patients most benefit from screening and that the AGA is planning educational programs for clinicians about interpreting this new paradigm.
 

New technology could make screening easier and cheaper

The availability of nonendoscopic cell collection devices, including the swallowable Cytosponge (Medtronic), EsoCheck (Lucid), and EsoCap (Capnostics) could help make screening for Barrett’s esophagus easier and more cost effective. They are designed for in-office use and don’t require sedation. Each one is currently in various stages of development and clinical trials. As of now they’re approved in the United States only for cell collection but not for Barrett’s esophagus screening, but their use is endorsed by some guidelines. The Cytosponge in particular is widely available and has been used extensively in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Kaul commented, “While there is a need for nonendoscopic screening devices, the ideal patient population and practice setting for administration of these devices has not been clearly defined. Also, who will be delivering these tests: Primary care or gastroenterology providers? These devices ... represent a major step forward and a novel paradigm for Barrett’s esophagus screening, and the only platform that non-GI providers could use.”
 

Virtual chromoendoscopy: A must have in 2022

A third best practice advice statement shouldn’t be controversial because it’s in other guidelines already, but data show clinicians aren’t always doing it: Performing screening and surveillance endoscopic examinations using virtual chromoendoscopy in addition to high-definition white light endoscopy, with adequate time spent inspecting the Barrett’s segment. The majority of data supporting this is for narrow-band imaging only.

“The blue light lets you pick up early mucosal and vascular changes which might represent dysplastic lesions. It’s not a question of should. It’s a medicolegal slam dunk; you must do it. It’s been a guideline recommendation in the last few years, and it’s just a switch on the scope. It doesn’t require separate equipment, yet people are often still skipping it,” Dr. Komanduri said.

Indeed, Dr. Kaul concurred, “The importance of a high quality, meticulous endoscopic examination for screening and surveillance in Barrett’s esophagus cannot be overemphasized.”
 

‘Finally pushing the needle in the right direction’

The overall goals, Dr. Komanduri said, are “increasing the denominator, using less invasive screening, but finding more patients. If we find more patients we’ll need to stratify their risk. We hope that all these things eventually tie together in a nice story, all with the aim of preventing an invasive cancer that can’t be treated.”

He believes the new update “is a pivotal document in this field that’s going to be a paradigm changer. A lot of aspects need further validation. It’s by no means the end. But I think we’re finally pushing the needle in the right direction as things move forward with innovation.”

Dr. Kaul agrees. “It’s highlighting the principles that may become established paradigms in the future.”

Dr. Komanduri and the other authors of the update reported relationships, including consulting and research support, with companies like Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Virgo Video Solutions, and Castle Biosciences. Dr. Kaul serves as a consultant and advisory board member for CDx Diagnostics, an advisory board member for Castle Biosciences, and an investigator for Lucid Diagnostics.

A new clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association offers practical advice around surveillance and use of new screening technologies for Barrett’s esophagus.

The AGA clinical practice update, published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology comes from the AGA’s Center for GI Innovation and Technology. It offers 15 best practice advice statements based on expert review of existing literature combined with discussion and expert opinion. The aim is “to provide an update on advances and innovation” but not to replace current guidelines.

“Guidelines operate on rigorous methodology which requires the use of [Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation] methodology and a higher level of evidence. In gastroenterology especially, innovation is moving quickly and there’s no way for patients to reap their benefits if clinical practice was dictated by guidelines alone. That said, we do need documents that support and drive innovation in clinical practice,” corresponding author Srinadh Komanduri, MD, professor of medicine and surgery in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news publication.

Asked to comment, Vivek Kaul, MD, the Segal-Watson Professor of Medicine in the Center for Advanced Therapeutic Endoscopy in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, said that the document is “an important attempt to not only present the available scientific literature in a very concise and understandable manner, but it goes above and beyond that in terms of diving into some novel paradigms and technologies and procedures that are either emerging or will be emerging in the near future.”
 

Improving detection by dropping GERD requirement

The first of the 15 statements may also be the most paradigm shifting: The panel suggests screening via standard upper endoscopy of people with at least three risk factors for Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma, including those who are male, are non-Hispanic White, are aged above 50 years, and have a history of smoking, chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), obesity, or a family history of Barrett’s esophagus or esophageal adenocarcinoma.

This represents a departure from all current guidelines, which stipulate GERD as a necessary prerequisite for screening. But the reason is simple, according to the authors: A majority of patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer never experience classic GERD symptoms.

“There is growing evidence in high-level publications over the last couple of years that reflux is not the ideal predictor, based on odds, for development of Barrett’s esophagus. So the consensus among the experts was that we need to remove GERD as an absolute prerequisite or we’re never going to make progress. In order to make an impact on the rise of esophageal adenocarcinoma we have to increase the denominator of patients we are seeing,” Dr. Komanduri explained.

While it might be difficult to screen every White male over 50 years of age, the data do suggest screening those who also have obesity and/or are current smokers. “That’s a perfect subset you might want to start with. There are permutations that have greater value that don’t occupy unnecessary resource utilization. Most critical are the family history of esophageal cancer or Barrett’s esophagus,” he noted.

Dr. Kaul said that a one-time Barrett’s esophagus screening of all White males over 50 years old “is not unreasonable, especially given the rising rates of esophageal cancer.”

However, he also noted, “The feasibility, preferred screening modality, incremental costs, and yield of this new strategy will need to be studied further. Access to GI endoscopy in the postpandemic world is already a concern and will need to be factored into execution of this [advice statement] and will likely impact adoption in some way.”

For his part, Dr. Komanduri said that more investigation will be needed to validate which patients most benefit from screening and that the AGA is planning educational programs for clinicians about interpreting this new paradigm.
 

New technology could make screening easier and cheaper

The availability of nonendoscopic cell collection devices, including the swallowable Cytosponge (Medtronic), EsoCheck (Lucid), and EsoCap (Capnostics) could help make screening for Barrett’s esophagus easier and more cost effective. They are designed for in-office use and don’t require sedation. Each one is currently in various stages of development and clinical trials. As of now they’re approved in the United States only for cell collection but not for Barrett’s esophagus screening, but their use is endorsed by some guidelines. The Cytosponge in particular is widely available and has been used extensively in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Kaul commented, “While there is a need for nonendoscopic screening devices, the ideal patient population and practice setting for administration of these devices has not been clearly defined. Also, who will be delivering these tests: Primary care or gastroenterology providers? These devices ... represent a major step forward and a novel paradigm for Barrett’s esophagus screening, and the only platform that non-GI providers could use.”
 

Virtual chromoendoscopy: A must have in 2022

A third best practice advice statement shouldn’t be controversial because it’s in other guidelines already, but data show clinicians aren’t always doing it: Performing screening and surveillance endoscopic examinations using virtual chromoendoscopy in addition to high-definition white light endoscopy, with adequate time spent inspecting the Barrett’s segment. The majority of data supporting this is for narrow-band imaging only.

“The blue light lets you pick up early mucosal and vascular changes which might represent dysplastic lesions. It’s not a question of should. It’s a medicolegal slam dunk; you must do it. It’s been a guideline recommendation in the last few years, and it’s just a switch on the scope. It doesn’t require separate equipment, yet people are often still skipping it,” Dr. Komanduri said.

Indeed, Dr. Kaul concurred, “The importance of a high quality, meticulous endoscopic examination for screening and surveillance in Barrett’s esophagus cannot be overemphasized.”
 

‘Finally pushing the needle in the right direction’

The overall goals, Dr. Komanduri said, are “increasing the denominator, using less invasive screening, but finding more patients. If we find more patients we’ll need to stratify their risk. We hope that all these things eventually tie together in a nice story, all with the aim of preventing an invasive cancer that can’t be treated.”

He believes the new update “is a pivotal document in this field that’s going to be a paradigm changer. A lot of aspects need further validation. It’s by no means the end. But I think we’re finally pushing the needle in the right direction as things move forward with innovation.”

Dr. Kaul agrees. “It’s highlighting the principles that may become established paradigms in the future.”

Dr. Komanduri and the other authors of the update reported relationships, including consulting and research support, with companies like Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Virgo Video Solutions, and Castle Biosciences. Dr. Kaul serves as a consultant and advisory board member for CDx Diagnostics, an advisory board member for Castle Biosciences, and an investigator for Lucid Diagnostics.

For patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may be the safer choice over tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), shows a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

The study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open, found that ICIs were associated with fewer serious adverse events, such as death, illness requiring hospitalization or illness leading to disability.

The findings are based on a meta-analysis of 30 randomized clinical trials and 12,921 patients. The analysis found a greater frequency of serious adverse events among those treated with TKIs than those treated with ICIs, though the rates of less serious liver-related adverse events were similar.

“When considering objective response rates, combination therapy with atezolizumab and bevacizumab or lenvatinib alone likely offer the most promise in the neoadjuvant setting in terms of objective response and toxic effects without preventing patients from reaching surgery,” the authors wrote.

Most newly diagnosed cases of HCC are unresectable, which leads to palliative treatment. When disease is advanced, systemic treatment is generally chosen, and new options introduced in the past decade have boosted survival. Many of these approaches feature ICIs and TKIs.

HCC therapy continues to evolve, with targeted surgical and locoregional therapies like ablation and embolization, and it’s important to understand how side effects from ICIs and TKIs might impact follow-on procedures.

Neoadjuvant therapy can avoid delays to adjuvant chemotherapy that might occur due to surgical complications. Neoadjuvant therapy also has the potential to downstage the disease from advanced to resectable, and it can provide greater opportunity for patient selection based on both tumor biology and patient characteristics.

However, advanced HCC is a complicated condition. Patients typically have cirrhosis and require an adequate functional liver remnant. Neoadjuvant locoregional treatment has been studied in HCC. A systematic review of 55 studies found no significant difference in disease-free or overall survival between preoperative or postoperative transarterial chemoembolization in resectable HCC. There is some weak evidence that locoregional therapies may achieve downstaging or maintain candidacy past 6 months.

The median age of participants was 62 years. Among the included studies, on average, 84% of patients were male. The mean fraction of patients with disease originating outside the liver was 61%, and the mean percentage with microvascular invasion was 28%. A mean of 82% had stage C according to Barcelona Clinic Liver Center staging.

21% of patients who received TKIs (95% confidence interval, 16%-26%) experienced liver toxicities versus 24% (95% CI, 13%-35%) of patients receiving ICIs. Severe adverse events were more common with TKIs, with a frequency of 46% (95% CI, 40%-51%), compared with 24% of those who received ICIs (95% CI, 13%-35%).

TKIs other than sorafenib were associated with higher rates of severe adverse events (risk ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.44). ICIs and sorafenib had similar rates of liver toxic effects and severe adverse events.

The study has some limitations, including variations within the included studies in the way adverse events were reported, and there was variation in the inclusion criteria.

For patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may be the safer choice over tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), shows a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

The study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open, found that ICIs were associated with fewer serious adverse events, such as death, illness requiring hospitalization or illness leading to disability.

The findings are based on a meta-analysis of 30 randomized clinical trials and 12,921 patients. The analysis found a greater frequency of serious adverse events among those treated with TKIs than those treated with ICIs, though the rates of less serious liver-related adverse events were similar.

“When considering objective response rates, combination therapy with atezolizumab and bevacizumab or lenvatinib alone likely offer the most promise in the neoadjuvant setting in terms of objective response and toxic effects without preventing patients from reaching surgery,” the authors wrote.

Most newly diagnosed cases of HCC are unresectable, which leads to palliative treatment. When disease is advanced, systemic treatment is generally chosen, and new options introduced in the past decade have boosted survival. Many of these approaches feature ICIs and TKIs.

HCC therapy continues to evolve, with targeted surgical and locoregional therapies like ablation and embolization, and it’s important to understand how side effects from ICIs and TKIs might impact follow-on procedures.

Neoadjuvant therapy can avoid delays to adjuvant chemotherapy that might occur due to surgical complications. Neoadjuvant therapy also has the potential to downstage the disease from advanced to resectable, and it can provide greater opportunity for patient selection based on both tumor biology and patient characteristics.

However, advanced HCC is a complicated condition. Patients typically have cirrhosis and require an adequate functional liver remnant. Neoadjuvant locoregional treatment has been studied in HCC. A systematic review of 55 studies found no significant difference in disease-free or overall survival between preoperative or postoperative transarterial chemoembolization in resectable HCC. There is some weak evidence that locoregional therapies may achieve downstaging or maintain candidacy past 6 months.

The median age of participants was 62 years. Among the included studies, on average, 84% of patients were male. The mean fraction of patients with disease originating outside the liver was 61%, and the mean percentage with microvascular invasion was 28%. A mean of 82% had stage C according to Barcelona Clinic Liver Center staging.

21% of patients who received TKIs (95% confidence interval, 16%-26%) experienced liver toxicities versus 24% (95% CI, 13%-35%) of patients receiving ICIs. Severe adverse events were more common with TKIs, with a frequency of 46% (95% CI, 40%-51%), compared with 24% of those who received ICIs (95% CI, 13%-35%).

TKIs other than sorafenib were associated with higher rates of severe adverse events (risk ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.44). ICIs and sorafenib had similar rates of liver toxic effects and severe adverse events.

The study has some limitations, including variations within the included studies in the way adverse events were reported, and there was variation in the inclusion criteria.

For patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) may be the safer choice over tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), shows a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

The study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open, found that ICIs were associated with fewer serious adverse events, such as death, illness requiring hospitalization or illness leading to disability.

The findings are based on a meta-analysis of 30 randomized clinical trials and 12,921 patients. The analysis found a greater frequency of serious adverse events among those treated with TKIs than those treated with ICIs, though the rates of less serious liver-related adverse events were similar.

“When considering objective response rates, combination therapy with atezolizumab and bevacizumab or lenvatinib alone likely offer the most promise in the neoadjuvant setting in terms of objective response and toxic effects without preventing patients from reaching surgery,” the authors wrote.

Most newly diagnosed cases of HCC are unresectable, which leads to palliative treatment. When disease is advanced, systemic treatment is generally chosen, and new options introduced in the past decade have boosted survival. Many of these approaches feature ICIs and TKIs.

HCC therapy continues to evolve, with targeted surgical and locoregional therapies like ablation and embolization, and it’s important to understand how side effects from ICIs and TKIs might impact follow-on procedures.

Neoadjuvant therapy can avoid delays to adjuvant chemotherapy that might occur due to surgical complications. Neoadjuvant therapy also has the potential to downstage the disease from advanced to resectable, and it can provide greater opportunity for patient selection based on both tumor biology and patient characteristics.

However, advanced HCC is a complicated condition. Patients typically have cirrhosis and require an adequate functional liver remnant. Neoadjuvant locoregional treatment has been studied in HCC. A systematic review of 55 studies found no significant difference in disease-free or overall survival between preoperative or postoperative transarterial chemoembolization in resectable HCC. There is some weak evidence that locoregional therapies may achieve downstaging or maintain candidacy past 6 months.

The median age of participants was 62 years. Among the included studies, on average, 84% of patients were male. The mean fraction of patients with disease originating outside the liver was 61%, and the mean percentage with microvascular invasion was 28%. A mean of 82% had stage C according to Barcelona Clinic Liver Center staging.

21% of patients who received TKIs (95% confidence interval, 16%-26%) experienced liver toxicities versus 24% (95% CI, 13%-35%) of patients receiving ICIs. Severe adverse events were more common with TKIs, with a frequency of 46% (95% CI, 40%-51%), compared with 24% of those who received ICIs (95% CI, 13%-35%).

TKIs other than sorafenib were associated with higher rates of severe adverse events (risk ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.44). ICIs and sorafenib had similar rates of liver toxic effects and severe adverse events.

The study has some limitations, including variations within the included studies in the way adverse events were reported, and there was variation in the inclusion criteria.

In a phase 2 clinical trial, the combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor led to improved overall survival versus standard of care in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed previous ICI therapy.

NSCLC patients usually receive immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at some point, whether in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting, or among stage 3 patients after radiation. “The majority of patients who get diagnosed with lung cancer will get some sort of immunotherapy, and we know that at least from the advanced setting, about 15% of those will have long-term responses, which means the majority of patients will develop tumor resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” said Karen L. Reckamp, MD, who is the lead author of the study published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

That clinical need has led to the combination of ICIs with VEGF inhibitors. This approach is approved for first-line therapy of renal cell cancer, endometrial, and hepatocellular cancer. Along with its effect on tumor vasculature, VEGF inhibition assists in the activation and maturation of dendritic cells, as well as to attract cytotoxic T cells to the tumor. “By both changing the vasculature and changing the tumor milieu, there’s a potential to overcome that immune suppression and potentially overcome that (ICI) resistance,” said Dr. Reckamp, who is associate director of clinical research at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “The results of the study were encouraging. The survival benefit was seen from the very beginning of treatment. It wasn’t something that was delayed in its benefit. We would like to confirm this finding in a phase 3 trial and potentially provide to patients an option that does not include chemotherapy and can potentially overcome resistance to their prior immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study included 136 patients. The median patient age was 66 years and 61% were male. The ICI/VEGF arm had better overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.69; SLR one-sided P = .05). The median overall survival was 14.5 months in the ICI/VEGF arm, versus 11.6 months in the standard care arm. Both arms had similar response rates, and grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were more common in the chemotherapy arm (60% versus 42%).

The next step is a phase 3 trial and Dr. Reckamp hopes to improve patient selection for VEGF inhibitor and VEGF receptor inhibitor therapy. “The precision medicine that’s associated with other tumor alterations has kind of been elusive for VEGF therapies, but I would hope with potentially a larger trial and understanding of some of the biomarkers that we might find a more select patient population who will benefit the most,” Dr. Reckamp said.

She also noted that the comparative arm in the phase 2 study was a combination of docetaxel and ramucirumab. “That combination has shown to be more effective than single agent docetaxel alone so [the new study] was really improved overall survival over the best standard of care therapy we have,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study was funded, in part, by Eli Lilly and Company and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Reckamp disclosed ties to Amgen, Tesaro, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Genentech, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Merck KGaA, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mirati Therapeutics.

In a phase 2 clinical trial, the combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor led to improved overall survival versus standard of care in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed previous ICI therapy.

NSCLC patients usually receive immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at some point, whether in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting, or among stage 3 patients after radiation. “The majority of patients who get diagnosed with lung cancer will get some sort of immunotherapy, and we know that at least from the advanced setting, about 15% of those will have long-term responses, which means the majority of patients will develop tumor resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” said Karen L. Reckamp, MD, who is the lead author of the study published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

That clinical need has led to the combination of ICIs with VEGF inhibitors. This approach is approved for first-line therapy of renal cell cancer, endometrial, and hepatocellular cancer. Along with its effect on tumor vasculature, VEGF inhibition assists in the activation and maturation of dendritic cells, as well as to attract cytotoxic T cells to the tumor. “By both changing the vasculature and changing the tumor milieu, there’s a potential to overcome that immune suppression and potentially overcome that (ICI) resistance,” said Dr. Reckamp, who is associate director of clinical research at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “The results of the study were encouraging. The survival benefit was seen from the very beginning of treatment. It wasn’t something that was delayed in its benefit. We would like to confirm this finding in a phase 3 trial and potentially provide to patients an option that does not include chemotherapy and can potentially overcome resistance to their prior immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study included 136 patients. The median patient age was 66 years and 61% were male. The ICI/VEGF arm had better overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.69; SLR one-sided P = .05). The median overall survival was 14.5 months in the ICI/VEGF arm, versus 11.6 months in the standard care arm. Both arms had similar response rates, and grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were more common in the chemotherapy arm (60% versus 42%).

The next step is a phase 3 trial and Dr. Reckamp hopes to improve patient selection for VEGF inhibitor and VEGF receptor inhibitor therapy. “The precision medicine that’s associated with other tumor alterations has kind of been elusive for VEGF therapies, but I would hope with potentially a larger trial and understanding of some of the biomarkers that we might find a more select patient population who will benefit the most,” Dr. Reckamp said.

She also noted that the comparative arm in the phase 2 study was a combination of docetaxel and ramucirumab. “That combination has shown to be more effective than single agent docetaxel alone so [the new study] was really improved overall survival over the best standard of care therapy we have,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study was funded, in part, by Eli Lilly and Company and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Reckamp disclosed ties to Amgen, Tesaro, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Genentech, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Merck KGaA, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mirati Therapeutics.

In a phase 2 clinical trial, the combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor led to improved overall survival versus standard of care in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed previous ICI therapy.

NSCLC patients usually receive immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy at some point, whether in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting, or among stage 3 patients after radiation. “The majority of patients who get diagnosed with lung cancer will get some sort of immunotherapy, and we know that at least from the advanced setting, about 15% of those will have long-term responses, which means the majority of patients will develop tumor resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” said Karen L. Reckamp, MD, who is the lead author of the study published online in Journal of Clinical Oncology.

That clinical need has led to the combination of ICIs with VEGF inhibitors. This approach is approved for first-line therapy of renal cell cancer, endometrial, and hepatocellular cancer. Along with its effect on tumor vasculature, VEGF inhibition assists in the activation and maturation of dendritic cells, as well as to attract cytotoxic T cells to the tumor. “By both changing the vasculature and changing the tumor milieu, there’s a potential to overcome that immune suppression and potentially overcome that (ICI) resistance,” said Dr. Reckamp, who is associate director of clinical research at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. “The results of the study were encouraging. The survival benefit was seen from the very beginning of treatment. It wasn’t something that was delayed in its benefit. We would like to confirm this finding in a phase 3 trial and potentially provide to patients an option that does not include chemotherapy and can potentially overcome resistance to their prior immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study included 136 patients. The median patient age was 66 years and 61% were male. The ICI/VEGF arm had better overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.69; SLR one-sided P = .05). The median overall survival was 14.5 months in the ICI/VEGF arm, versus 11.6 months in the standard care arm. Both arms had similar response rates, and grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were more common in the chemotherapy arm (60% versus 42%).

The next step is a phase 3 trial and Dr. Reckamp hopes to improve patient selection for VEGF inhibitor and VEGF receptor inhibitor therapy. “The precision medicine that’s associated with other tumor alterations has kind of been elusive for VEGF therapies, but I would hope with potentially a larger trial and understanding of some of the biomarkers that we might find a more select patient population who will benefit the most,” Dr. Reckamp said.

She also noted that the comparative arm in the phase 2 study was a combination of docetaxel and ramucirumab. “That combination has shown to be more effective than single agent docetaxel alone so [the new study] was really improved overall survival over the best standard of care therapy we have,” Dr. Reckamp said.

The study was funded, in part, by Eli Lilly and Company and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Dr. Reckamp disclosed ties to Amgen, Tesaro, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Seattle Genetics, Genentech, Blueprint Medicines, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Merck KGaA, GlaxoSmithKline, and Mirati Therapeutics.

Hormone therapy did not increase mortality in postmenopausal women treated for early-stage estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, but, in longitudinal data from Denmark, there was a recurrence risk with vaginal estrogen therapy among those treated with aromatase inhibitors.

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) – including vaginal dryness, burning, and urinary incontinence – is common in women treated for breast cancer. Adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly aromatase inhibitors, can aggravate these symptoms. Both local and systemic estrogen therapy are recommended for alleviating GSM symptoms in healthy women, but concerns have been raised about their use in women with breast cancer. Previous studies examining this have suggested possible risks for breast cancer recurrence, but those studies have had several limitations including small samples and short follow-up, particularly for vaginal estrogen therapy.

In the new study, from a national Danish cohort of 8,461 postmenopausal women diagnosed between 1997 and 2004 and treated for early-stage invasive estrogen receptor–positive nonmetastatic breast cancer, neither systemic menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) nor local vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) were associated with an overall increased risk for either breast cancer recurrence or mortality. However, in the subset who had received an aromatase inhibitor – with or without tamoxifen – there was a statistically significant increased risk for breast cancer recurrence, but not mortality.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“The data are reassuring for the majority of women with no adjuvant therapy or tamoxifen. But for those using adjuvant aromatase inhibitors, there might be a small risk,” study lead author Søren Cold, MD, PhD, senior oncologist in the department of oncology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, Odense, said in an interview.

Moreover, Dr. Cold noted, while this study didn’t find an increased recurrence risk with MHT for women taking aromatase inhibitors, other studies have. One in particular was stopped because of harm. The reason for the difference here is likely that the previous sample was small – just 133 women.

“Our study is mainly focusing on the use of vaginal estrogen. We had so few patients using systemic menopausal hormone therapy, those data don’t mean much. ... The risk with systemic therapy has been established. The vaginal use hasn’t been thoroughly studied before,” he noted.
 

Breast cancer recurrence elevated with VET and aromatase inhibitors

The study pool was 9,710 women who underwent complete resection for estrogen-positive breast cancer and were all allocated to 5 years of adjuvant endocrine treatment or no adjuvant treatment, according to guidelines. Overall, 3,112 received no adjuvant endocrine treatment, 2,007 were treated with tamoxifen only, 403 with an aromatase inhibitor, and 2,939 with a sequence of tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor.

After exclusion of 1,249 who had received VET or MHT prior to breast cancer diagnosis, there were 6,391 not prescribed any estrogen hormonal treatment, 1,957 prescribed VET, and 133 prescribed MHT with or without VET.

During an estimated median 9.8 years’ follow-up, 1,333 women (16%) had a breast cancer recurrence. Of those, 111 had received VET, 16 MHT, and 1,206 neither. Compared with those receiving no hormonal treatment, the adjusted risk of recurrence was similar for the VET users (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.32).

However, there was an increased risk for recurrence associated with initiating VET during aromatase inhibitor treatment (HR, 1.39, 95% CI, 1.04-1.85). For women receiving MHT, the adjusted relative risk of recurrence with aromatase inhibitors wasn’t significant (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.62-1.78).

Overall, compared with women who never used hormonal treatment, the absolute 10-year breast cancer recurrence risk was 19.2% for never-users of VET or MHT, 15.4% in VET users, and 17.1% in MHT users.
 

No differences found for mortality

Of the 8,461 women in the study, 40% (3,370) died during an estimated median follow-up of 15.2 years. Of those, 497 had received VET, 47 MHT, and 2,826 neither. Compared with the never-users of estrogen therapy, the adjusted HR for overall survival in VET users was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71-0.87). The analysis stratified by adjuvant endocrine therapy didn’t show an increase in VET users by use of aromatase inhibitors (aHR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.70-1.26). The same was found for women prescribed MHT, compared with never-users (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.70-1.26).

Never-users of VET or MHT had an absolute 10-year overall survival of 73.8% versus 79.5% and 80.5% among the women who used VET or MHT, respectively.

Asked to comment, Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and E. Stewart Taylor Chair of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview: “It is important to look at this issue. These findings raise but don’t answer the question that vaginal estradiol may not be as safe as we hope it is for women with breast cancer using an aromatase inhibitor.”

However, she also pointed out that “the overall increase in risk is not enormous; mortality risk was not increased. Women need to consider that there may be some risk associated with this option in their decision making about taking it. Having a satisfying sex life is also important for many women! It is really compassionate use for quality of life, so there is always that unknown element of risk in the discussion. That unknown risk has to be balanced against the benefit that the estrogen provides.”

And, Dr. Santoro also noted that the use of prescription data poses limitations. “It cannot tell us what was going on in the minds of the patient and the prescriber. There may be differences in the prescriber’s impression of the patient’s risk of recurrence that influenced the decision to provide a prescription. ... Women using AIs [aromatase inhibitors] often get pretty severe vaginal dryness symptoms and may need more estrogen to be comfortable with intercourse, but we really cannot tell this from what is in this paper.”

Indeed, Dr. Cold said: “We admit it’s not a randomized study, but we’ve done what was possible to take [confounding] factors into account, including age, tumor size, nodal status, histology, and comorbidities.”

He suggested that a potential therapeutic approach to reducing the recurrence risk might be to switch VET-treated women to tamoxifen after 2-3 years of aromatase inhibitors.

This work was supported by Breast Friends, a part of the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold received support from Breast Friends for the current study. Some of the other coauthors have pharmaceutical company disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory boards for Astellas, Menogenix, Que Oncology, and Amazon Ember, and is a consultant for Ansh Labs.

Hormone therapy did not increase mortality in postmenopausal women treated for early-stage estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, but, in longitudinal data from Denmark, there was a recurrence risk with vaginal estrogen therapy among those treated with aromatase inhibitors.

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) – including vaginal dryness, burning, and urinary incontinence – is common in women treated for breast cancer. Adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly aromatase inhibitors, can aggravate these symptoms. Both local and systemic estrogen therapy are recommended for alleviating GSM symptoms in healthy women, but concerns have been raised about their use in women with breast cancer. Previous studies examining this have suggested possible risks for breast cancer recurrence, but those studies have had several limitations including small samples and short follow-up, particularly for vaginal estrogen therapy.

In the new study, from a national Danish cohort of 8,461 postmenopausal women diagnosed between 1997 and 2004 and treated for early-stage invasive estrogen receptor–positive nonmetastatic breast cancer, neither systemic menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) nor local vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) were associated with an overall increased risk for either breast cancer recurrence or mortality. However, in the subset who had received an aromatase inhibitor – with or without tamoxifen – there was a statistically significant increased risk for breast cancer recurrence, but not mortality.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“The data are reassuring for the majority of women with no adjuvant therapy or tamoxifen. But for those using adjuvant aromatase inhibitors, there might be a small risk,” study lead author Søren Cold, MD, PhD, senior oncologist in the department of oncology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, Odense, said in an interview.

Moreover, Dr. Cold noted, while this study didn’t find an increased recurrence risk with MHT for women taking aromatase inhibitors, other studies have. One in particular was stopped because of harm. The reason for the difference here is likely that the previous sample was small – just 133 women.

“Our study is mainly focusing on the use of vaginal estrogen. We had so few patients using systemic menopausal hormone therapy, those data don’t mean much. ... The risk with systemic therapy has been established. The vaginal use hasn’t been thoroughly studied before,” he noted.
 

Breast cancer recurrence elevated with VET and aromatase inhibitors

The study pool was 9,710 women who underwent complete resection for estrogen-positive breast cancer and were all allocated to 5 years of adjuvant endocrine treatment or no adjuvant treatment, according to guidelines. Overall, 3,112 received no adjuvant endocrine treatment, 2,007 were treated with tamoxifen only, 403 with an aromatase inhibitor, and 2,939 with a sequence of tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor.

After exclusion of 1,249 who had received VET or MHT prior to breast cancer diagnosis, there were 6,391 not prescribed any estrogen hormonal treatment, 1,957 prescribed VET, and 133 prescribed MHT with or without VET.

During an estimated median 9.8 years’ follow-up, 1,333 women (16%) had a breast cancer recurrence. Of those, 111 had received VET, 16 MHT, and 1,206 neither. Compared with those receiving no hormonal treatment, the adjusted risk of recurrence was similar for the VET users (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.32).

However, there was an increased risk for recurrence associated with initiating VET during aromatase inhibitor treatment (HR, 1.39, 95% CI, 1.04-1.85). For women receiving MHT, the adjusted relative risk of recurrence with aromatase inhibitors wasn’t significant (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.62-1.78).

Overall, compared with women who never used hormonal treatment, the absolute 10-year breast cancer recurrence risk was 19.2% for never-users of VET or MHT, 15.4% in VET users, and 17.1% in MHT users.
 

No differences found for mortality

Of the 8,461 women in the study, 40% (3,370) died during an estimated median follow-up of 15.2 years. Of those, 497 had received VET, 47 MHT, and 2,826 neither. Compared with the never-users of estrogen therapy, the adjusted HR for overall survival in VET users was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71-0.87). The analysis stratified by adjuvant endocrine therapy didn’t show an increase in VET users by use of aromatase inhibitors (aHR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.70-1.26). The same was found for women prescribed MHT, compared with never-users (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.70-1.26).

Never-users of VET or MHT had an absolute 10-year overall survival of 73.8% versus 79.5% and 80.5% among the women who used VET or MHT, respectively.

Asked to comment, Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and E. Stewart Taylor Chair of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview: “It is important to look at this issue. These findings raise but don’t answer the question that vaginal estradiol may not be as safe as we hope it is for women with breast cancer using an aromatase inhibitor.”

However, she also pointed out that “the overall increase in risk is not enormous; mortality risk was not increased. Women need to consider that there may be some risk associated with this option in their decision making about taking it. Having a satisfying sex life is also important for many women! It is really compassionate use for quality of life, so there is always that unknown element of risk in the discussion. That unknown risk has to be balanced against the benefit that the estrogen provides.”

And, Dr. Santoro also noted that the use of prescription data poses limitations. “It cannot tell us what was going on in the minds of the patient and the prescriber. There may be differences in the prescriber’s impression of the patient’s risk of recurrence that influenced the decision to provide a prescription. ... Women using AIs [aromatase inhibitors] often get pretty severe vaginal dryness symptoms and may need more estrogen to be comfortable with intercourse, but we really cannot tell this from what is in this paper.”

Indeed, Dr. Cold said: “We admit it’s not a randomized study, but we’ve done what was possible to take [confounding] factors into account, including age, tumor size, nodal status, histology, and comorbidities.”

He suggested that a potential therapeutic approach to reducing the recurrence risk might be to switch VET-treated women to tamoxifen after 2-3 years of aromatase inhibitors.

This work was supported by Breast Friends, a part of the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold received support from Breast Friends for the current study. Some of the other coauthors have pharmaceutical company disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory boards for Astellas, Menogenix, Que Oncology, and Amazon Ember, and is a consultant for Ansh Labs.

Hormone therapy did not increase mortality in postmenopausal women treated for early-stage estrogen receptor–positive breast cancer, but, in longitudinal data from Denmark, there was a recurrence risk with vaginal estrogen therapy among those treated with aromatase inhibitors.

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM) – including vaginal dryness, burning, and urinary incontinence – is common in women treated for breast cancer. Adjuvant endocrine therapy, particularly aromatase inhibitors, can aggravate these symptoms. Both local and systemic estrogen therapy are recommended for alleviating GSM symptoms in healthy women, but concerns have been raised about their use in women with breast cancer. Previous studies examining this have suggested possible risks for breast cancer recurrence, but those studies have had several limitations including small samples and short follow-up, particularly for vaginal estrogen therapy.

In the new study, from a national Danish cohort of 8,461 postmenopausal women diagnosed between 1997 and 2004 and treated for early-stage invasive estrogen receptor–positive nonmetastatic breast cancer, neither systemic menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) nor local vaginal estrogen therapy (VET) were associated with an overall increased risk for either breast cancer recurrence or mortality. However, in the subset who had received an aromatase inhibitor – with or without tamoxifen – there was a statistically significant increased risk for breast cancer recurrence, but not mortality.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

“The data are reassuring for the majority of women with no adjuvant therapy or tamoxifen. But for those using adjuvant aromatase inhibitors, there might be a small risk,” study lead author Søren Cold, MD, PhD, senior oncologist in the department of oncology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, Odense, said in an interview.

Moreover, Dr. Cold noted, while this study didn’t find an increased recurrence risk with MHT for women taking aromatase inhibitors, other studies have. One in particular was stopped because of harm. The reason for the difference here is likely that the previous sample was small – just 133 women.

“Our study is mainly focusing on the use of vaginal estrogen. We had so few patients using systemic menopausal hormone therapy, those data don’t mean much. ... The risk with systemic therapy has been established. The vaginal use hasn’t been thoroughly studied before,” he noted.
 

Breast cancer recurrence elevated with VET and aromatase inhibitors

The study pool was 9,710 women who underwent complete resection for estrogen-positive breast cancer and were all allocated to 5 years of adjuvant endocrine treatment or no adjuvant treatment, according to guidelines. Overall, 3,112 received no adjuvant endocrine treatment, 2,007 were treated with tamoxifen only, 403 with an aromatase inhibitor, and 2,939 with a sequence of tamoxifen and an aromatase inhibitor.

After exclusion of 1,249 who had received VET or MHT prior to breast cancer diagnosis, there were 6,391 not prescribed any estrogen hormonal treatment, 1,957 prescribed VET, and 133 prescribed MHT with or without VET.

During an estimated median 9.8 years’ follow-up, 1,333 women (16%) had a breast cancer recurrence. Of those, 111 had received VET, 16 MHT, and 1,206 neither. Compared with those receiving no hormonal treatment, the adjusted risk of recurrence was similar for the VET users (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.32).

However, there was an increased risk for recurrence associated with initiating VET during aromatase inhibitor treatment (HR, 1.39, 95% CI, 1.04-1.85). For women receiving MHT, the adjusted relative risk of recurrence with aromatase inhibitors wasn’t significant (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.62-1.78).

Overall, compared with women who never used hormonal treatment, the absolute 10-year breast cancer recurrence risk was 19.2% for never-users of VET or MHT, 15.4% in VET users, and 17.1% in MHT users.
 

No differences found for mortality

Of the 8,461 women in the study, 40% (3,370) died during an estimated median follow-up of 15.2 years. Of those, 497 had received VET, 47 MHT, and 2,826 neither. Compared with the never-users of estrogen therapy, the adjusted HR for overall survival in VET users was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.71-0.87). The analysis stratified by adjuvant endocrine therapy didn’t show an increase in VET users by use of aromatase inhibitors (aHR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.70-1.26). The same was found for women prescribed MHT, compared with never-users (aHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.70-1.26).

Never-users of VET or MHT had an absolute 10-year overall survival of 73.8% versus 79.5% and 80.5% among the women who used VET or MHT, respectively.

Asked to comment, Nanette Santoro, MD, professor and E. Stewart Taylor Chair of Obstetrics & Gynecology at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview: “It is important to look at this issue. These findings raise but don’t answer the question that vaginal estradiol may not be as safe as we hope it is for women with breast cancer using an aromatase inhibitor.”

However, she also pointed out that “the overall increase in risk is not enormous; mortality risk was not increased. Women need to consider that there may be some risk associated with this option in their decision making about taking it. Having a satisfying sex life is also important for many women! It is really compassionate use for quality of life, so there is always that unknown element of risk in the discussion. That unknown risk has to be balanced against the benefit that the estrogen provides.”

And, Dr. Santoro also noted that the use of prescription data poses limitations. “It cannot tell us what was going on in the minds of the patient and the prescriber. There may be differences in the prescriber’s impression of the patient’s risk of recurrence that influenced the decision to provide a prescription. ... Women using AIs [aromatase inhibitors] often get pretty severe vaginal dryness symptoms and may need more estrogen to be comfortable with intercourse, but we really cannot tell this from what is in this paper.”

Indeed, Dr. Cold said: “We admit it’s not a randomized study, but we’ve done what was possible to take [confounding] factors into account, including age, tumor size, nodal status, histology, and comorbidities.”

He suggested that a potential therapeutic approach to reducing the recurrence risk might be to switch VET-treated women to tamoxifen after 2-3 years of aromatase inhibitors.

This work was supported by Breast Friends, a part of the Danish Cancer Society. Dr. Cold received support from Breast Friends for the current study. Some of the other coauthors have pharmaceutical company disclosures. Dr. Santoro is a member of the scientific advisory boards for Astellas, Menogenix, Que Oncology, and Amazon Ember, and is a consultant for Ansh Labs.

As a field, radiation oncology is perhaps one of medicine’s best kept secrets. Sometimes, even our own colleagues don’t know where our department exists in the hospital or exactly what we do.

As two radiation oncologists who are, in fact, the children of radiation oncologists, we will admit that it’s possible we are a tiny bit biased. We cannot lie, though: Our field is a hidden gem.

What is well known is that radiation oncologists have a symbiotic relationship with our treatment technology. The evolution of treatment machines and radiation precision allows us to deliver patient-tailored treatment down to the millimeter. What may get lost in the discussions of isodose lines and penumbra, however, is that we’ve also got cutting-edge research and personalized patient care within a specialized team in the depths of the hospital.

Because the inner workings of what happens to patients as they come in and out of our office remains a mystery, we hope to use this space to clarify the top five things most physicians don’t know about radiation oncology.
 

1. Nobody knows what goes on in the basement.

Misconceptions about our subspecialty are common, even among other oncologists. A frequent misconception is that a radiation oncologist’s involvement in patient care is limited, and radiation is delivered in a standardized manner. This essentially renders radiation oncologists technicians of expensive machines.

In reality however, radiation oncologists touch every aspect of a patient’s care, and customized radiation therapy may be indicated for virtually every cancer site in both curative and palliative settings. We strive to deliver precision medicine and practice truly patient-centered care.

To cure cancer, radiation may be used in the neoadjuvant (prior to local surgical resection), definitive (as the primary local therapy), and adjuvant (postsurgical) setting. In palliative cases, radiation can be used to treat areas of metastatic spread as well as primary unresectable tumors to alleviate obstruction and/or bleeding symptoms. Referral to radiation oncology, therefore, can be appropriate at many different points of time on the continuum of cancer care.

For many treating radiation oncologists, the close personal connections that we form with our patients is one of the primary reasons we went into this field. Not only are we making patient-centered clinical decisions during every step of the treatment plan evaluation and optimization but we also see our patients weekly for clinical visits and then ongoing in visits that may span many years of survivorship.

Our deep commitment to addressing patient needs as they are receiving treatment and responsibility for late radiation effects is absolutely an integral part of our training and lifelong practice.
 

2. We get down in the details.

The workflow from consultation to radiation delivery can be confusing for anyone outside our specialized field.

Once seen in consult and considered a good candidate for radiation, patients will enter the essential next step: the treatment planning imaging – or “simulation.”

The simulation scan – mostly CT, although occasionally fused MRI or PET – involves a separate appointment and another hour or so of arranging and scanning patients in the exact position that they will be treated. Given the precision of modern radiation, the simulation often includes making a customized mold so patients have minimal movement during treatment. These simulation images allow the radiation oncology team to create a treatment plan that is customized to each patient and precisely reproducible during their course of radiation treatments – what’s known as fractions.

Creating a treatment plan involves a radiation oncologist literally drawing – or contouring – on pictures of the patient’s internal anatomy in three dimensions. Radiation oncologists contour exactly where the cancer is – or where it was if the treatment is given postoperatively – and identify the surrounding organs so that the doses can be preferentially directed to the cancer target and minimize risk to nearby organs. This precision is within millimeters and accounts for microscopic disease, organ motion, and patient setup. Ultimately, we create colorful heat gradient volumes of the anticipated radiation dose delivery and optimize these to reflect our planning priorities.

We use advanced technologies to shape the beams of radiation to treat the tumor and avoid delivering high doses to the neighboring tissues with techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR or SBRT), and stereotactic radiosurgery. We can also take advantage of the unique properties of different modalities, such as proton therapy and electron therapy, to achieve these same goals if indicated. Radiation oncologists live for precision medicine in every aspect of their workflow.
 

3. We roll deep.

Radiation oncology is exemplary of “the art of medicine.” We fuse anatomy-based treatment design with advanced technology and orchestrate the daily functions of a large medical team.

But, the treatment plan and delivery would not be possible without the input and care given within a large multi- and intradisciplinary team of oncologists, medical physicists, dosimetrists, radiation therapists, nurses, social workers, and other support staff. Radiation oncologists participate in regular tumor boards with surgeons, medical oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists to optimize interdisciplinary management of complex patients, providing a thoughtful tumor localization and treatment plan, as well as to better understand an individual’s ongoing symptoms and well-being as a whole. Considering all aspects of what a patient may need involves communication with fellow physicians, nurse navigators, and social workers.

Within our own department, treatment plan creation and quality checking or verification can sometimes take over 2 weeks, with detailed input from dosimetrists and medical physicists. The actual treatment delivery involves daily communication with the radiation therapists who are dedicated to each treatment machine – like the linear accelerator – and symptom management with clinic nurses and supportive staff, such as physical therapists and registered dietitians.

This massive team effort is required to get each patient through daily radiation treatments that can last 7 weeks and may require rapid replanning if the tumor shrinks or the patient loses weight.

As part of this team, radiation oncologists are uniquely positioned to quarterback each play and guide the entire game strategy.
 

4. Radiation therapy takes a lot of heat.

Radiation therapy is often blamed for issues unrelated to the treatment. Irradiating the pelvis for prostate cancer, for instance, does not cause a headache or heartburn during or after treatment.

Other than fatigue, associated side effects are localized and related to the total radiation dose and fraction size – how much and how fast – that reaches the surrounding tissues.

Our colleagues often swap stories of the bizarre things radiation therapy has been blamed for, including dental problems in someone receiving vaginal cylinder treatment, heart dysfunction in someone treated for rectal cancer, and hip fracture in someone treated for breast cancer because the radiation “destroyed” their bones. At best, these are humorous stories, but at worst, they can delay diagnosis and treatment of what is truly causing someone’s symptoms.
 

5. We truly believe that less is more.

One of the most fundamental aspects of radiation oncology is our drive to optimize treatment delivery and continually improve patient care – sometimes at our own field’s economic detriment. We’re dedicated to showing that patients may get the same benefit from less and less radiation.

In the past 2 decades, the evolution and adoption of photon IMRT and proton therapy has allowed radiation plans to successfully spare surrounding tissue while improving our targeting. This evolution is coupled with technological and imaging advances that allow us to delivery of doses to certain tumors via SABR/SBRT in one to five total fractions.

A prime example: Treatment to eradicate lung or gastrointestinal tumors, which used to span up to 6 weeks, can now potentially be delivered in as little as 1 week.

For other common cancers, hypofractionation – slightly higher radiation doses per fraction at fewer total fractions overall – has revolutionized patient care, providing less radiation without impacting survival or increasing treatment toxicity.

Take breast cancer care: 50 years ago, virtually all patients with breast cancer received a mastectomy and lymph node dissections. Today, surgical techniques for lumpectomy paired with radiation therapy to the whole breast now allows us to preserve disease-free survival for those who elected to keep their breasts.

Over the past 20 years, the standards of care have shifted from 6-7 weeks of treatment to 3-4 weeks using a hypofractionated model that involves daily whole-breast radiation. The most recent clinical trials have shown that whole-breast radiation can be delivered safely and effectively for select women in as few as five fractions with either whole or partial breast targeting. Additional research driven by the idea of “right sizing” radiation treatment has even shown that certain women may not need radiation at all.

This evolution in radiation therapy illustrates how our subspecialty is constantly working to improve survival and patient well-being, form deep connections with our patients, and push the boundaries of medical innovations.

We are proud to be radiation oncologists and happy to share more. Want to know more about what goes on in the basement? Come on down, we’re happy to show you around.

Dr. Giap is a resident in the department of radiation oncology at the University of Florida, Gainesville. Dr. Chino is an assistant attending in the department of radiation oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Neither reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

As a field, radiation oncology is perhaps one of medicine’s best kept secrets. Sometimes, even our own colleagues don’t know where our department exists in the hospital or exactly what we do.

As two radiation oncologists who are, in fact, the children of radiation oncologists, we will admit that it’s possible we are a tiny bit biased. We cannot lie, though: Our field is a hidden gem.

What is well known is that radiation oncologists have a symbiotic relationship with our treatment technology. The evolution of treatment machines and radiation precision allows us to deliver patient-tailored treatment down to the millimeter. What may get lost in the discussions of isodose lines and penumbra, however, is that we’ve also got cutting-edge research and personalized patient care within a specialized team in the depths of the hospital.

Because the inner workings of what happens to patients as they come in and out of our office remains a mystery, we hope to use this space to clarify the top five things most physicians don’t know about radiation oncology.
 

1. Nobody knows what goes on in the basement.

Misconceptions about our subspecialty are common, even among other oncologists. A frequent misconception is that a radiation oncologist’s involvement in patient care is limited, and radiation is delivered in a standardized manner. This essentially renders radiation oncologists technicians of expensive machines.

In reality however, radiation oncologists touch every aspect of a patient’s care, and customized radiation therapy may be indicated for virtually every cancer site in both curative and palliative settings. We strive to deliver precision medicine and practice truly patient-centered care.

To cure cancer, radiation may be used in the neoadjuvant (prior to local surgical resection), definitive (as the primary local therapy), and adjuvant (postsurgical) setting. In palliative cases, radiation can be used to treat areas of metastatic spread as well as primary unresectable tumors to alleviate obstruction and/or bleeding symptoms. Referral to radiation oncology, therefore, can be appropriate at many different points of time on the continuum of cancer care.

For many treating radiation oncologists, the close personal connections that we form with our patients is one of the primary reasons we went into this field. Not only are we making patient-centered clinical decisions during every step of the treatment plan evaluation and optimization but we also see our patients weekly for clinical visits and then ongoing in visits that may span many years of survivorship.

Our deep commitment to addressing patient needs as they are receiving treatment and responsibility for late radiation effects is absolutely an integral part of our training and lifelong practice.
 

2. We get down in the details.

The workflow from consultation to radiation delivery can be confusing for anyone outside our specialized field.

Once seen in consult and considered a good candidate for radiation, patients will enter the essential next step: the treatment planning imaging – or “simulation.”

The simulation scan – mostly CT, although occasionally fused MRI or PET – involves a separate appointment and another hour or so of arranging and scanning patients in the exact position that they will be treated. Given the precision of modern radiation, the simulation often includes making a customized mold so patients have minimal movement during treatment. These simulation images allow the radiation oncology team to create a treatment plan that is customized to each patient and precisely reproducible during their course of radiation treatments – what’s known as fractions.

Creating a treatment plan involves a radiation oncologist literally drawing – or contouring – on pictures of the patient’s internal anatomy in three dimensions. Radiation oncologists contour exactly where the cancer is – or where it was if the treatment is given postoperatively – and identify the surrounding organs so that the doses can be preferentially directed to the cancer target and minimize risk to nearby organs. This precision is within millimeters and accounts for microscopic disease, organ motion, and patient setup. Ultimately, we create colorful heat gradient volumes of the anticipated radiation dose delivery and optimize these to reflect our planning priorities.

We use advanced technologies to shape the beams of radiation to treat the tumor and avoid delivering high doses to the neighboring tissues with techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR or SBRT), and stereotactic radiosurgery. We can also take advantage of the unique properties of different modalities, such as proton therapy and electron therapy, to achieve these same goals if indicated. Radiation oncologists live for precision medicine in every aspect of their workflow.
 

3. We roll deep.

Radiation oncology is exemplary of “the art of medicine.” We fuse anatomy-based treatment design with advanced technology and orchestrate the daily functions of a large medical team.

But, the treatment plan and delivery would not be possible without the input and care given within a large multi- and intradisciplinary team of oncologists, medical physicists, dosimetrists, radiation therapists, nurses, social workers, and other support staff. Radiation oncologists participate in regular tumor boards with surgeons, medical oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists to optimize interdisciplinary management of complex patients, providing a thoughtful tumor localization and treatment plan, as well as to better understand an individual’s ongoing symptoms and well-being as a whole. Considering all aspects of what a patient may need involves communication with fellow physicians, nurse navigators, and social workers.

Within our own department, treatment plan creation and quality checking or verification can sometimes take over 2 weeks, with detailed input from dosimetrists and medical physicists. The actual treatment delivery involves daily communication with the radiation therapists who are dedicated to each treatment machine – like the linear accelerator – and symptom management with clinic nurses and supportive staff, such as physical therapists and registered dietitians.

This massive team effort is required to get each patient through daily radiation treatments that can last 7 weeks and may require rapid replanning if the tumor shrinks or the patient loses weight.

As part of this team, radiation oncologists are uniquely positioned to quarterback each play and guide the entire game strategy.
 

4. Radiation therapy takes a lot of heat.

Radiation therapy is often blamed for issues unrelated to the treatment. Irradiating the pelvis for prostate cancer, for instance, does not cause a headache or heartburn during or after treatment.

Other than fatigue, associated side effects are localized and related to the total radiation dose and fraction size – how much and how fast – that reaches the surrounding tissues.

Our colleagues often swap stories of the bizarre things radiation therapy has been blamed for, including dental problems in someone receiving vaginal cylinder treatment, heart dysfunction in someone treated for rectal cancer, and hip fracture in someone treated for breast cancer because the radiation “destroyed” their bones. At best, these are humorous stories, but at worst, they can delay diagnosis and treatment of what is truly causing someone’s symptoms.
 

5. We truly believe that less is more.

One of the most fundamental aspects of radiation oncology is our drive to optimize treatment delivery and continually improve patient care – sometimes at our own field’s economic detriment. We’re dedicated to showing that patients may get the same benefit from less and less radiation.

In the past 2 decades, the evolution and adoption of photon IMRT and proton therapy has allowed radiation plans to successfully spare surrounding tissue while improving our targeting. This evolution is coupled with technological and imaging advances that allow us to delivery of doses to certain tumors via SABR/SBRT in one to five total fractions.

A prime example: Treatment to eradicate lung or gastrointestinal tumors, which used to span up to 6 weeks, can now potentially be delivered in as little as 1 week.

For other common cancers, hypofractionation – slightly higher radiation doses per fraction at fewer total fractions overall – has revolutionized patient care, providing less radiation without impacting survival or increasing treatment toxicity.

Take breast cancer care: 50 years ago, virtually all patients with breast cancer received a mastectomy and lymph node dissections. Today, surgical techniques for lumpectomy paired with radiation therapy to the whole breast now allows us to preserve disease-free survival for those who elected to keep their breasts.

Over the past 20 years, the standards of care have shifted from 6-7 weeks of treatment to 3-4 weeks using a hypofractionated model that involves daily whole-breast radiation. The most recent clinical trials have shown that whole-breast radiation can be delivered safely and effectively for select women in as few as five fractions with either whole or partial breast targeting. Additional research driven by the idea of “right sizing” radiation treatment has even shown that certain women may not need radiation at all.

This evolution in radiation therapy illustrates how our subspecialty is constantly working to improve survival and patient well-being, form deep connections with our patients, and push the boundaries of medical innovations.

We are proud to be radiation oncologists and happy to share more. Want to know more about what goes on in the basement? Come on down, we’re happy to show you around.

Dr. Giap is a resident in the department of radiation oncology at the University of Florida, Gainesville. Dr. Chino is an assistant attending in the department of radiation oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Neither reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

As a field, radiation oncology is perhaps one of medicine’s best kept secrets. Sometimes, even our own colleagues don’t know where our department exists in the hospital or exactly what we do.

As two radiation oncologists who are, in fact, the children of radiation oncologists, we will admit that it’s possible we are a tiny bit biased. We cannot lie, though: Our field is a hidden gem.

What is well known is that radiation oncologists have a symbiotic relationship with our treatment technology. The evolution of treatment machines and radiation precision allows us to deliver patient-tailored treatment down to the millimeter. What may get lost in the discussions of isodose lines and penumbra, however, is that we’ve also got cutting-edge research and personalized patient care within a specialized team in the depths of the hospital.

Because the inner workings of what happens to patients as they come in and out of our office remains a mystery, we hope to use this space to clarify the top five things most physicians don’t know about radiation oncology.
 

1. Nobody knows what goes on in the basement.

Misconceptions about our subspecialty are common, even among other oncologists. A frequent misconception is that a radiation oncologist’s involvement in patient care is limited, and radiation is delivered in a standardized manner. This essentially renders radiation oncologists technicians of expensive machines.

In reality however, radiation oncologists touch every aspect of a patient’s care, and customized radiation therapy may be indicated for virtually every cancer site in both curative and palliative settings. We strive to deliver precision medicine and practice truly patient-centered care.

To cure cancer, radiation may be used in the neoadjuvant (prior to local surgical resection), definitive (as the primary local therapy), and adjuvant (postsurgical) setting. In palliative cases, radiation can be used to treat areas of metastatic spread as well as primary unresectable tumors to alleviate obstruction and/or bleeding symptoms. Referral to radiation oncology, therefore, can be appropriate at many different points of time on the continuum of cancer care.

For many treating radiation oncologists, the close personal connections that we form with our patients is one of the primary reasons we went into this field. Not only are we making patient-centered clinical decisions during every step of the treatment plan evaluation and optimization but we also see our patients weekly for clinical visits and then ongoing in visits that may span many years of survivorship.

Our deep commitment to addressing patient needs as they are receiving treatment and responsibility for late radiation effects is absolutely an integral part of our training and lifelong practice.
 

2. We get down in the details.

The workflow from consultation to radiation delivery can be confusing for anyone outside our specialized field.

Once seen in consult and considered a good candidate for radiation, patients will enter the essential next step: the treatment planning imaging – or “simulation.”

The simulation scan – mostly CT, although occasionally fused MRI or PET – involves a separate appointment and another hour or so of arranging and scanning patients in the exact position that they will be treated. Given the precision of modern radiation, the simulation often includes making a customized mold so patients have minimal movement during treatment. These simulation images allow the radiation oncology team to create a treatment plan that is customized to each patient and precisely reproducible during their course of radiation treatments – what’s known as fractions.

Creating a treatment plan involves a radiation oncologist literally drawing – or contouring – on pictures of the patient’s internal anatomy in three dimensions. Radiation oncologists contour exactly where the cancer is – or where it was if the treatment is given postoperatively – and identify the surrounding organs so that the doses can be preferentially directed to the cancer target and minimize risk to nearby organs. This precision is within millimeters and accounts for microscopic disease, organ motion, and patient setup. Ultimately, we create colorful heat gradient volumes of the anticipated radiation dose delivery and optimize these to reflect our planning priorities.

We use advanced technologies to shape the beams of radiation to treat the tumor and avoid delivering high doses to the neighboring tissues with techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR or SBRT), and stereotactic radiosurgery. We can also take advantage of the unique properties of different modalities, such as proton therapy and electron therapy, to achieve these same goals if indicated. Radiation oncologists live for precision medicine in every aspect of their workflow.
 

3. We roll deep.

Radiation oncology is exemplary of “the art of medicine.” We fuse anatomy-based treatment design with advanced technology and orchestrate the daily functions of a large medical team.

But, the treatment plan and delivery would not be possible without the input and care given within a large multi- and intradisciplinary team of oncologists, medical physicists, dosimetrists, radiation therapists, nurses, social workers, and other support staff. Radiation oncologists participate in regular tumor boards with surgeons, medical oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists to optimize interdisciplinary management of complex patients, providing a thoughtful tumor localization and treatment plan, as well as to better understand an individual’s ongoing symptoms and well-being as a whole. Considering all aspects of what a patient may need involves communication with fellow physicians, nurse navigators, and social workers.

Within our own department, treatment plan creation and quality checking or verification can sometimes take over 2 weeks, with detailed input from dosimetrists and medical physicists. The actual treatment delivery involves daily communication with the radiation therapists who are dedicated to each treatment machine – like the linear accelerator – and symptom management with clinic nurses and supportive staff, such as physical therapists and registered dietitians.

This massive team effort is required to get each patient through daily radiation treatments that can last 7 weeks and may require rapid replanning if the tumor shrinks or the patient loses weight.

As part of this team, radiation oncologists are uniquely positioned to quarterback each play and guide the entire game strategy.
 

4. Radiation therapy takes a lot of heat.

Radiation therapy is often blamed for issues unrelated to the treatment. Irradiating the pelvis for prostate cancer, for instance, does not cause a headache or heartburn during or after treatment.

Other than fatigue, associated side effects are localized and related to the total radiation dose and fraction size – how much and how fast – that reaches the surrounding tissues.

Our colleagues often swap stories of the bizarre things radiation therapy has been blamed for, including dental problems in someone receiving vaginal cylinder treatment, heart dysfunction in someone treated for rectal cancer, and hip fracture in someone treated for breast cancer because the radiation “destroyed” their bones. At best, these are humorous stories, but at worst, they can delay diagnosis and treatment of what is truly causing someone’s symptoms.
 

5. We truly believe that less is more.

One of the most fundamental aspects of radiation oncology is our drive to optimize treatment delivery and continually improve patient care – sometimes at our own field’s economic detriment. We’re dedicated to showing that patients may get the same benefit from less and less radiation.

In the past 2 decades, the evolution and adoption of photon IMRT and proton therapy has allowed radiation plans to successfully spare surrounding tissue while improving our targeting. This evolution is coupled with technological and imaging advances that allow us to delivery of doses to certain tumors via SABR/SBRT in one to five total fractions.

A prime example: Treatment to eradicate lung or gastrointestinal tumors, which used to span up to 6 weeks, can now potentially be delivered in as little as 1 week.

For other common cancers, hypofractionation – slightly higher radiation doses per fraction at fewer total fractions overall – has revolutionized patient care, providing less radiation without impacting survival or increasing treatment toxicity.

Take breast cancer care: 50 years ago, virtually all patients with breast cancer received a mastectomy and lymph node dissections. Today, surgical techniques for lumpectomy paired with radiation therapy to the whole breast now allows us to preserve disease-free survival for those who elected to keep their breasts.

Over the past 20 years, the standards of care have shifted from 6-7 weeks of treatment to 3-4 weeks using a hypofractionated model that involves daily whole-breast radiation. The most recent clinical trials have shown that whole-breast radiation can be delivered safely and effectively for select women in as few as five fractions with either whole or partial breast targeting. Additional research driven by the idea of “right sizing” radiation treatment has even shown that certain women may not need radiation at all.

This evolution in radiation therapy illustrates how our subspecialty is constantly working to improve survival and patient well-being, form deep connections with our patients, and push the boundaries of medical innovations.

We are proud to be radiation oncologists and happy to share more. Want to know more about what goes on in the basement? Come on down, we’re happy to show you around.

Dr. Giap is a resident in the department of radiation oncology at the University of Florida, Gainesville. Dr. Chino is an assistant attending in the department of radiation oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. Neither reported any relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Marital status is a relevant risk factor in considering the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer, according to research published in the Journal of Investigative Medicine.

Tumor size remained the largest contributor to overall survival, but marital status was among several other significant factors, such as age, race, gender, treatment style, and pathologic stage, that can provide insight into a patient’s likelihood of overall survival, as it does with several other cancers.

“Married patients had the best prognosis, followed by single patients, and the prognosis of separated patients was the worst,” write Lixiang Zhang and colleagues at the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China. “We speculate that this might be due to the fact that married patients had better financial conditions and emotional encouragement, while separated patients might be more likely to experience financial difficulties [and] emotional loss.”

The results were not necessarily surprising to Richard M. Peek, Jr., MD, director of the division of gastroenterology and a professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, who was not involved in the research.

“Marital status is a reflection of support systems, and a strong support system is a prognosticator for increased compliance with medical appointments and medical therapies,” Dr. Peek told this news organization. “It is something to consider when somebody is being treated for gastric cancer, because if they don’t have a strong support system – and marital status can be a proxy for that – then they may need more intensive follow-up and surveillance, for example, than somebody who does not have that support system.”
 

Exploring the marital status–cancer survival connection

Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer deaths across the world, causing 780,000 deaths in 2018, the authors note. Yet it’s difficult to accurately predict the prognosis in patients who undergo treatment for early stage gastric cancer. Previous research has found marital status to be associated with survival in prostate, cervical, and rectal cancers.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare Cancer Center, Utah, told this news organization that the connection between marital status and cancer outcomes has been described previously, including in an even larger analysis using the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2013. That study found that “unmarried patients are at significantly higher risk of presentation with metastatic cancer, undertreatment, and death resulting from their cancer.”

In this study, the researchers compared marital status and survival rates among 3,647 patients with early-stage gastric cancer, using data from the SEER database. The study only included patients with tumors in the lamina propria, mucosa, and submucosa and excluded those with distant metastasis or distant lymph node metastases, a second cancer, no data on chemotherapy received, or unknown survival time.

Because they were using a nomogram and building a new predictive nomogram that would include marital status, the researchers divided the patient population into a training set of 2,719 patients and a testing set of 928 patients. Using overall survival as the primary endpoint, the analysis included the variables of “age at diagnosis, race, gender, tumor location, histology, grade, stage_T and stage_N, surgery in the primary site, lymph node dissection, chemotherapy, radiation, tumor size, insurance, and marital status,” the authors report.

Among the study population, 53.7% were married, 17.3% were widowed, 14% were single and never married, 7.5% were divorced, 1.1% were separated, and the status of 6.4% was unknown. Age at diagnosis, race, gender, histology, tumor grade, stage T, stage N, surgery type, tumor size, and insurance status were all significantly different between the marital status subgroups.

Married patients had the best prognosis, with an average overall survival of 72 months, compared with an average 60 months in widowed persons, the group with the poorest overall survival. Overall survival was higher in married women (76 months) than in married men (69 months). The same pattern held for women (62 months) and men (52 months) who had been widowed.

“It is worthy to note that survival was significantly better in divorced female patients than in divorced male patients,” the authors report. “Survival was better in female patients than in male patients” across all marital groups.
 

What long-term relationships reveal

These findings do not mean that simply getting married changes one’s likelihood of survival, however. Rather, a long-term relationship is revealing about other aspects in a person’s life.

“I think it represents more stability in the supportive relationship that you need to really deal with a serious disease like cancer,” Dr. Peek said.

If a patient does not have a long-term partner, their care team can ask other questions to get a sense of what their support network is like, Dr. Peek added. “We want to know, does anybody else live in the house with them? Do they have adequate transportation? Can they make medical appointments? Do they have somebody who can help with the medical issues that are going to come up? Do they have family in the area?”

Cancer treatment requires a multidisciplinary approach, and having someone other than just the patient around to help bring together the different aspects of care from different care teams can make a difference in how the patient fares, Dr. Peek explained. Patients without a strong support system may need closer follow-up and other accommodations, he said.

Providers “may schedule their clinical appointments closer together if they don’t have a support system, or they may be able to reach out and offer transportation assistance and those kinds of things that somebody living alone may need,” Dr. Peek said. Outside resources may be a higher priority for those who lack a support system at home, he added.

Dr. Peek also noted other factors that may play a role in a patient’s survival that these researchers did not have the data to address, such as socioeconomic status, employment, alcohol use, smoking, and infection with Helicobacter pylori, the strongest known risk factor for gastric cancer.

A potentially relevant limitation of the study is that it probably has some selection bias, because the patients who were included probably had the means to have received an earlier diagnosis, said Dr. Lewis, who was not involved in the research.

“Furthermore, just in terms of the group sizes, the baseline characteristics section makes it clear that the preponderance of patients were married, lending that group more statistical weight,” Dr. Lewis said.

“Of the seven attributes in the nomogram, the impact of the marital status seems comparatively meager relative to conventional clinicopathology risk factors like T stage,” he added.

“All in all, I think this study reinforces our awareness that socioeconomic status and social determinants of health play a huge role in cancer outcomes, but it’s not entirely clear that’s modifiable just by getting married,” Dr. Lewis said. “There is a saying in oncology that ‘expensive liquor causes less cancer than cheap liquor,’ which is not negating the carcinogenicity of alcohol but rather identifying different outcomes by socioeconomic status.”

The research was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province. The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Peek reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lewis reports receiving speaking fees for AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo and having done educational videos for Astellas.

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

Marital status is a relevant risk factor in considering the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer, according to research published in the Journal of Investigative Medicine.

Tumor size remained the largest contributor to overall survival, but marital status was among several other significant factors, such as age, race, gender, treatment style, and pathologic stage, that can provide insight into a patient’s likelihood of overall survival, as it does with several other cancers.

“Married patients had the best prognosis, followed by single patients, and the prognosis of separated patients was the worst,” write Lixiang Zhang and colleagues at the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China. “We speculate that this might be due to the fact that married patients had better financial conditions and emotional encouragement, while separated patients might be more likely to experience financial difficulties [and] emotional loss.”

The results were not necessarily surprising to Richard M. Peek, Jr., MD, director of the division of gastroenterology and a professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, who was not involved in the research.

“Marital status is a reflection of support systems, and a strong support system is a prognosticator for increased compliance with medical appointments and medical therapies,” Dr. Peek told this news organization. “It is something to consider when somebody is being treated for gastric cancer, because if they don’t have a strong support system – and marital status can be a proxy for that – then they may need more intensive follow-up and surveillance, for example, than somebody who does not have that support system.”
 

Exploring the marital status–cancer survival connection

Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer deaths across the world, causing 780,000 deaths in 2018, the authors note. Yet it’s difficult to accurately predict the prognosis in patients who undergo treatment for early stage gastric cancer. Previous research has found marital status to be associated with survival in prostate, cervical, and rectal cancers.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare Cancer Center, Utah, told this news organization that the connection between marital status and cancer outcomes has been described previously, including in an even larger analysis using the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2013. That study found that “unmarried patients are at significantly higher risk of presentation with metastatic cancer, undertreatment, and death resulting from their cancer.”

In this study, the researchers compared marital status and survival rates among 3,647 patients with early-stage gastric cancer, using data from the SEER database. The study only included patients with tumors in the lamina propria, mucosa, and submucosa and excluded those with distant metastasis or distant lymph node metastases, a second cancer, no data on chemotherapy received, or unknown survival time.

Because they were using a nomogram and building a new predictive nomogram that would include marital status, the researchers divided the patient population into a training set of 2,719 patients and a testing set of 928 patients. Using overall survival as the primary endpoint, the analysis included the variables of “age at diagnosis, race, gender, tumor location, histology, grade, stage_T and stage_N, surgery in the primary site, lymph node dissection, chemotherapy, radiation, tumor size, insurance, and marital status,” the authors report.

Among the study population, 53.7% were married, 17.3% were widowed, 14% were single and never married, 7.5% were divorced, 1.1% were separated, and the status of 6.4% was unknown. Age at diagnosis, race, gender, histology, tumor grade, stage T, stage N, surgery type, tumor size, and insurance status were all significantly different between the marital status subgroups.

Married patients had the best prognosis, with an average overall survival of 72 months, compared with an average 60 months in widowed persons, the group with the poorest overall survival. Overall survival was higher in married women (76 months) than in married men (69 months). The same pattern held for women (62 months) and men (52 months) who had been widowed.

“It is worthy to note that survival was significantly better in divorced female patients than in divorced male patients,” the authors report. “Survival was better in female patients than in male patients” across all marital groups.
 

What long-term relationships reveal

These findings do not mean that simply getting married changes one’s likelihood of survival, however. Rather, a long-term relationship is revealing about other aspects in a person’s life.

“I think it represents more stability in the supportive relationship that you need to really deal with a serious disease like cancer,” Dr. Peek said.

If a patient does not have a long-term partner, their care team can ask other questions to get a sense of what their support network is like, Dr. Peek added. “We want to know, does anybody else live in the house with them? Do they have adequate transportation? Can they make medical appointments? Do they have somebody who can help with the medical issues that are going to come up? Do they have family in the area?”

Cancer treatment requires a multidisciplinary approach, and having someone other than just the patient around to help bring together the different aspects of care from different care teams can make a difference in how the patient fares, Dr. Peek explained. Patients without a strong support system may need closer follow-up and other accommodations, he said.

Providers “may schedule their clinical appointments closer together if they don’t have a support system, or they may be able to reach out and offer transportation assistance and those kinds of things that somebody living alone may need,” Dr. Peek said. Outside resources may be a higher priority for those who lack a support system at home, he added.

Dr. Peek also noted other factors that may play a role in a patient’s survival that these researchers did not have the data to address, such as socioeconomic status, employment, alcohol use, smoking, and infection with Helicobacter pylori, the strongest known risk factor for gastric cancer.

A potentially relevant limitation of the study is that it probably has some selection bias, because the patients who were included probably had the means to have received an earlier diagnosis, said Dr. Lewis, who was not involved in the research.

“Furthermore, just in terms of the group sizes, the baseline characteristics section makes it clear that the preponderance of patients were married, lending that group more statistical weight,” Dr. Lewis said.

“Of the seven attributes in the nomogram, the impact of the marital status seems comparatively meager relative to conventional clinicopathology risk factors like T stage,” he added.

“All in all, I think this study reinforces our awareness that socioeconomic status and social determinants of health play a huge role in cancer outcomes, but it’s not entirely clear that’s modifiable just by getting married,” Dr. Lewis said. “There is a saying in oncology that ‘expensive liquor causes less cancer than cheap liquor,’ which is not negating the carcinogenicity of alcohol but rather identifying different outcomes by socioeconomic status.”

The research was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province. The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Peek reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lewis reports receiving speaking fees for AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo and having done educational videos for Astellas.

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

Marital status is a relevant risk factor in considering the prognosis of patients with gastric cancer, according to research published in the Journal of Investigative Medicine.

Tumor size remained the largest contributor to overall survival, but marital status was among several other significant factors, such as age, race, gender, treatment style, and pathologic stage, that can provide insight into a patient’s likelihood of overall survival, as it does with several other cancers.

“Married patients had the best prognosis, followed by single patients, and the prognosis of separated patients was the worst,” write Lixiang Zhang and colleagues at the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China. “We speculate that this might be due to the fact that married patients had better financial conditions and emotional encouragement, while separated patients might be more likely to experience financial difficulties [and] emotional loss.”

The results were not necessarily surprising to Richard M. Peek, Jr., MD, director of the division of gastroenterology and a professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, who was not involved in the research.

“Marital status is a reflection of support systems, and a strong support system is a prognosticator for increased compliance with medical appointments and medical therapies,” Dr. Peek told this news organization. “It is something to consider when somebody is being treated for gastric cancer, because if they don’t have a strong support system – and marital status can be a proxy for that – then they may need more intensive follow-up and surveillance, for example, than somebody who does not have that support system.”
 

Exploring the marital status–cancer survival connection

Gastric cancer is the third leading cause of cancer deaths across the world, causing 780,000 deaths in 2018, the authors note. Yet it’s difficult to accurately predict the prognosis in patients who undergo treatment for early stage gastric cancer. Previous research has found marital status to be associated with survival in prostate, cervical, and rectal cancers.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare Cancer Center, Utah, told this news organization that the connection between marital status and cancer outcomes has been described previously, including in an even larger analysis using the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2013. That study found that “unmarried patients are at significantly higher risk of presentation with metastatic cancer, undertreatment, and death resulting from their cancer.”

In this study, the researchers compared marital status and survival rates among 3,647 patients with early-stage gastric cancer, using data from the SEER database. The study only included patients with tumors in the lamina propria, mucosa, and submucosa and excluded those with distant metastasis or distant lymph node metastases, a second cancer, no data on chemotherapy received, or unknown survival time.

Because they were using a nomogram and building a new predictive nomogram that would include marital status, the researchers divided the patient population into a training set of 2,719 patients and a testing set of 928 patients. Using overall survival as the primary endpoint, the analysis included the variables of “age at diagnosis, race, gender, tumor location, histology, grade, stage_T and stage_N, surgery in the primary site, lymph node dissection, chemotherapy, radiation, tumor size, insurance, and marital status,” the authors report.

Among the study population, 53.7% were married, 17.3% were widowed, 14% were single and never married, 7.5% were divorced, 1.1% were separated, and the status of 6.4% was unknown. Age at diagnosis, race, gender, histology, tumor grade, stage T, stage N, surgery type, tumor size, and insurance status were all significantly different between the marital status subgroups.

Married patients had the best prognosis, with an average overall survival of 72 months, compared with an average 60 months in widowed persons, the group with the poorest overall survival. Overall survival was higher in married women (76 months) than in married men (69 months). The same pattern held for women (62 months) and men (52 months) who had been widowed.

“It is worthy to note that survival was significantly better in divorced female patients than in divorced male patients,” the authors report. “Survival was better in female patients than in male patients” across all marital groups.
 

What long-term relationships reveal

These findings do not mean that simply getting married changes one’s likelihood of survival, however. Rather, a long-term relationship is revealing about other aspects in a person’s life.

“I think it represents more stability in the supportive relationship that you need to really deal with a serious disease like cancer,” Dr. Peek said.

If a patient does not have a long-term partner, their care team can ask other questions to get a sense of what their support network is like, Dr. Peek added. “We want to know, does anybody else live in the house with them? Do they have adequate transportation? Can they make medical appointments? Do they have somebody who can help with the medical issues that are going to come up? Do they have family in the area?”

Cancer treatment requires a multidisciplinary approach, and having someone other than just the patient around to help bring together the different aspects of care from different care teams can make a difference in how the patient fares, Dr. Peek explained. Patients without a strong support system may need closer follow-up and other accommodations, he said.

Providers “may schedule their clinical appointments closer together if they don’t have a support system, or they may be able to reach out and offer transportation assistance and those kinds of things that somebody living alone may need,” Dr. Peek said. Outside resources may be a higher priority for those who lack a support system at home, he added.

Dr. Peek also noted other factors that may play a role in a patient’s survival that these researchers did not have the data to address, such as socioeconomic status, employment, alcohol use, smoking, and infection with Helicobacter pylori, the strongest known risk factor for gastric cancer.

A potentially relevant limitation of the study is that it probably has some selection bias, because the patients who were included probably had the means to have received an earlier diagnosis, said Dr. Lewis, who was not involved in the research.

“Furthermore, just in terms of the group sizes, the baseline characteristics section makes it clear that the preponderance of patients were married, lending that group more statistical weight,” Dr. Lewis said.

“Of the seven attributes in the nomogram, the impact of the marital status seems comparatively meager relative to conventional clinicopathology risk factors like T stage,” he added.

“All in all, I think this study reinforces our awareness that socioeconomic status and social determinants of health play a huge role in cancer outcomes, but it’s not entirely clear that’s modifiable just by getting married,” Dr. Lewis said. “There is a saying in oncology that ‘expensive liquor causes less cancer than cheap liquor,’ which is not negating the carcinogenicity of alcohol but rather identifying different outcomes by socioeconomic status.”

The research was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province. The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Peek reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lewis reports receiving speaking fees for AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo and having done educational videos for Astellas.

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

Just before he took a call from a reporter asking about the impact of drug shortages in hematology, Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, had spent an hour on the phone overseeing his institution’s response to a hematology drug shortage. The chemotherapy drug fludarabine, used to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia, was in short supply.

“There are 5 different manufacturers, but none of them have had drug available over the past 2 weeks,” Dr. Greene said. “We’re trying to chase some emergency supplies to be able to continue treatment for patients who’ve had their treatments initiated and planned.”

Over the past several years, this predicament has become common at hematology clinics across the country. In fact, management of scarce medication resources has become a significant part of Dr. Greene’s workload these days, as critical drugs fail to show up on time or manufacturer supplies run low at his hospital in Memphis.

This shortage of hematology drugs got a new dose of national attention, thanks to a recent episode of CBS News’ “60 Minutes.” Through interviews with physicians and parents of children who suddenly could not get vital medications, the report highlighted the recent shortage of another leukemia drug, vincristine.

“As a cancer mom, we shouldn’t be fighting for our children to get a drug that is needed,” Cyndi Valenta was quoted as saying. She recalled that when the shortage began in 2019, her 13-year-old son, a leukemia patient at Loma Linda (Calif.) University Hospital, felt frightened. Ms. Valenta said she felt a “gut-wrenching feeling of just fear and anger.” They were finally able to get doses of the drug after launching a social media campaign.

Such drug shortages are especially widespread in oncology and hematology, according to a survey of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations nationwide. Published in the May 2022 issue of Oncology Practice, the study showed that 63% of institutions reported one or more drug shortages every month, with a 34% increase in 2019, compared with 2018. Treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens were reported by 75% of respondents, the authors wrote.

The pharmacists surveyed between May 2019 and July 2020 were asked about the three most hard-to-get chemotherapy and supportive care agents. Vincristine topped the list, followed by vinblastine, IVIG, leucovorin, and BCG, as well as difficult-to-obtain ropine, erwinia asparaginase, etoposide, and leuprolide. Several of these drugs are used to treat conditions such as lymphoma and leukemia.

Eighty-two percent of respondents reported shortages of decitabine (IV), often used as part of a cocktail with vinblastine and other drugs to treat Hodgkin lymphoma.

The reasons for drug shortages are varied. The CBS News report declared that “pharmaceutical companies have stopped producing many life-saving generic drugs because they make too little profit,” and it suggested that the federal government isn’t doing enough.

But government action actually might be making a difference. According to the FDA, the number of new drug shortages has fallen dramatically from 250 in 2011 to 41 in 2021, and the number of prevented drug shortages rose from nearly 200 to more than 300 over that same period. Still, the number of ongoing drug shortages has risen from around 40 in 2017 to about 80 in 2021.

Reasons for the paucity of certain drugs are often unclear. In a June 12, 2022 post, for example, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists’ drug shortage database noted that the chemotherapy drug fludarabine was in short supply and provided details about when some of the 5 manufacturers expected to have it available. (This is the shortage that Dr. Greene was trying to manage.) But 4 of the 5 manufacturers “did not provide a reason,” and the fifth blamed manufacturing delays.

“There’s a lot of closely held trade secrets that hinder the ability to share good information,” said Dr. Greene. To make things more complicated, shipping times are often unreliable. “The product doesn’t show up today, we place another order. Sometimes it will show up tomorrow, sometimes it doesn’t,” he said. “If you’re not tracking it carefully, you deplete your own supply.”

Patients’ families have grown used to dealing with drug shortages, and “they’re less quick to blame personnel at our institution.”

How can hematologists cope with this issue? “The best thing in the immediate term is to advocate for their hospital to have a pharmacist dedicated to shortage monitoring and taking proactive steps to obviate shortages,” hematologist/oncologist Andrew Hantel, MD, an instructor at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“We have ongoing communications with other large cancer centers and the FDA to recognize shortages early and develop plans to make sure we stay ahead of them,” Dr. Hantel said. “Most often this involves assessing supply, use rates, alternative manufacturers, and additional measures the Food and Drug Administration can take (for example, importation), and occasionally working with clinical teams to see if other medications are feasible alternatives.”

If a drug is unavailable, it can also be helpful to discuss alternative approaches. “We did not have any frank shortages of vincristine,” Dr. Hantel said, “but we did focus on conservation measures and considered different ethically appropriate ways to distribute vincristine if there was a point at which we did not have enough for everyone who needed it.”

If a drug is in short supply, options can include delaying treatment, giving an alternative, or providing the rest of the regimen without the scarce drug, he said. In a 2021 report in The Lancet Hematology, Dr. Hantel and his colleagues offered “model solutions for ethical allocation during cancer medicine shortages.”

The authors of the May 2022 drug-shortage report highlighted an alternative regimen in hematology. They noted that manufacturing delays have limited the supply of dacarbazine, used for Hodgkin lymphoma. Due to the current shortages, they wrote, clinicians are considering the use of escalated bleomycin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone, replacing dacarbazine with procarbazine and using the doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, procarbazine, and prednisone regimen, or replacing dacarbazine with cyclophosphamide.

Dr. Greene emphasized the importance of tracking the news and the drug shortage websites run by the FDA and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

It’s also crucial to have a good relationship with your wholesaler, he added, and to communicate about these problems within your facility. At his hospital, the pharmaceutical staff holds a multi-disciplinary meeting at least weekly to discuss the supply of medications. As he put it, “it’s a challenging environment.”

Dr. Greene and Dr. Hantel reported no relevant disclosures.

Just before he took a call from a reporter asking about the impact of drug shortages in hematology, Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, had spent an hour on the phone overseeing his institution’s response to a hematology drug shortage. The chemotherapy drug fludarabine, used to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia, was in short supply.

“There are 5 different manufacturers, but none of them have had drug available over the past 2 weeks,” Dr. Greene said. “We’re trying to chase some emergency supplies to be able to continue treatment for patients who’ve had their treatments initiated and planned.”

Over the past several years, this predicament has become common at hematology clinics across the country. In fact, management of scarce medication resources has become a significant part of Dr. Greene’s workload these days, as critical drugs fail to show up on time or manufacturer supplies run low at his hospital in Memphis.

This shortage of hematology drugs got a new dose of national attention, thanks to a recent episode of CBS News’ “60 Minutes.” Through interviews with physicians and parents of children who suddenly could not get vital medications, the report highlighted the recent shortage of another leukemia drug, vincristine.

“As a cancer mom, we shouldn’t be fighting for our children to get a drug that is needed,” Cyndi Valenta was quoted as saying. She recalled that when the shortage began in 2019, her 13-year-old son, a leukemia patient at Loma Linda (Calif.) University Hospital, felt frightened. Ms. Valenta said she felt a “gut-wrenching feeling of just fear and anger.” They were finally able to get doses of the drug after launching a social media campaign.

Such drug shortages are especially widespread in oncology and hematology, according to a survey of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations nationwide. Published in the May 2022 issue of Oncology Practice, the study showed that 63% of institutions reported one or more drug shortages every month, with a 34% increase in 2019, compared with 2018. Treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens were reported by 75% of respondents, the authors wrote.

The pharmacists surveyed between May 2019 and July 2020 were asked about the three most hard-to-get chemotherapy and supportive care agents. Vincristine topped the list, followed by vinblastine, IVIG, leucovorin, and BCG, as well as difficult-to-obtain ropine, erwinia asparaginase, etoposide, and leuprolide. Several of these drugs are used to treat conditions such as lymphoma and leukemia.

Eighty-two percent of respondents reported shortages of decitabine (IV), often used as part of a cocktail with vinblastine and other drugs to treat Hodgkin lymphoma.

The reasons for drug shortages are varied. The CBS News report declared that “pharmaceutical companies have stopped producing many life-saving generic drugs because they make too little profit,” and it suggested that the federal government isn’t doing enough.

But government action actually might be making a difference. According to the FDA, the number of new drug shortages has fallen dramatically from 250 in 2011 to 41 in 2021, and the number of prevented drug shortages rose from nearly 200 to more than 300 over that same period. Still, the number of ongoing drug shortages has risen from around 40 in 2017 to about 80 in 2021.

Reasons for the paucity of certain drugs are often unclear. In a June 12, 2022 post, for example, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists’ drug shortage database noted that the chemotherapy drug fludarabine was in short supply and provided details about when some of the 5 manufacturers expected to have it available. (This is the shortage that Dr. Greene was trying to manage.) But 4 of the 5 manufacturers “did not provide a reason,” and the fifth blamed manufacturing delays.

“There’s a lot of closely held trade secrets that hinder the ability to share good information,” said Dr. Greene. To make things more complicated, shipping times are often unreliable. “The product doesn’t show up today, we place another order. Sometimes it will show up tomorrow, sometimes it doesn’t,” he said. “If you’re not tracking it carefully, you deplete your own supply.”

Patients’ families have grown used to dealing with drug shortages, and “they’re less quick to blame personnel at our institution.”

How can hematologists cope with this issue? “The best thing in the immediate term is to advocate for their hospital to have a pharmacist dedicated to shortage monitoring and taking proactive steps to obviate shortages,” hematologist/oncologist Andrew Hantel, MD, an instructor at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“We have ongoing communications with other large cancer centers and the FDA to recognize shortages early and develop plans to make sure we stay ahead of them,” Dr. Hantel said. “Most often this involves assessing supply, use rates, alternative manufacturers, and additional measures the Food and Drug Administration can take (for example, importation), and occasionally working with clinical teams to see if other medications are feasible alternatives.”

If a drug is unavailable, it can also be helpful to discuss alternative approaches. “We did not have any frank shortages of vincristine,” Dr. Hantel said, “but we did focus on conservation measures and considered different ethically appropriate ways to distribute vincristine if there was a point at which we did not have enough for everyone who needed it.”

If a drug is in short supply, options can include delaying treatment, giving an alternative, or providing the rest of the regimen without the scarce drug, he said. In a 2021 report in The Lancet Hematology, Dr. Hantel and his colleagues offered “model solutions for ethical allocation during cancer medicine shortages.”

The authors of the May 2022 drug-shortage report highlighted an alternative regimen in hematology. They noted that manufacturing delays have limited the supply of dacarbazine, used for Hodgkin lymphoma. Due to the current shortages, they wrote, clinicians are considering the use of escalated bleomycin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone, replacing dacarbazine with procarbazine and using the doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, procarbazine, and prednisone regimen, or replacing dacarbazine with cyclophosphamide.

Dr. Greene emphasized the importance of tracking the news and the drug shortage websites run by the FDA and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

It’s also crucial to have a good relationship with your wholesaler, he added, and to communicate about these problems within your facility. At his hospital, the pharmaceutical staff holds a multi-disciplinary meeting at least weekly to discuss the supply of medications. As he put it, “it’s a challenging environment.”

Dr. Greene and Dr. Hantel reported no relevant disclosures.

Just before he took a call from a reporter asking about the impact of drug shortages in hematology, Bill Greene, PharmD, chief pharmaceutical officer at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, had spent an hour on the phone overseeing his institution’s response to a hematology drug shortage. The chemotherapy drug fludarabine, used to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia, was in short supply.

“There are 5 different manufacturers, but none of them have had drug available over the past 2 weeks,” Dr. Greene said. “We’re trying to chase some emergency supplies to be able to continue treatment for patients who’ve had their treatments initiated and planned.”

Over the past several years, this predicament has become common at hematology clinics across the country. In fact, management of scarce medication resources has become a significant part of Dr. Greene’s workload these days, as critical drugs fail to show up on time or manufacturer supplies run low at his hospital in Memphis.

This shortage of hematology drugs got a new dose of national attention, thanks to a recent episode of CBS News’ “60 Minutes.” Through interviews with physicians and parents of children who suddenly could not get vital medications, the report highlighted the recent shortage of another leukemia drug, vincristine.

“As a cancer mom, we shouldn’t be fighting for our children to get a drug that is needed,” Cyndi Valenta was quoted as saying. She recalled that when the shortage began in 2019, her 13-year-old son, a leukemia patient at Loma Linda (Calif.) University Hospital, felt frightened. Ms. Valenta said she felt a “gut-wrenching feeling of just fear and anger.” They were finally able to get doses of the drug after launching a social media campaign.

Such drug shortages are especially widespread in oncology and hematology, according to a survey of oncology pharmacists at 68 organizations nationwide. Published in the May 2022 issue of Oncology Practice, the study showed that 63% of institutions reported one or more drug shortages every month, with a 34% increase in 2019, compared with 2018. Treatment delays, reduced doses, or alternative regimens were reported by 75% of respondents, the authors wrote.

The pharmacists surveyed between May 2019 and July 2020 were asked about the three most hard-to-get chemotherapy and supportive care agents. Vincristine topped the list, followed by vinblastine, IVIG, leucovorin, and BCG, as well as difficult-to-obtain ropine, erwinia asparaginase, etoposide, and leuprolide. Several of these drugs are used to treat conditions such as lymphoma and leukemia.

Eighty-two percent of respondents reported shortages of decitabine (IV), often used as part of a cocktail with vinblastine and other drugs to treat Hodgkin lymphoma.

The reasons for drug shortages are varied. The CBS News report declared that “pharmaceutical companies have stopped producing many life-saving generic drugs because they make too little profit,” and it suggested that the federal government isn’t doing enough.

But government action actually might be making a difference. According to the FDA, the number of new drug shortages has fallen dramatically from 250 in 2011 to 41 in 2021, and the number of prevented drug shortages rose from nearly 200 to more than 300 over that same period. Still, the number of ongoing drug shortages has risen from around 40 in 2017 to about 80 in 2021.

Reasons for the paucity of certain drugs are often unclear. In a June 12, 2022 post, for example, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists’ drug shortage database noted that the chemotherapy drug fludarabine was in short supply and provided details about when some of the 5 manufacturers expected to have it available. (This is the shortage that Dr. Greene was trying to manage.) But 4 of the 5 manufacturers “did not provide a reason,” and the fifth blamed manufacturing delays.

“There’s a lot of closely held trade secrets that hinder the ability to share good information,” said Dr. Greene. To make things more complicated, shipping times are often unreliable. “The product doesn’t show up today, we place another order. Sometimes it will show up tomorrow, sometimes it doesn’t,” he said. “If you’re not tracking it carefully, you deplete your own supply.”

Patients’ families have grown used to dealing with drug shortages, and “they’re less quick to blame personnel at our institution.”

How can hematologists cope with this issue? “The best thing in the immediate term is to advocate for their hospital to have a pharmacist dedicated to shortage monitoring and taking proactive steps to obviate shortages,” hematologist/oncologist Andrew Hantel, MD, an instructor at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

“We have ongoing communications with other large cancer centers and the FDA to recognize shortages early and develop plans to make sure we stay ahead of them,” Dr. Hantel said. “Most often this involves assessing supply, use rates, alternative manufacturers, and additional measures the Food and Drug Administration can take (for example, importation), and occasionally working with clinical teams to see if other medications are feasible alternatives.”

If a drug is unavailable, it can also be helpful to discuss alternative approaches. “We did not have any frank shortages of vincristine,” Dr. Hantel said, “but we did focus on conservation measures and considered different ethically appropriate ways to distribute vincristine if there was a point at which we did not have enough for everyone who needed it.”

If a drug is in short supply, options can include delaying treatment, giving an alternative, or providing the rest of the regimen without the scarce drug, he said. In a 2021 report in The Lancet Hematology, Dr. Hantel and his colleagues offered “model solutions for ethical allocation during cancer medicine shortages.”

The authors of the May 2022 drug-shortage report highlighted an alternative regimen in hematology. They noted that manufacturing delays have limited the supply of dacarbazine, used for Hodgkin lymphoma. Due to the current shortages, they wrote, clinicians are considering the use of escalated bleomycin, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone, replacing dacarbazine with procarbazine and using the doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, procarbazine, and prednisone regimen, or replacing dacarbazine with cyclophosphamide.

Dr. Greene emphasized the importance of tracking the news and the drug shortage websites run by the FDA and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

It’s also crucial to have a good relationship with your wholesaler, he added, and to communicate about these problems within your facility. At his hospital, the pharmaceutical staff holds a multi-disciplinary meeting at least weekly to discuss the supply of medications. As he put it, “it’s a challenging environment.”

Dr. Greene and Dr. Hantel reported no relevant disclosures.

An analysis of trends in lung cancer screening since March 2021 when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening, shows that significantly more Black men have been screened for lung cancer, but not women or undereducated people.

The eligibility for lung cancer screening was expanded in 2021 to include men and women under 50 years old and people who smoke at least one pack of cigarettes a day for the last 20 years. “

“Expansion of screening criteria is a critical first step to achieving equity in lung cancer screening for all high-risk populations, but myriad challenges remain before individuals enter the door for screening,” wrote the authors, led by Julie A. Barta, MD, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “Health policy changes must occur simultaneously with efforts to expand community outreach, overcome logistical barriers, and facilitate screening adherence. Only after comprehensive strategies to dismantle screening barriers are identified, validated, and implemented can there be a truly equitable landscape for lung cancer screening.”

For the study, published in JAMA Open Network, researchers examined rates of centralized lung cancer screening in the Baltimore area. In addition to expanding lung cancer screening generally, there was hope that the expanded criteria might increase uptake of screening in populations that are traditionally underserved, such as African American, Hispanic, and female patients. Of 815 people screened during the study period (March-December 2021), 161 were newly eligible for screening under the 2021 criteria.

“There’s been quite a bit of work in the field demonstrating that Black men and women develop lung cancer at more advanced stages of disease, and they often are diagnosed at younger ages and have fewer pack-years of smoking. So the hypothesis was that this would reduce some of the disparities seen in lung cancer screening by making more people eligible,” Dr. Barta said in an interview.

The researchers categorized participants as those who would have been eligible for screening under the USPSTF 2013 guideline (age 55 or older, 30 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years), and those who would be eligible under the 2021 guideline (age 50 or older, 20 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years). Of the 2021 cohort, 54.5% were African American, versus 39.5% of the 2013 cohort (P = .002). There were no differences between the cohorts with respect to education level or gender.

“Although we’ve seen some encouraging improvement in terms of getting more eligible patients into our screening program, there’s still a lot of work to be done in the field,” Dr. Barta said. “Diagnosing lung cancer at earlier stages of disease is more cost effective in general for the health care system than fighting lung cancer at advanced stages, which requires more complex and multimodal and prolonged therapies.”
 

New evidence: Chest CTs for lung cancer screening reduces incidence of advanced lung cancer

In an analysis of the SEER database presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the adoption of low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) led to fewer diagnoses of advanced lung cancer, although these declines varied significantly by race and ethnicity. Non-Hispanic Blacks seemed to benefit the most with a 55% decline (P < .01), while Hispanics had the lowest rate of decline at 41% (P < .01). The change was recommended by USPSTF in 2013 after the National Lung Screening Trial revealed a 20% relative reduction in mortality when CT scans were used instead of chest radiography. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved coverage of the screen in 2015.

The SEER study looked at data from 400,343 individuals from 2004-2014 (preintervention) and 2015-2018 (postintervention). The age-adjusted incidence of advanced lung cancer declined during both periods, but the decline was sharper between 2015 and 2018, with three fewer cases per 100,000 people than 2004-2014 (P < .01). Similar patterns were seen in subanalyses of males and females, non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics. The relative declines were largest in women, non-Hispanic Blacks, and people who lived outside of Metropolitan areas.

During a Q&A session that followed the presentation, Robert Smith, PhD, pointed out that the bar for eligibility of lung cancer risk has been set quite high, following the eligibility criteria for clinical trials. He noted that many patients who could be eligible for screening are still missed because of a lack of clinical routines designed to identify eligible patients. “We are missing opportunities to prevent avertable lung cancer deaths,” said Dr. Smith, senior vice president of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society.

On the other hand, screening-prompted biopsies have the potential to cause harm, particularly in patients who already have lung disease, said Douglas Allen Arenberg, MD, professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “I think that’s what scares most people is the potential downside, which is very hard to measure outside of a clinical trial,” said Dr. Arenberg, who served as a discussant for the presentation.

One way to reduce that risk is to identify biomarkers, either for screens or for incidentally-detected nodules, that have good negative predictive value. “If I had a blood test that is as good as a negative PET scan, I’m going to be much more likely to say, ‘Yeah, you’re 40 and your grandfather had lung cancer. Maybe you should get a CT. If we had that, we could screen a lot more people. Right now, I would discourage anybody who is at low risk from getting screened because when they come to me, the biggest opportunity I have to do harm is when I do a biopsy, and you always remember the ones that go wrong,” he said.

Dr. Arenberg also called for improvements in electronic medical records to better flag at-risk patients. “I think we as physicians have to demand more of the software developers that create these EMRs for us,” he said.

Another study in the same session used data from 1,391,088 patients drawn from the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2017 to examine trends in diagnosis of stage I cancer. In 2010, 23.5% of patients were diagnosed as stage I, versus 29.1% in 2017. Stage I incidence increased from 25.8% to 31.7% in non–small cell lung cancer, but there was no statistically significant change in small cell lung cancer. As with the SEER database study, the researchers noted that the shift toward stage I diagnoses predated the recommendation of LDCT.

Dr. Arenberg suggested that the trend may come down to increased frequency of CT scans, which often collect incidental images of the lungs. He added that better access to care may also be helping to drive the change. “How much of that might have had something to do with the introduction 5 or 10 years earlier of the Affordable Care Act and people just simply having access to care and taking advantage of that?” Dr. Arenberg said.

But Dr. Arenberg said that not even screening can explain all the data. He referenced a stage shift in patients of all age groups in the National Cancer Database study, even those too young to be eligible for screening. “There’s something else going on here. It would be nice for us to understand what caused these trends, so perhaps we could accentuate that trend even more, but stage shifts are clearly occurring in lung cancer,” Dr. Arenberg said.

Dr. Barta has received grants from Genentech Health Equity Innovations Fund. Dr. Arenberg has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith’s potential disclosures could not be ascertained.

An analysis of trends in lung cancer screening since March 2021 when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening, shows that significantly more Black men have been screened for lung cancer, but not women or undereducated people.

The eligibility for lung cancer screening was expanded in 2021 to include men and women under 50 years old and people who smoke at least one pack of cigarettes a day for the last 20 years. “

“Expansion of screening criteria is a critical first step to achieving equity in lung cancer screening for all high-risk populations, but myriad challenges remain before individuals enter the door for screening,” wrote the authors, led by Julie A. Barta, MD, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “Health policy changes must occur simultaneously with efforts to expand community outreach, overcome logistical barriers, and facilitate screening adherence. Only after comprehensive strategies to dismantle screening barriers are identified, validated, and implemented can there be a truly equitable landscape for lung cancer screening.”

For the study, published in JAMA Open Network, researchers examined rates of centralized lung cancer screening in the Baltimore area. In addition to expanding lung cancer screening generally, there was hope that the expanded criteria might increase uptake of screening in populations that are traditionally underserved, such as African American, Hispanic, and female patients. Of 815 people screened during the study period (March-December 2021), 161 were newly eligible for screening under the 2021 criteria.

“There’s been quite a bit of work in the field demonstrating that Black men and women develop lung cancer at more advanced stages of disease, and they often are diagnosed at younger ages and have fewer pack-years of smoking. So the hypothesis was that this would reduce some of the disparities seen in lung cancer screening by making more people eligible,” Dr. Barta said in an interview.

The researchers categorized participants as those who would have been eligible for screening under the USPSTF 2013 guideline (age 55 or older, 30 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years), and those who would be eligible under the 2021 guideline (age 50 or older, 20 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years). Of the 2021 cohort, 54.5% were African American, versus 39.5% of the 2013 cohort (P = .002). There were no differences between the cohorts with respect to education level or gender.

“Although we’ve seen some encouraging improvement in terms of getting more eligible patients into our screening program, there’s still a lot of work to be done in the field,” Dr. Barta said. “Diagnosing lung cancer at earlier stages of disease is more cost effective in general for the health care system than fighting lung cancer at advanced stages, which requires more complex and multimodal and prolonged therapies.”
 

New evidence: Chest CTs for lung cancer screening reduces incidence of advanced lung cancer

In an analysis of the SEER database presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the adoption of low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) led to fewer diagnoses of advanced lung cancer, although these declines varied significantly by race and ethnicity. Non-Hispanic Blacks seemed to benefit the most with a 55% decline (P < .01), while Hispanics had the lowest rate of decline at 41% (P < .01). The change was recommended by USPSTF in 2013 after the National Lung Screening Trial revealed a 20% relative reduction in mortality when CT scans were used instead of chest radiography. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved coverage of the screen in 2015.

The SEER study looked at data from 400,343 individuals from 2004-2014 (preintervention) and 2015-2018 (postintervention). The age-adjusted incidence of advanced lung cancer declined during both periods, but the decline was sharper between 2015 and 2018, with three fewer cases per 100,000 people than 2004-2014 (P < .01). Similar patterns were seen in subanalyses of males and females, non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics. The relative declines were largest in women, non-Hispanic Blacks, and people who lived outside of Metropolitan areas.

During a Q&A session that followed the presentation, Robert Smith, PhD, pointed out that the bar for eligibility of lung cancer risk has been set quite high, following the eligibility criteria for clinical trials. He noted that many patients who could be eligible for screening are still missed because of a lack of clinical routines designed to identify eligible patients. “We are missing opportunities to prevent avertable lung cancer deaths,” said Dr. Smith, senior vice president of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society.

On the other hand, screening-prompted biopsies have the potential to cause harm, particularly in patients who already have lung disease, said Douglas Allen Arenberg, MD, professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “I think that’s what scares most people is the potential downside, which is very hard to measure outside of a clinical trial,” said Dr. Arenberg, who served as a discussant for the presentation.

One way to reduce that risk is to identify biomarkers, either for screens or for incidentally-detected nodules, that have good negative predictive value. “If I had a blood test that is as good as a negative PET scan, I’m going to be much more likely to say, ‘Yeah, you’re 40 and your grandfather had lung cancer. Maybe you should get a CT. If we had that, we could screen a lot more people. Right now, I would discourage anybody who is at low risk from getting screened because when they come to me, the biggest opportunity I have to do harm is when I do a biopsy, and you always remember the ones that go wrong,” he said.

Dr. Arenberg also called for improvements in electronic medical records to better flag at-risk patients. “I think we as physicians have to demand more of the software developers that create these EMRs for us,” he said.

Another study in the same session used data from 1,391,088 patients drawn from the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2017 to examine trends in diagnosis of stage I cancer. In 2010, 23.5% of patients were diagnosed as stage I, versus 29.1% in 2017. Stage I incidence increased from 25.8% to 31.7% in non–small cell lung cancer, but there was no statistically significant change in small cell lung cancer. As with the SEER database study, the researchers noted that the shift toward stage I diagnoses predated the recommendation of LDCT.

Dr. Arenberg suggested that the trend may come down to increased frequency of CT scans, which often collect incidental images of the lungs. He added that better access to care may also be helping to drive the change. “How much of that might have had something to do with the introduction 5 or 10 years earlier of the Affordable Care Act and people just simply having access to care and taking advantage of that?” Dr. Arenberg said.

But Dr. Arenberg said that not even screening can explain all the data. He referenced a stage shift in patients of all age groups in the National Cancer Database study, even those too young to be eligible for screening. “There’s something else going on here. It would be nice for us to understand what caused these trends, so perhaps we could accentuate that trend even more, but stage shifts are clearly occurring in lung cancer,” Dr. Arenberg said.

Dr. Barta has received grants from Genentech Health Equity Innovations Fund. Dr. Arenberg has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith’s potential disclosures could not be ascertained.

An analysis of trends in lung cancer screening since March 2021 when the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expanded the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening, shows that significantly more Black men have been screened for lung cancer, but not women or undereducated people.

The eligibility for lung cancer screening was expanded in 2021 to include men and women under 50 years old and people who smoke at least one pack of cigarettes a day for the last 20 years. “

“Expansion of screening criteria is a critical first step to achieving equity in lung cancer screening for all high-risk populations, but myriad challenges remain before individuals enter the door for screening,” wrote the authors, led by Julie A. Barta, MD, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. “Health policy changes must occur simultaneously with efforts to expand community outreach, overcome logistical barriers, and facilitate screening adherence. Only after comprehensive strategies to dismantle screening barriers are identified, validated, and implemented can there be a truly equitable landscape for lung cancer screening.”

For the study, published in JAMA Open Network, researchers examined rates of centralized lung cancer screening in the Baltimore area. In addition to expanding lung cancer screening generally, there was hope that the expanded criteria might increase uptake of screening in populations that are traditionally underserved, such as African American, Hispanic, and female patients. Of 815 people screened during the study period (March-December 2021), 161 were newly eligible for screening under the 2021 criteria.

“There’s been quite a bit of work in the field demonstrating that Black men and women develop lung cancer at more advanced stages of disease, and they often are diagnosed at younger ages and have fewer pack-years of smoking. So the hypothesis was that this would reduce some of the disparities seen in lung cancer screening by making more people eligible,” Dr. Barta said in an interview.

The researchers categorized participants as those who would have been eligible for screening under the USPSTF 2013 guideline (age 55 or older, 30 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years), and those who would be eligible under the 2021 guideline (age 50 or older, 20 or more pack-years, quit within the past 15 years). Of the 2021 cohort, 54.5% were African American, versus 39.5% of the 2013 cohort (P = .002). There were no differences between the cohorts with respect to education level or gender.

“Although we’ve seen some encouraging improvement in terms of getting more eligible patients into our screening program, there’s still a lot of work to be done in the field,” Dr. Barta said. “Diagnosing lung cancer at earlier stages of disease is more cost effective in general for the health care system than fighting lung cancer at advanced stages, which requires more complex and multimodal and prolonged therapies.”
 

New evidence: Chest CTs for lung cancer screening reduces incidence of advanced lung cancer

In an analysis of the SEER database presented in June at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the adoption of low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) led to fewer diagnoses of advanced lung cancer, although these declines varied significantly by race and ethnicity. Non-Hispanic Blacks seemed to benefit the most with a 55% decline (P < .01), while Hispanics had the lowest rate of decline at 41% (P < .01). The change was recommended by USPSTF in 2013 after the National Lung Screening Trial revealed a 20% relative reduction in mortality when CT scans were used instead of chest radiography. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved coverage of the screen in 2015.

The SEER study looked at data from 400,343 individuals from 2004-2014 (preintervention) and 2015-2018 (postintervention). The age-adjusted incidence of advanced lung cancer declined during both periods, but the decline was sharper between 2015 and 2018, with three fewer cases per 100,000 people than 2004-2014 (P < .01). Similar patterns were seen in subanalyses of males and females, non-Hispanic Whites, non-Hispanic Blacks, and Hispanics. The relative declines were largest in women, non-Hispanic Blacks, and people who lived outside of Metropolitan areas.

During a Q&A session that followed the presentation, Robert Smith, PhD, pointed out that the bar for eligibility of lung cancer risk has been set quite high, following the eligibility criteria for clinical trials. He noted that many patients who could be eligible for screening are still missed because of a lack of clinical routines designed to identify eligible patients. “We are missing opportunities to prevent avertable lung cancer deaths,” said Dr. Smith, senior vice president of cancer screening at the American Cancer Society.

On the other hand, screening-prompted biopsies have the potential to cause harm, particularly in patients who already have lung disease, said Douglas Allen Arenberg, MD, professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “I think that’s what scares most people is the potential downside, which is very hard to measure outside of a clinical trial,” said Dr. Arenberg, who served as a discussant for the presentation.

One way to reduce that risk is to identify biomarkers, either for screens or for incidentally-detected nodules, that have good negative predictive value. “If I had a blood test that is as good as a negative PET scan, I’m going to be much more likely to say, ‘Yeah, you’re 40 and your grandfather had lung cancer. Maybe you should get a CT. If we had that, we could screen a lot more people. Right now, I would discourage anybody who is at low risk from getting screened because when they come to me, the biggest opportunity I have to do harm is when I do a biopsy, and you always remember the ones that go wrong,” he said.

Dr. Arenberg also called for improvements in electronic medical records to better flag at-risk patients. “I think we as physicians have to demand more of the software developers that create these EMRs for us,” he said.

Another study in the same session used data from 1,391,088 patients drawn from the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2017 to examine trends in diagnosis of stage I cancer. In 2010, 23.5% of patients were diagnosed as stage I, versus 29.1% in 2017. Stage I incidence increased from 25.8% to 31.7% in non–small cell lung cancer, but there was no statistically significant change in small cell lung cancer. As with the SEER database study, the researchers noted that the shift toward stage I diagnoses predated the recommendation of LDCT.

Dr. Arenberg suggested that the trend may come down to increased frequency of CT scans, which often collect incidental images of the lungs. He added that better access to care may also be helping to drive the change. “How much of that might have had something to do with the introduction 5 or 10 years earlier of the Affordable Care Act and people just simply having access to care and taking advantage of that?” Dr. Arenberg said.

But Dr. Arenberg said that not even screening can explain all the data. He referenced a stage shift in patients of all age groups in the National Cancer Database study, even those too young to be eligible for screening. “There’s something else going on here. It would be nice for us to understand what caused these trends, so perhaps we could accentuate that trend even more, but stage shifts are clearly occurring in lung cancer,” Dr. Arenberg said.

Dr. Barta has received grants from Genentech Health Equity Innovations Fund. Dr. Arenberg has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith’s potential disclosures could not be ascertained.