AVAHO

Introduction

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is one of the most common and lethal cancers. Nextgeneration sequencing (NGS) has been recommended as a tool to help guide treatment by identifying actionable genetic mutations. However, data regarding realworld usage of NGS in a Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system is lacking. We conducted a retrospective observational study of the patterns of NGS usage in patients with mCRC at the South Texas Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (STVAHCS).

Methods

We identified patients with a diagnosis of mCRC evaluated and treated at STVAHCS between January 1, 2018 and June 1, 2022. We assessed the prevalence of utilizing NGS on solid tumor samples performed by Foundation One and identified the presence of different molecular aberrations detected by NGS.

Results

65 patients were identified. Median age was 68 years. 63 (96.9%) were males and 2 (3.1%) were females. 29 (44.6%) were Hispanic, 25 (38.5%) were White, 10 (15.4%) were African American and 1 (1.5%) was Pacific Islander. NGS was performed in 34 (52.3%) patients. The most common reasons for not performing NGS were unknown/not documented (54.8%), early mortality (29%), lack of adequate tissue (12.9%) and patient refusal of treatment (3.2%). The most common molecular aberrations identified in patients who had NGS were TP53 (73.5%), APC (64.7%), KRAS (47.1%), ATM (20.6%), SMAD4 (14.7%) and BRAF (14.7%). All patients who had NGS were found to have at least one identifiable mutation.

Conclusions

 Approximately 50% of patients with mCRC did not have NGS performed on their tissue sample. This rate is similar to other real-world studies in non-VA settings. Documented reasons for lack of NGS testing included inadequate tissue and early patient mortality. Other potential reasons could be lack of efficient VA clinical testing protocols, use of simple molecular testing rather than comprehensive NGS testing and limited knowledge of availability of NGS among providers. Measures that can be taken to increase utilization of NGS include incorporating NGS testing early in the disease course, incorporating testing into VA clinical pathways, improving physician education, increasing the size of solid tissue samples and ordering liquid biopsies where solid tissue is deficient.

Introduction

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is one of the most common and lethal cancers. Nextgeneration sequencing (NGS) has been recommended as a tool to help guide treatment by identifying actionable genetic mutations. However, data regarding realworld usage of NGS in a Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system is lacking. We conducted a retrospective observational study of the patterns of NGS usage in patients with mCRC at the South Texas Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (STVAHCS).

Methods

We identified patients with a diagnosis of mCRC evaluated and treated at STVAHCS between January 1, 2018 and June 1, 2022. We assessed the prevalence of utilizing NGS on solid tumor samples performed by Foundation One and identified the presence of different molecular aberrations detected by NGS.

Results

65 patients were identified. Median age was 68 years. 63 (96.9%) were males and 2 (3.1%) were females. 29 (44.6%) were Hispanic, 25 (38.5%) were White, 10 (15.4%) were African American and 1 (1.5%) was Pacific Islander. NGS was performed in 34 (52.3%) patients. The most common reasons for not performing NGS were unknown/not documented (54.8%), early mortality (29%), lack of adequate tissue (12.9%) and patient refusal of treatment (3.2%). The most common molecular aberrations identified in patients who had NGS were TP53 (73.5%), APC (64.7%), KRAS (47.1%), ATM (20.6%), SMAD4 (14.7%) and BRAF (14.7%). All patients who had NGS were found to have at least one identifiable mutation.

Conclusions

 Approximately 50% of patients with mCRC did not have NGS performed on their tissue sample. This rate is similar to other real-world studies in non-VA settings. Documented reasons for lack of NGS testing included inadequate tissue and early patient mortality. Other potential reasons could be lack of efficient VA clinical testing protocols, use of simple molecular testing rather than comprehensive NGS testing and limited knowledge of availability of NGS among providers. Measures that can be taken to increase utilization of NGS include incorporating NGS testing early in the disease course, incorporating testing into VA clinical pathways, improving physician education, increasing the size of solid tissue samples and ordering liquid biopsies where solid tissue is deficient.

Introduction

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is one of the most common and lethal cancers. Nextgeneration sequencing (NGS) has been recommended as a tool to help guide treatment by identifying actionable genetic mutations. However, data regarding realworld usage of NGS in a Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system is lacking. We conducted a retrospective observational study of the patterns of NGS usage in patients with mCRC at the South Texas Veterans Affairs Healthcare System (STVAHCS).

Methods

We identified patients with a diagnosis of mCRC evaluated and treated at STVAHCS between January 1, 2018 and June 1, 2022. We assessed the prevalence of utilizing NGS on solid tumor samples performed by Foundation One and identified the presence of different molecular aberrations detected by NGS.

Results

65 patients were identified. Median age was 68 years. 63 (96.9%) were males and 2 (3.1%) were females. 29 (44.6%) were Hispanic, 25 (38.5%) were White, 10 (15.4%) were African American and 1 (1.5%) was Pacific Islander. NGS was performed in 34 (52.3%) patients. The most common reasons for not performing NGS were unknown/not documented (54.8%), early mortality (29%), lack of adequate tissue (12.9%) and patient refusal of treatment (3.2%). The most common molecular aberrations identified in patients who had NGS were TP53 (73.5%), APC (64.7%), KRAS (47.1%), ATM (20.6%), SMAD4 (14.7%) and BRAF (14.7%). All patients who had NGS were found to have at least one identifiable mutation.

Conclusions

 Approximately 50% of patients with mCRC did not have NGS performed on their tissue sample. This rate is similar to other real-world studies in non-VA settings. Documented reasons for lack of NGS testing included inadequate tissue and early patient mortality. Other potential reasons could be lack of efficient VA clinical testing protocols, use of simple molecular testing rather than comprehensive NGS testing and limited knowledge of availability of NGS among providers. Measures that can be taken to increase utilization of NGS include incorporating NGS testing early in the disease course, incorporating testing into VA clinical pathways, improving physician education, increasing the size of solid tissue samples and ordering liquid biopsies where solid tissue is deficient.

Nearly 123,000 cancer deaths – or almost 30% of all cancer deaths – in the United States in 2019 were linked to cigarette smoking, a new analysis suggests.

That corresponds to more than 2 million person-years of lost life and nearly $21 billion in annual lost earnings.

“During the past few decades, smoking has substantially declined in the U.S., followed by great declines in mortality from lung cancer and some other smoking-related cancers,” said lead author Farhad Islami, MD, senior scientific director of cancer disparity research at the American Cancer Society.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

Despite this “remarkable progress, our results indicate that smoking is still associated with about 30% of all cancer deaths and substantial lost earnings in the U.S., and that more work should be done to further reduce smoking in the country,” he said.

The study was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Dr. Islami and colleagues had found that lost earnings from cancer deaths in 2015 came to nearly $95 billion. Other research showed that a substantial portion of lost earnings from cancer deaths could be traced to cigarette smoking, but estimates were more than a decade old.

To provide more recent estimates and help guide tobacco control policies, Dr. Islami and colleagues estimated person-years of life lost (PYLL) and lost earnings from cigarette smoking-related cancer deaths in 2019.

Of the 418,563 cancer deaths in adults ages 25-79 years, an estimated 122,951 could be linked to cigarette smoking. That corresponds to 29.4% of all cancer deaths and roughly 2.2 million PYLL. Translated to lost earnings, the authors estimated $20.9 billion total, with average lost earnings of $170,000 per cancer death linked to smoking.

By cancer type, lung cancer accounted for about 62%, or $12.9 billion, of the total lost earnings linked to smoking, followed by esophageal cancer (7%, or $1.5 billion), colorectal cancer (6%, or $1.2 billion), and liver cancer (5%, or $1.1 billion).

Smoking-related death rates were highest in the 13 “tobacco nation” states with weaker tobacco control policies and a higher rate of cigarette smoking. These states are Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

The lost earnings rate in all 13 tobacco nation states combined was about 44% higher, compared with other states and the District of Columbia combined, and the annual PYLL rate was 47% higher in tobacco nation states.

The researchers estimated that if PYLL and lost earnings rates in all states matched those in Utah, which has the lowest rates, more than half of the total PYLL and lost earnings nationally would have been avoided. In other words, that would mean 1.27 million PYLL and $10.5 billion saved in 2019.

Ending the ‘scourge of tobacco’

To kick the smoking habit, health providers should “screen patients for tobacco use, document tobacco use status, advise people who smoke to quit, and assist in attempts to quit,” Dr. Islami said.

Getting more people to screen for lung cancer in the United States is also important, given that only 6.6% of eligible people in 2019 received screening.

In a statement, Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said this report “further demonstrates just how critical reducing tobacco use is to ending suffering and death from cancer.”

To end the “scourge of tobacco,” local, state, and federal lawmakers need to pass proven tobacco control policies, she said.

These include regular and significant tobacco tax increases, thorough statewide smoke-free laws, and enough funding for state programs to prevent and stop smoking. It also means ensuring all Medicaid enrollees have access to all services that can help smokers quit as well as access to all FDA-approved medications that help users stop smoking.

“We have the tools to get this done, we just need lawmakers to act,” Ms. Lacasse said.

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

Nearly 123,000 cancer deaths – or almost 30% of all cancer deaths – in the United States in 2019 were linked to cigarette smoking, a new analysis suggests.

That corresponds to more than 2 million person-years of lost life and nearly $21 billion in annual lost earnings.

“During the past few decades, smoking has substantially declined in the U.S., followed by great declines in mortality from lung cancer and some other smoking-related cancers,” said lead author Farhad Islami, MD, senior scientific director of cancer disparity research at the American Cancer Society.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

Despite this “remarkable progress, our results indicate that smoking is still associated with about 30% of all cancer deaths and substantial lost earnings in the U.S., and that more work should be done to further reduce smoking in the country,” he said.

The study was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Dr. Islami and colleagues had found that lost earnings from cancer deaths in 2015 came to nearly $95 billion. Other research showed that a substantial portion of lost earnings from cancer deaths could be traced to cigarette smoking, but estimates were more than a decade old.

To provide more recent estimates and help guide tobacco control policies, Dr. Islami and colleagues estimated person-years of life lost (PYLL) and lost earnings from cigarette smoking-related cancer deaths in 2019.

Of the 418,563 cancer deaths in adults ages 25-79 years, an estimated 122,951 could be linked to cigarette smoking. That corresponds to 29.4% of all cancer deaths and roughly 2.2 million PYLL. Translated to lost earnings, the authors estimated $20.9 billion total, with average lost earnings of $170,000 per cancer death linked to smoking.

By cancer type, lung cancer accounted for about 62%, or $12.9 billion, of the total lost earnings linked to smoking, followed by esophageal cancer (7%, or $1.5 billion), colorectal cancer (6%, or $1.2 billion), and liver cancer (5%, or $1.1 billion).

Smoking-related death rates were highest in the 13 “tobacco nation” states with weaker tobacco control policies and a higher rate of cigarette smoking. These states are Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

The lost earnings rate in all 13 tobacco nation states combined was about 44% higher, compared with other states and the District of Columbia combined, and the annual PYLL rate was 47% higher in tobacco nation states.

The researchers estimated that if PYLL and lost earnings rates in all states matched those in Utah, which has the lowest rates, more than half of the total PYLL and lost earnings nationally would have been avoided. In other words, that would mean 1.27 million PYLL and $10.5 billion saved in 2019.

Ending the ‘scourge of tobacco’

To kick the smoking habit, health providers should “screen patients for tobacco use, document tobacco use status, advise people who smoke to quit, and assist in attempts to quit,” Dr. Islami said.

Getting more people to screen for lung cancer in the United States is also important, given that only 6.6% of eligible people in 2019 received screening.

In a statement, Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said this report “further demonstrates just how critical reducing tobacco use is to ending suffering and death from cancer.”

To end the “scourge of tobacco,” local, state, and federal lawmakers need to pass proven tobacco control policies, she said.

These include regular and significant tobacco tax increases, thorough statewide smoke-free laws, and enough funding for state programs to prevent and stop smoking. It also means ensuring all Medicaid enrollees have access to all services that can help smokers quit as well as access to all FDA-approved medications that help users stop smoking.

“We have the tools to get this done, we just need lawmakers to act,” Ms. Lacasse said.

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

Nearly 123,000 cancer deaths – or almost 30% of all cancer deaths – in the United States in 2019 were linked to cigarette smoking, a new analysis suggests.

That corresponds to more than 2 million person-years of lost life and nearly $21 billion in annual lost earnings.

“During the past few decades, smoking has substantially declined in the U.S., followed by great declines in mortality from lung cancer and some other smoking-related cancers,” said lead author Farhad Islami, MD, senior scientific director of cancer disparity research at the American Cancer Society.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

Despite this “remarkable progress, our results indicate that smoking is still associated with about 30% of all cancer deaths and substantial lost earnings in the U.S., and that more work should be done to further reduce smoking in the country,” he said.

The study was published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Dr. Islami and colleagues had found that lost earnings from cancer deaths in 2015 came to nearly $95 billion. Other research showed that a substantial portion of lost earnings from cancer deaths could be traced to cigarette smoking, but estimates were more than a decade old.

To provide more recent estimates and help guide tobacco control policies, Dr. Islami and colleagues estimated person-years of life lost (PYLL) and lost earnings from cigarette smoking-related cancer deaths in 2019.

Of the 418,563 cancer deaths in adults ages 25-79 years, an estimated 122,951 could be linked to cigarette smoking. That corresponds to 29.4% of all cancer deaths and roughly 2.2 million PYLL. Translated to lost earnings, the authors estimated $20.9 billion total, with average lost earnings of $170,000 per cancer death linked to smoking.

By cancer type, lung cancer accounted for about 62%, or $12.9 billion, of the total lost earnings linked to smoking, followed by esophageal cancer (7%, or $1.5 billion), colorectal cancer (6%, or $1.2 billion), and liver cancer (5%, or $1.1 billion).

Smoking-related death rates were highest in the 13 “tobacco nation” states with weaker tobacco control policies and a higher rate of cigarette smoking. These states are Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

The lost earnings rate in all 13 tobacco nation states combined was about 44% higher, compared with other states and the District of Columbia combined, and the annual PYLL rate was 47% higher in tobacco nation states.

The researchers estimated that if PYLL and lost earnings rates in all states matched those in Utah, which has the lowest rates, more than half of the total PYLL and lost earnings nationally would have been avoided. In other words, that would mean 1.27 million PYLL and $10.5 billion saved in 2019.

Ending the ‘scourge of tobacco’

To kick the smoking habit, health providers should “screen patients for tobacco use, document tobacco use status, advise people who smoke to quit, and assist in attempts to quit,” Dr. Islami said.

Getting more people to screen for lung cancer in the United States is also important, given that only 6.6% of eligible people in 2019 received screening.

In a statement, Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said this report “further demonstrates just how critical reducing tobacco use is to ending suffering and death from cancer.”

To end the “scourge of tobacco,” local, state, and federal lawmakers need to pass proven tobacco control policies, she said.

These include regular and significant tobacco tax increases, thorough statewide smoke-free laws, and enough funding for state programs to prevent and stop smoking. It also means ensuring all Medicaid enrollees have access to all services that can help smokers quit as well as access to all FDA-approved medications that help users stop smoking.

“We have the tools to get this done, we just need lawmakers to act,” Ms. Lacasse said.

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

Recently, a home test for oral and throat cancer was launched in the United States, and it is being marketed directly to the general public, aimed at former or current tobacco users and anyone 50 years or older.

Individuals can order the test – CancerDetect Test for Oral & Throat Cancer – directly from its maker, Viome Life Sciences, for $399.

It is not covered by medical insurance, and is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The test is being marketed under the agency’s “laboratory developed test” rubric.

People who qualify and buy the test are mailed a saliva collection tube, which they fill and mail back. The company then analyzes the RNA for changes in human cells and the oropharyngeal microbiome that are associated with cancer. During a 15-minute telemedicine conference – included in the $399 cost – those who test positive are told to follow up with a secondary care center for a definitive diagnosis.

For people who test positive but have no visible lesion to biopsy, doctors will likely opt for surveillance, computer scientist Guruduth Banavar, PhD, Viome’s chief technology officer, told this news organization.

Dr. Banavar said people have been buying the test every day since it was launched in early August, but he declined to give specific sales figures.

CancerDetect’s tagline is “test at home for peace of mind.” The test “brings unprecedented accuracy to early cancer detection and prevention,” the company said in a press release announcing the launch.

The test showed an overall specificity of 94% and sensitivity of 84.2%-90% for cancer in Viome’s  latest study, which is posted on medRxiv.org as a preprint. Banavar said it has been submitted to a top-tier medical journal.

Viome plans to market CancerDetect “in every possible way” to consumers, including social media, Dr. Banavar said. CancerDetect is not sold on Amazon at the moment, but the company sells another at-home test for gut microbiome plus cellular health on the website. 

As for outreach to the medical community, “we will start doing that with dentists first” and then eventually oncologists and other doctors, but “our primary target is to get out to the consumers themselves,” Dr. Banavar said.

Viome’s main goal is to help consumers be proactive regarding their health, he said.
 

An expert opinion

The marketing push means that sooner or later, oncologists will likely have to deal with a patient who tests positive on CancerDetect, so this news organization turned to numerous experts for their thoughts. None had heard about the test, but one responded with comments.

“I am happy to see industry working on strategies for the early detection of oral and throat cancers,” and CancerDetect has “potential,” said surgical oncologist Saral Mehra, MD, MBA, chief of head and neck surgery at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, after reviewing the study posted on medRxiv, Dr. Mehra advised caution. He said he was concerned about false negative results leading to missed cancers and false positives leading to unnecessary anxiety and testing.

According to the medRxiv preprint, the test was developed and validated using saliva samples from 1,175 people 50 years or older as well as adults with a history of tobacco use. 

In the 230-sample validation cohort, CancerDetect correctly classified 18 out of 20 people with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and 64/76 with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), yielding sensitivities of 90% and 84.2%, respectively. 

The test also correctly identified 126/134 people as cancer free, for a specificity of 94%.

Results were similar between early and late-stage disease, but mixed in subgroups. Among people younger than age 50, for instance, 4/4 (100%) with OSCC and 2/3 (66.7%) with OPSCC were correctly classified as positive. Among older people, 15/17 (88.2%) with OSCC and 62/73 (84.9%) with OPSCC were correctly classified

Commenting on the results, Dr. Mehra noted that “the power of the study, especially for subgroup analysis, was low,” and investigators “used both advanced-stage and early-stage cancer patients in the model, while the target population for this test is early stage. 

“The research needs to be tightened significantly on specific target populations, the models adjusted to really limit false negatives, and a plan [put in place] to act upon positive results,” he said.

Also, the ability of CancerDetect to pick up premalignant lesions – “the greatest value in a screening test” – is not clear, he added.

Viome’s Dr. Banavar said that CancerDetect is in its first iteration, and the test uses machine learning, so its diagnostic performance will improve with the ongoing addition of real-world data.

The company is organizing a pivotal trial to gain formal FDA approval, with results expected in a year and a half or so, he said.

Viome is pushing ahead with its RNA diagnosis technology for the entire range of alimentary canal cancers and disorders, including inflammatory bowel disease. The company has partnered with pharmaceutical companies, including GSK, for vaccines, Dr. Banavar said.  

Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Recently, a home test for oral and throat cancer was launched in the United States, and it is being marketed directly to the general public, aimed at former or current tobacco users and anyone 50 years or older.

Individuals can order the test – CancerDetect Test for Oral & Throat Cancer – directly from its maker, Viome Life Sciences, for $399.

It is not covered by medical insurance, and is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The test is being marketed under the agency’s “laboratory developed test” rubric.

People who qualify and buy the test are mailed a saliva collection tube, which they fill and mail back. The company then analyzes the RNA for changes in human cells and the oropharyngeal microbiome that are associated with cancer. During a 15-minute telemedicine conference – included in the $399 cost – those who test positive are told to follow up with a secondary care center for a definitive diagnosis.

For people who test positive but have no visible lesion to biopsy, doctors will likely opt for surveillance, computer scientist Guruduth Banavar, PhD, Viome’s chief technology officer, told this news organization.

Dr. Banavar said people have been buying the test every day since it was launched in early August, but he declined to give specific sales figures.

CancerDetect’s tagline is “test at home for peace of mind.” The test “brings unprecedented accuracy to early cancer detection and prevention,” the company said in a press release announcing the launch.

The test showed an overall specificity of 94% and sensitivity of 84.2%-90% for cancer in Viome’s  latest study, which is posted on medRxiv.org as a preprint. Banavar said it has been submitted to a top-tier medical journal.

Viome plans to market CancerDetect “in every possible way” to consumers, including social media, Dr. Banavar said. CancerDetect is not sold on Amazon at the moment, but the company sells another at-home test for gut microbiome plus cellular health on the website. 

As for outreach to the medical community, “we will start doing that with dentists first” and then eventually oncologists and other doctors, but “our primary target is to get out to the consumers themselves,” Dr. Banavar said.

Viome’s main goal is to help consumers be proactive regarding their health, he said.
 

An expert opinion

The marketing push means that sooner or later, oncologists will likely have to deal with a patient who tests positive on CancerDetect, so this news organization turned to numerous experts for their thoughts. None had heard about the test, but one responded with comments.

“I am happy to see industry working on strategies for the early detection of oral and throat cancers,” and CancerDetect has “potential,” said surgical oncologist Saral Mehra, MD, MBA, chief of head and neck surgery at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, after reviewing the study posted on medRxiv, Dr. Mehra advised caution. He said he was concerned about false negative results leading to missed cancers and false positives leading to unnecessary anxiety and testing.

According to the medRxiv preprint, the test was developed and validated using saliva samples from 1,175 people 50 years or older as well as adults with a history of tobacco use. 

In the 230-sample validation cohort, CancerDetect correctly classified 18 out of 20 people with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and 64/76 with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), yielding sensitivities of 90% and 84.2%, respectively. 

The test also correctly identified 126/134 people as cancer free, for a specificity of 94%.

Results were similar between early and late-stage disease, but mixed in subgroups. Among people younger than age 50, for instance, 4/4 (100%) with OSCC and 2/3 (66.7%) with OPSCC were correctly classified as positive. Among older people, 15/17 (88.2%) with OSCC and 62/73 (84.9%) with OPSCC were correctly classified

Commenting on the results, Dr. Mehra noted that “the power of the study, especially for subgroup analysis, was low,” and investigators “used both advanced-stage and early-stage cancer patients in the model, while the target population for this test is early stage. 

“The research needs to be tightened significantly on specific target populations, the models adjusted to really limit false negatives, and a plan [put in place] to act upon positive results,” he said.

Also, the ability of CancerDetect to pick up premalignant lesions – “the greatest value in a screening test” – is not clear, he added.

Viome’s Dr. Banavar said that CancerDetect is in its first iteration, and the test uses machine learning, so its diagnostic performance will improve with the ongoing addition of real-world data.

The company is organizing a pivotal trial to gain formal FDA approval, with results expected in a year and a half or so, he said.

Viome is pushing ahead with its RNA diagnosis technology for the entire range of alimentary canal cancers and disorders, including inflammatory bowel disease. The company has partnered with pharmaceutical companies, including GSK, for vaccines, Dr. Banavar said.  

Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Recently, a home test for oral and throat cancer was launched in the United States, and it is being marketed directly to the general public, aimed at former or current tobacco users and anyone 50 years or older.

Individuals can order the test – CancerDetect Test for Oral & Throat Cancer – directly from its maker, Viome Life Sciences, for $399.

It is not covered by medical insurance, and is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The test is being marketed under the agency’s “laboratory developed test” rubric.

People who qualify and buy the test are mailed a saliva collection tube, which they fill and mail back. The company then analyzes the RNA for changes in human cells and the oropharyngeal microbiome that are associated with cancer. During a 15-minute telemedicine conference – included in the $399 cost – those who test positive are told to follow up with a secondary care center for a definitive diagnosis.

For people who test positive but have no visible lesion to biopsy, doctors will likely opt for surveillance, computer scientist Guruduth Banavar, PhD, Viome’s chief technology officer, told this news organization.

Dr. Banavar said people have been buying the test every day since it was launched in early August, but he declined to give specific sales figures.

CancerDetect’s tagline is “test at home for peace of mind.” The test “brings unprecedented accuracy to early cancer detection and prevention,” the company said in a press release announcing the launch.

The test showed an overall specificity of 94% and sensitivity of 84.2%-90% for cancer in Viome’s  latest study, which is posted on medRxiv.org as a preprint. Banavar said it has been submitted to a top-tier medical journal.

Viome plans to market CancerDetect “in every possible way” to consumers, including social media, Dr. Banavar said. CancerDetect is not sold on Amazon at the moment, but the company sells another at-home test for gut microbiome plus cellular health on the website. 

As for outreach to the medical community, “we will start doing that with dentists first” and then eventually oncologists and other doctors, but “our primary target is to get out to the consumers themselves,” Dr. Banavar said.

Viome’s main goal is to help consumers be proactive regarding their health, he said.
 

An expert opinion

The marketing push means that sooner or later, oncologists will likely have to deal with a patient who tests positive on CancerDetect, so this news organization turned to numerous experts for their thoughts. None had heard about the test, but one responded with comments.

“I am happy to see industry working on strategies for the early detection of oral and throat cancers,” and CancerDetect has “potential,” said surgical oncologist Saral Mehra, MD, MBA, chief of head and neck surgery at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

However, after reviewing the study posted on medRxiv, Dr. Mehra advised caution. He said he was concerned about false negative results leading to missed cancers and false positives leading to unnecessary anxiety and testing.

According to the medRxiv preprint, the test was developed and validated using saliva samples from 1,175 people 50 years or older as well as adults with a history of tobacco use. 

In the 230-sample validation cohort, CancerDetect correctly classified 18 out of 20 people with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and 64/76 with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), yielding sensitivities of 90% and 84.2%, respectively. 

The test also correctly identified 126/134 people as cancer free, for a specificity of 94%.

Results were similar between early and late-stage disease, but mixed in subgroups. Among people younger than age 50, for instance, 4/4 (100%) with OSCC and 2/3 (66.7%) with OPSCC were correctly classified as positive. Among older people, 15/17 (88.2%) with OSCC and 62/73 (84.9%) with OPSCC were correctly classified

Commenting on the results, Dr. Mehra noted that “the power of the study, especially for subgroup analysis, was low,” and investigators “used both advanced-stage and early-stage cancer patients in the model, while the target population for this test is early stage. 

“The research needs to be tightened significantly on specific target populations, the models adjusted to really limit false negatives, and a plan [put in place] to act upon positive results,” he said.

Also, the ability of CancerDetect to pick up premalignant lesions – “the greatest value in a screening test” – is not clear, he added.

Viome’s Dr. Banavar said that CancerDetect is in its first iteration, and the test uses machine learning, so its diagnostic performance will improve with the ongoing addition of real-world data.

The company is organizing a pivotal trial to gain formal FDA approval, with results expected in a year and a half or so, he said.

Viome is pushing ahead with its RNA diagnosis technology for the entire range of alimentary canal cancers and disorders, including inflammatory bowel disease. The company has partnered with pharmaceutical companies, including GSK, for vaccines, Dr. Banavar said.  

Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study suggests that oncologists can safely pull back on standard locoregional radiotherapy (RT) in select patients with cT1-2N1 breast cancer who are treated with primary chemotherapy prior to surgery. The key is to divide patients by risk level and treat them according to the study’s guidelines, the researchers reported.

“We think this study is a good step towards de-escalation, which should lead to equal survival chances but better quality of life,” lead study author Sabine de Wild, MD, a PhD student at Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

The study, published in The Lancet Oncology, was intended to provide insight into which breast cancer patients need adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy following postchemotherapy surgery, coauthor Liesbeth Boersma, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at Maastricht University Medical Center, said in an interview. “It is not yet known which of these patients would benefit from adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy and to what extent the response of the tumor to the chemotherapy should be taken into account.”

For the study, believed to be the first prospective analysis tackling this topic, researchers tracked 838 patients in The Netherlands who were treated for cT1-2N1 breast cancer with primary chemotherapy and surgery of the breast and axilla from 2011-2015. Tumors were less than 5 cm and metastases were one to three axillary nodes.

The subjects were divided into groups based on risk of locoregional recurrence, and each group underwent different therapies.

• Low-risk group: no metastases were present in the nodes (n = 291). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, and we omitted RT of the chest wall in case of a mastectomy. After breast conserving surgery, regular RT of the breast was recommended,” Dr. de Wild said.
• Intermediate-risk group, one to three metastases were still present (n = 370). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, but irradiated the chest wall or breast,” she said.
• High-risk group, three metastases were present (n = 177). “We did not de-escalate, and all patients were treated with locoregional RT,” she said.

According to the study, “the 5-year locoregional recurrence rate in all patients was 2.2% (95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.4). The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was 2.1% (95% CI, 0.9-4.3) in the low-risk group, 2.2% (95% CI, 1.0-4.1) in the intermediate-risk group, and 2.3% (95% CI, 0.8-5.5) in the high-risk group.”

In 26% of cases, patients received more radiotherapy than the study guidelines suggested. “Remarkably,” the researchers wrote, “this did not seem to affect locoregional recurrence rate, recurrence­-free interval, and overall survival in a statistically significant or clinically relevant way.”

As for limitations, the authors noted that, “in each risk group, the actual sample size treated according to the study guideline was smaller than required based on the power calculation. Nevertheless, when performing the analyses in the subset of patients treated according to the study guideline, the upper limit of 95% CI of 5­-year locoregional recurrence rate did not exceed 7.8%.”

The study authors wrote that, “in the future, the results of this study might lead to more frequent omission of locoregional radiotherapy, which could result in lower morbidity and a better quality of life for patients with breast cancer who are receiving primary chemotherapy.”

However, Dr. de Wild said randomized trials are necessary “to investigate how treatment can be individualized further, i.e., by taking into account specific tumor characteristics.” Also, most patients in the study underwent axillary lymph node dissection, “while patients in daily practice may instead undergo targeted axillary dissection. Future studies are needed to determine if less radiotherapy is also safe in patients in whom axillary lymph node dissection is omitted.”

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. One coauthor reported a pending patent plus grants from AstraZeneca, Eurocept Plaza, Roche, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Tesaro, Novartis, Dutch Cancer Society, ZonMw, and A Sister’s Hope; as well as consulting fees and other financial support from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. The other authors had no disclosures.

A new study suggests that oncologists can safely pull back on standard locoregional radiotherapy (RT) in select patients with cT1-2N1 breast cancer who are treated with primary chemotherapy prior to surgery. The key is to divide patients by risk level and treat them according to the study’s guidelines, the researchers reported.

“We think this study is a good step towards de-escalation, which should lead to equal survival chances but better quality of life,” lead study author Sabine de Wild, MD, a PhD student at Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

The study, published in The Lancet Oncology, was intended to provide insight into which breast cancer patients need adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy following postchemotherapy surgery, coauthor Liesbeth Boersma, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at Maastricht University Medical Center, said in an interview. “It is not yet known which of these patients would benefit from adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy and to what extent the response of the tumor to the chemotherapy should be taken into account.”

For the study, believed to be the first prospective analysis tackling this topic, researchers tracked 838 patients in The Netherlands who were treated for cT1-2N1 breast cancer with primary chemotherapy and surgery of the breast and axilla from 2011-2015. Tumors were less than 5 cm and metastases were one to three axillary nodes.

The subjects were divided into groups based on risk of locoregional recurrence, and each group underwent different therapies.

• Low-risk group: no metastases were present in the nodes (n = 291). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, and we omitted RT of the chest wall in case of a mastectomy. After breast conserving surgery, regular RT of the breast was recommended,” Dr. de Wild said.
• Intermediate-risk group, one to three metastases were still present (n = 370). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, but irradiated the chest wall or breast,” she said.
• High-risk group, three metastases were present (n = 177). “We did not de-escalate, and all patients were treated with locoregional RT,” she said.

According to the study, “the 5-year locoregional recurrence rate in all patients was 2.2% (95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.4). The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was 2.1% (95% CI, 0.9-4.3) in the low-risk group, 2.2% (95% CI, 1.0-4.1) in the intermediate-risk group, and 2.3% (95% CI, 0.8-5.5) in the high-risk group.”

In 26% of cases, patients received more radiotherapy than the study guidelines suggested. “Remarkably,” the researchers wrote, “this did not seem to affect locoregional recurrence rate, recurrence­-free interval, and overall survival in a statistically significant or clinically relevant way.”

As for limitations, the authors noted that, “in each risk group, the actual sample size treated according to the study guideline was smaller than required based on the power calculation. Nevertheless, when performing the analyses in the subset of patients treated according to the study guideline, the upper limit of 95% CI of 5­-year locoregional recurrence rate did not exceed 7.8%.”

The study authors wrote that, “in the future, the results of this study might lead to more frequent omission of locoregional radiotherapy, which could result in lower morbidity and a better quality of life for patients with breast cancer who are receiving primary chemotherapy.”

However, Dr. de Wild said randomized trials are necessary “to investigate how treatment can be individualized further, i.e., by taking into account specific tumor characteristics.” Also, most patients in the study underwent axillary lymph node dissection, “while patients in daily practice may instead undergo targeted axillary dissection. Future studies are needed to determine if less radiotherapy is also safe in patients in whom axillary lymph node dissection is omitted.”

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. One coauthor reported a pending patent plus grants from AstraZeneca, Eurocept Plaza, Roche, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Tesaro, Novartis, Dutch Cancer Society, ZonMw, and A Sister’s Hope; as well as consulting fees and other financial support from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. The other authors had no disclosures.

A new study suggests that oncologists can safely pull back on standard locoregional radiotherapy (RT) in select patients with cT1-2N1 breast cancer who are treated with primary chemotherapy prior to surgery. The key is to divide patients by risk level and treat them according to the study’s guidelines, the researchers reported.

“We think this study is a good step towards de-escalation, which should lead to equal survival chances but better quality of life,” lead study author Sabine de Wild, MD, a PhD student at Maastricht (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

The study, published in The Lancet Oncology, was intended to provide insight into which breast cancer patients need adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy following postchemotherapy surgery, coauthor Liesbeth Boersma, MD, PhD, a radiation oncologist at Maastricht University Medical Center, said in an interview. “It is not yet known which of these patients would benefit from adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy and to what extent the response of the tumor to the chemotherapy should be taken into account.”

For the study, believed to be the first prospective analysis tackling this topic, researchers tracked 838 patients in The Netherlands who were treated for cT1-2N1 breast cancer with primary chemotherapy and surgery of the breast and axilla from 2011-2015. Tumors were less than 5 cm and metastases were one to three axillary nodes.

The subjects were divided into groups based on risk of locoregional recurrence, and each group underwent different therapies.

• Low-risk group: no metastases were present in the nodes (n = 291). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, and we omitted RT of the chest wall in case of a mastectomy. After breast conserving surgery, regular RT of the breast was recommended,” Dr. de Wild said.
• Intermediate-risk group, one to three metastases were still present (n = 370). “We omitted regional radiotherapy, but irradiated the chest wall or breast,” she said.
• High-risk group, three metastases were present (n = 177). “We did not de-escalate, and all patients were treated with locoregional RT,” she said.

According to the study, “the 5-year locoregional recurrence rate in all patients was 2.2% (95% confidence interval, 1.4-3.4). The 5-year locoregional recurrence rate was 2.1% (95% CI, 0.9-4.3) in the low-risk group, 2.2% (95% CI, 1.0-4.1) in the intermediate-risk group, and 2.3% (95% CI, 0.8-5.5) in the high-risk group.”

In 26% of cases, patients received more radiotherapy than the study guidelines suggested. “Remarkably,” the researchers wrote, “this did not seem to affect locoregional recurrence rate, recurrence­-free interval, and overall survival in a statistically significant or clinically relevant way.”

As for limitations, the authors noted that, “in each risk group, the actual sample size treated according to the study guideline was smaller than required based on the power calculation. Nevertheless, when performing the analyses in the subset of patients treated according to the study guideline, the upper limit of 95% CI of 5­-year locoregional recurrence rate did not exceed 7.8%.”

The study authors wrote that, “in the future, the results of this study might lead to more frequent omission of locoregional radiotherapy, which could result in lower morbidity and a better quality of life for patients with breast cancer who are receiving primary chemotherapy.”

However, Dr. de Wild said randomized trials are necessary “to investigate how treatment can be individualized further, i.e., by taking into account specific tumor characteristics.” Also, most patients in the study underwent axillary lymph node dissection, “while patients in daily practice may instead undergo targeted axillary dissection. Future studies are needed to determine if less radiotherapy is also safe in patients in whom axillary lymph node dissection is omitted.”

The study was funded by the Dutch Cancer Society. One coauthor reported a pending patent plus grants from AstraZeneca, Eurocept Plaza, Roche, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Tesaro, Novartis, Dutch Cancer Society, ZonMw, and A Sister’s Hope; as well as consulting fees and other financial support from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. The other authors had no disclosures.

Patient outcomes could be threatened because of misinterpretation by oncologic surgeons of free-form posttreatment radiological reports in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), a new study finds.

“Clinician perception of patient response from the post-RT [radiation treament] PET/CT free-form report is unreliable and does not consistently reflect the radiologist’s intended meaning, which was strongly associated with survival,” researchers wrote in a study published Aug. 18 in JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery. They found “minimal agreement between clinicians’ consensus perspective on the patient’s response status derived from free-form imaging reports and the criterion standard response category assigned by a nuclear medicine specialist after PET/CT image review.”

According to radiation oncologist Ryan T. Hughes, MD, and colleagues at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., it’s common for patients with HNSCC to get PET, CT, or PET/CT imaging following treatment in order to assess how patients responded. Accurate communication about the results is essential to determining next steps, they write.

However, they write, “to our knowledge there is no universally accepted standardized method for communicating results,” such as whether there’s been a complete or partial response. Discrepancies between a radiological posttreatment report and an oncologist’s perception of the findings “may contribute to unnecessary patient care complexities, including elevated patient anxiety, unnecessary follow-up testing/procedures, and failure to recognize and adequately treat residual, recurrent, or progressive disease,” the researchers write.

For the new study, the authors tracked 171 patients (26.3% women, median age 61 years, ethnicity not provided), mainly (87%) with stage III-IV disease. Most (89%) received concurrent chemotherapy, and 30% received radiotherapy following operations.

Four oncologists reviewed free-form radiologic reports and determined whether the patient had a complete, indeterminate or partial response, or progressive disease. “Next, the group conferred to assign a consensus clinician MDS [modified Deauville score] and associated response category to assess the percentage of agreement with the criterion standard nuclear medicine physician MDS response derived from PET/CT image review.”

The researchers found that “interrater reliability of clinician-perceived post-RT PET/CT response was moderate [k = 0.680; 95% confidence interval, 0.638-0.721], and there was minimal reliability and low rate of agreement between clinician perception and radiologist-intended PET/CT response [63.7%; k = 0.365; 95% CI, 0.251-0.478).”

The clinicians were more likely to perceive patients as having an indeterminate response (28.1%), compared with the radiologists (9.3%). “There were 16 instances of significant discordance: 7 patients for whom the clinician perception MDS was 1 to 2 and nuclear medicine MDS 3 to 4, and 9 patients for whom the clinician perception MDS was 3 to 4 and nuclear medicine MDS 1 to 2.”

Due to statistical limitations, the researchers were unable to link the MDS scores to prognoses. The researchers suggest it’s time to further standardize the assessment of posttreatment responses to therapy. They add that “the decision to use a standardized interpretation and reporting system rather than free-form reporting is more important than the specific system selected.”

As for next steps, the researchers report that “prospective studies of post-RT PET/CT standardized reporting among patients with HNSCC are warranted, and a prospective implementation study of this workflow is planned at our institution.”

The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures.

Patient outcomes could be threatened because of misinterpretation by oncologic surgeons of free-form posttreatment radiological reports in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), a new study finds.

“Clinician perception of patient response from the post-RT [radiation treament] PET/CT free-form report is unreliable and does not consistently reflect the radiologist’s intended meaning, which was strongly associated with survival,” researchers wrote in a study published Aug. 18 in JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery. They found “minimal agreement between clinicians’ consensus perspective on the patient’s response status derived from free-form imaging reports and the criterion standard response category assigned by a nuclear medicine specialist after PET/CT image review.”

According to radiation oncologist Ryan T. Hughes, MD, and colleagues at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., it’s common for patients with HNSCC to get PET, CT, or PET/CT imaging following treatment in order to assess how patients responded. Accurate communication about the results is essential to determining next steps, they write.

However, they write, “to our knowledge there is no universally accepted standardized method for communicating results,” such as whether there’s been a complete or partial response. Discrepancies between a radiological posttreatment report and an oncologist’s perception of the findings “may contribute to unnecessary patient care complexities, including elevated patient anxiety, unnecessary follow-up testing/procedures, and failure to recognize and adequately treat residual, recurrent, or progressive disease,” the researchers write.

For the new study, the authors tracked 171 patients (26.3% women, median age 61 years, ethnicity not provided), mainly (87%) with stage III-IV disease. Most (89%) received concurrent chemotherapy, and 30% received radiotherapy following operations.

Four oncologists reviewed free-form radiologic reports and determined whether the patient had a complete, indeterminate or partial response, or progressive disease. “Next, the group conferred to assign a consensus clinician MDS [modified Deauville score] and associated response category to assess the percentage of agreement with the criterion standard nuclear medicine physician MDS response derived from PET/CT image review.”

The researchers found that “interrater reliability of clinician-perceived post-RT PET/CT response was moderate [k = 0.680; 95% confidence interval, 0.638-0.721], and there was minimal reliability and low rate of agreement between clinician perception and radiologist-intended PET/CT response [63.7%; k = 0.365; 95% CI, 0.251-0.478).”

The clinicians were more likely to perceive patients as having an indeterminate response (28.1%), compared with the radiologists (9.3%). “There were 16 instances of significant discordance: 7 patients for whom the clinician perception MDS was 1 to 2 and nuclear medicine MDS 3 to 4, and 9 patients for whom the clinician perception MDS was 3 to 4 and nuclear medicine MDS 1 to 2.”

Due to statistical limitations, the researchers were unable to link the MDS scores to prognoses. The researchers suggest it’s time to further standardize the assessment of posttreatment responses to therapy. They add that “the decision to use a standardized interpretation and reporting system rather than free-form reporting is more important than the specific system selected.”

As for next steps, the researchers report that “prospective studies of post-RT PET/CT standardized reporting among patients with HNSCC are warranted, and a prospective implementation study of this workflow is planned at our institution.”

The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures.

Patient outcomes could be threatened because of misinterpretation by oncologic surgeons of free-form posttreatment radiological reports in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), a new study finds.

“Clinician perception of patient response from the post-RT [radiation treament] PET/CT free-form report is unreliable and does not consistently reflect the radiologist’s intended meaning, which was strongly associated with survival,” researchers wrote in a study published Aug. 18 in JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery. They found “minimal agreement between clinicians’ consensus perspective on the patient’s response status derived from free-form imaging reports and the criterion standard response category assigned by a nuclear medicine specialist after PET/CT image review.”

According to radiation oncologist Ryan T. Hughes, MD, and colleagues at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., it’s common for patients with HNSCC to get PET, CT, or PET/CT imaging following treatment in order to assess how patients responded. Accurate communication about the results is essential to determining next steps, they write.

However, they write, “to our knowledge there is no universally accepted standardized method for communicating results,” such as whether there’s been a complete or partial response. Discrepancies between a radiological posttreatment report and an oncologist’s perception of the findings “may contribute to unnecessary patient care complexities, including elevated patient anxiety, unnecessary follow-up testing/procedures, and failure to recognize and adequately treat residual, recurrent, or progressive disease,” the researchers write.

For the new study, the authors tracked 171 patients (26.3% women, median age 61 years, ethnicity not provided), mainly (87%) with stage III-IV disease. Most (89%) received concurrent chemotherapy, and 30% received radiotherapy following operations.

Four oncologists reviewed free-form radiologic reports and determined whether the patient had a complete, indeterminate or partial response, or progressive disease. “Next, the group conferred to assign a consensus clinician MDS [modified Deauville score] and associated response category to assess the percentage of agreement with the criterion standard nuclear medicine physician MDS response derived from PET/CT image review.”

The researchers found that “interrater reliability of clinician-perceived post-RT PET/CT response was moderate [k = 0.680; 95% confidence interval, 0.638-0.721], and there was minimal reliability and low rate of agreement between clinician perception and radiologist-intended PET/CT response [63.7%; k = 0.365; 95% CI, 0.251-0.478).”

The clinicians were more likely to perceive patients as having an indeterminate response (28.1%), compared with the radiologists (9.3%). “There were 16 instances of significant discordance: 7 patients for whom the clinician perception MDS was 1 to 2 and nuclear medicine MDS 3 to 4, and 9 patients for whom the clinician perception MDS was 3 to 4 and nuclear medicine MDS 1 to 2.”

Due to statistical limitations, the researchers were unable to link the MDS scores to prognoses. The researchers suggest it’s time to further standardize the assessment of posttreatment responses to therapy. They add that “the decision to use a standardized interpretation and reporting system rather than free-form reporting is more important than the specific system selected.”

As for next steps, the researchers report that “prospective studies of post-RT PET/CT standardized reporting among patients with HNSCC are warranted, and a prospective implementation study of this workflow is planned at our institution.”

The study was funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures.

A new study provides more evidence that people with thyroid autoimmunity are more likely than are others to develop papillary thyroid cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 1.90, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-2.70), although the overall risk remains very low. 
Researchers aren't recommending routine screening in all patients with thyroid autoimmunity, but they're calling for more research into whether it's a good idea in severe cases. "This is the one circumstance where screening for subclinical disease could make sense," said Donald McLeod, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist at Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital in Australia and lead author of the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. "However, more research is needed because our study is the first to show this result, and we need to prove that screening would make a difference to the prognosis of these patients." 
According to Dr. McLeod, "doctors and patients have been wondering about the connection between thyroid autoimmunity and thyroid cancer for many years. In fact, the first report was in 1955. While the association was plausible, all previous studies had potential for biases that could have influenced the results." 
For example, he said, multiple studies didn't control for confounders, while others didn't account for the possibility that cancer could have triggered an immune response. "Other case-control studies could have been affected by selection bias, where a diagnosis of thyroid autoimmunity leads to thyroid cancer identification and entry into the study," he said. "Finally, medical surveillance of people diagnosed with thyroid autoimmunity could lead to overdiagnosis, where small, subclinical cancers are diagnosed in those patients but not identified in people who are not under medical follow-up." 
For the new retrospective case-control study, researchers compared 451 active-duty members of the U.S. military who developed papillary thyroid cancer from the period of 1996-2014 to matched controls (61% of all subjects were men and the mean age was 36). Those with cancer had their serum collected 3-5 years and 7-10 years before the date of diagnosis - the index date for all subjects. Some of those considered to have thyroid autoimmunity had conditions such as Graves' disease and Hashimoto's thyroiditis. 
"Eighty-five percent of cases (379 of 451) had a thyroid-related diagnosis recorded ... before their index date, compared with 5% of controls," the researchers reported. "Most cases (80%) had classical papillary thyroid cancer, with the rest having the follicular variant of papillary thyroid cancer."  
After adjustment to account for various confounders, those who were positive for thyroid peroxidase antibodies 7-10 years prior to the index date were more likely to have developed thyroid cancer (OR = 1.90, 95% CI, 1.33-2.70). "The results could not be fully explained by diagnosis of thyroid autoimmunity," the researchers reported, "although when autoimmunity had been identified, thyroid cancers were diagnosed at a very early stage." 
Two groups - those with the highest thyroid antibody levels and women - faced the greatest risk, Dr. McLeod said. The results regarding women were the most surprising in the study, he said. "This is the first time this has been found. We think this result needs to be confirmed. If true, it could explain why women have a three-times-higher risk of thyroid cancer than men." 
The overall incidence of thyroid cancer in the U.S. was estimated at 13.49 per 100,000 person-years in 2018, with women (76% of cases) and Whites (81%) accounting for the majority. Rates have nearly doubled since 2000. The authors of a 2022 report that disclosed these numbers suggest the rise is due to overdiagnosis of small tumors. 
It's not clear why thyroid autoimmunity and thyroid cancer may be linked. "Chronic inflammation from thyroid autoimmunity could cause thyroid cancer, as chronic inflammation in other organs precedes cancers at those sites," Dr. McLeod said. "Alternatively, thyroid autoimmunity could appear to be associated with thyroid cancer because of biases inherent in previous studies, including previous diagnosis of autoimmunity. Thyroid cancer could also induce an immune response, which mimics thyroid autoimmunity and could bias assessment." 
As for screening of patients with thyroid autoimmunity, "the main danger is that you will commonly identify small thyroid cancers that would never become clinically apparent," he said. "This leads to unnecessary treatments that can cause complications and give people a cancer label, which can also cause harm. Diagnosis and treatment guidelines recommend against screening the general population for this reason." 
Many of those with thyroid autoimmunity developed small cancers, he said, most likely "detected from ultrasound being performed because autoimmune thyroid disease was known. If all patients with thyroid autoimmunity were screened for thyroid cancer, the likelihood is that many people's cancers would be overdiagnosed." 
The study was funded by the Walton Family Foundation. Dr. McLeod reports no disclosures. Some of the authors report various relationships with industry.

A new study provides more evidence that people with thyroid autoimmunity are more likely than are others to develop papillary thyroid cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 1.90, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-2.70), although the overall risk remains very low. 
Researchers aren't recommending routine screening in all patients with thyroid autoimmunity, but they're calling for more research into whether it's a good idea in severe cases. "This is the one circumstance where screening for subclinical disease could make sense," said Donald McLeod, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist at Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital in Australia and lead author of the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. "However, more research is needed because our study is the first to show this result, and we need to prove that screening would make a difference to the prognosis of these patients." 
According to Dr. McLeod, "doctors and patients have been wondering about the connection between thyroid autoimmunity and thyroid cancer for many years. In fact, the first report was in 1955. While the association was plausible, all previous studies had potential for biases that could have influenced the results." 
For example, he said, multiple studies didn't control for confounders, while others didn't account for the possibility that cancer could have triggered an immune response. "Other case-control studies could have been affected by selection bias, where a diagnosis of thyroid autoimmunity leads to thyroid cancer identification and entry into the study," he said. "Finally, medical surveillance of people diagnosed with thyroid autoimmunity could lead to overdiagnosis, where small, subclinical cancers are diagnosed in those patients but not identified in people who are not under medical follow-up." 
For the new retrospective case-control study, researchers compared 451 active-duty members of the U.S. military who developed papillary thyroid cancer from the period of 1996-2014 to matched controls (61% of all subjects were men and the mean age was 36). Those with cancer had their serum collected 3-5 years and 7-10 years before the date of diagnosis - the index date for all subjects. Some of those considered to have thyroid autoimmunity had conditions such as Graves' disease and Hashimoto's thyroiditis. 
"Eighty-five percent of cases (379 of 451) had a thyroid-related diagnosis recorded ... before their index date, compared with 5% of controls," the researchers reported. "Most cases (80%) had classical papillary thyroid cancer, with the rest having the follicular variant of papillary thyroid cancer."  
After adjustment to account for various confounders, those who were positive for thyroid peroxidase antibodies 7-10 years prior to the index date were more likely to have developed thyroid cancer (OR = 1.90, 95% CI, 1.33-2.70). "The results could not be fully explained by diagnosis of thyroid autoimmunity," the researchers reported, "although when autoimmunity had been identified, thyroid cancers were diagnosed at a very early stage." 
Two groups - those with the highest thyroid antibody levels and women - faced the greatest risk, Dr. McLeod said. The results regarding women were the most surprising in the study, he said. "This is the first time this has been found. We think this result needs to be confirmed. If true, it could explain why women have a three-times-higher risk of thyroid cancer than men." 
The overall incidence of thyroid cancer in the U.S. was estimated at 13.49 per 100,000 person-years in 2018, with women (76% of cases) and Whites (81%) accounting for the majority. Rates have nearly doubled since 2000. The authors of a 2022 report that disclosed these numbers suggest the rise is due to overdiagnosis of small tumors. 
It's not clear why thyroid autoimmunity and thyroid cancer may be linked. "Chronic inflammation from thyroid autoimmunity could cause thyroid cancer, as chronic inflammation in other organs precedes cancers at those sites," Dr. McLeod said. "Alternatively, thyroid autoimmunity could appear to be associated with thyroid cancer because of biases inherent in previous studies, including previous diagnosis of autoimmunity. Thyroid cancer could also induce an immune response, which mimics thyroid autoimmunity and could bias assessment." 
As for screening of patients with thyroid autoimmunity, "the main danger is that you will commonly identify small thyroid cancers that would never become clinically apparent," he said. "This leads to unnecessary treatments that can cause complications and give people a cancer label, which can also cause harm. Diagnosis and treatment guidelines recommend against screening the general population for this reason." 
Many of those with thyroid autoimmunity developed small cancers, he said, most likely "detected from ultrasound being performed because autoimmune thyroid disease was known. If all patients with thyroid autoimmunity were screened for thyroid cancer, the likelihood is that many people's cancers would be overdiagnosed." 
The study was funded by the Walton Family Foundation. Dr. McLeod reports no disclosures. Some of the authors report various relationships with industry.

A new study provides more evidence that people with thyroid autoimmunity are more likely than are others to develop papillary thyroid cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 1.90, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-2.70), although the overall risk remains very low. 
Researchers aren't recommending routine screening in all patients with thyroid autoimmunity, but they're calling for more research into whether it's a good idea in severe cases. "This is the one circumstance where screening for subclinical disease could make sense," said Donald McLeod, MPH, PhD, an epidemiologist at Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital in Australia and lead author of the study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. "However, more research is needed because our study is the first to show this result, and we need to prove that screening would make a difference to the prognosis of these patients." 
According to Dr. McLeod, "doctors and patients have been wondering about the connection between thyroid autoimmunity and thyroid cancer for many years. In fact, the first report was in 1955. While the association was plausible, all previous studies had potential for biases that could have influenced the results." 
For example, he said, multiple studies didn't control for confounders, while others didn't account for the possibility that cancer could have triggered an immune response. "Other case-control studies could have been affected by selection bias, where a diagnosis of thyroid autoimmunity leads to thyroid cancer identification and entry into the study," he said. "Finally, medical surveillance of people diagnosed with thyroid autoimmunity could lead to overdiagnosis, where small, subclinical cancers are diagnosed in those patients but not identified in people who are not under medical follow-up." 
For the new retrospective case-control study, researchers compared 451 active-duty members of the U.S. military who developed papillary thyroid cancer from the period of 1996-2014 to matched controls (61% of all subjects were men and the mean age was 36). Those with cancer had their serum collected 3-5 years and 7-10 years before the date of diagnosis - the index date for all subjects. Some of those considered to have thyroid autoimmunity had conditions such as Graves' disease and Hashimoto's thyroiditis. 
"Eighty-five percent of cases (379 of 451) had a thyroid-related diagnosis recorded ... before their index date, compared with 5% of controls," the researchers reported. "Most cases (80%) had classical papillary thyroid cancer, with the rest having the follicular variant of papillary thyroid cancer."  
After adjustment to account for various confounders, those who were positive for thyroid peroxidase antibodies 7-10 years prior to the index date were more likely to have developed thyroid cancer (OR = 1.90, 95% CI, 1.33-2.70). "The results could not be fully explained by diagnosis of thyroid autoimmunity," the researchers reported, "although when autoimmunity had been identified, thyroid cancers were diagnosed at a very early stage." 
Two groups - those with the highest thyroid antibody levels and women - faced the greatest risk, Dr. McLeod said. The results regarding women were the most surprising in the study, he said. "This is the first time this has been found. We think this result needs to be confirmed. If true, it could explain why women have a three-times-higher risk of thyroid cancer than men." 
The overall incidence of thyroid cancer in the U.S. was estimated at 13.49 per 100,000 person-years in 2018, with women (76% of cases) and Whites (81%) accounting for the majority. Rates have nearly doubled since 2000. The authors of a 2022 report that disclosed these numbers suggest the rise is due to overdiagnosis of small tumors. 
It's not clear why thyroid autoimmunity and thyroid cancer may be linked. "Chronic inflammation from thyroid autoimmunity could cause thyroid cancer, as chronic inflammation in other organs precedes cancers at those sites," Dr. McLeod said. "Alternatively, thyroid autoimmunity could appear to be associated with thyroid cancer because of biases inherent in previous studies, including previous diagnosis of autoimmunity. Thyroid cancer could also induce an immune response, which mimics thyroid autoimmunity and could bias assessment." 
As for screening of patients with thyroid autoimmunity, "the main danger is that you will commonly identify small thyroid cancers that would never become clinically apparent," he said. "This leads to unnecessary treatments that can cause complications and give people a cancer label, which can also cause harm. Diagnosis and treatment guidelines recommend against screening the general population for this reason." 
Many of those with thyroid autoimmunity developed small cancers, he said, most likely "detected from ultrasound being performed because autoimmune thyroid disease was known. If all patients with thyroid autoimmunity were screened for thyroid cancer, the likelihood is that many people's cancers would be overdiagnosed." 
The study was funded by the Walton Family Foundation. Dr. McLeod reports no disclosures. Some of the authors report various relationships with industry.

Giving a boost radiation dose to the tumor bed following breast-conserving surgery and whole breast irradiation (WBI) has been shown to be effective at reducing recurrence of invasive breast cancer, and now a multinational randomized trial has shown that it can do the same for patients with non–low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

“The results provide the first randomized trial data to support the use of boost radiation after postoperative WBI in these patients to improve local control,” wrote the authors, led by Boon H. Chua, PhD, from the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Among 1,608 patients with DCIS with at least one clinical or pathological marker for increased risk of local recurrence, 5-year rates of freedom from local recurrence were 97.1% for patients assigned to received a tumor bed boost versus 92.7% for patients who did not receive a boost dose. This difference translated into a hazard ratio for recurrence with radiation boost of 0.47 (P < .001).

“Our results support the use of tumor-bed boost radiation after postoperative WBI in patients with non–low-risk DCIS to optimize local control, and the adoption of moderately hypofractionated whole breast irradiation in practice to improve the balance of local control, toxicity, and socioeconomic burdens of treatment,” the authors wrote in a study published in The Lancet.

The investigators, from cancer centers in Australia, Europe, and Canada, noted that the advent of screening mammography was followed by a substantial increase in the diagnosis of DCIS. They also noted that patients who undergo breast-conserving surgery for DCIS are at risk for local recurrence, and half of recurrences present as invasive disease.

In addition, they said, there were high recurrence rates in randomized clinical for patients with DCIS who received conventionally fractionated WBI without a tumor boost following surgery.

“Further, the inconvenience of a 5- to 6-week course of conventionally fractionated WBI decreased the quality of life of patients. Thus, tailoring radiation dose fractionation according to recurrence risk is a prominent controversy in the radiation treatment of DCIS,” they wrote.
 

Four-way trial

To see whether a tumor-bed boost following WBI and alternative WBI fractionation schedules could improve outcomes for patients with non–low-risk DCIS, the researchers enrolled patients and assigned them on an equal basis to one of four groups, in which they would receive either conventional or hypofractionated WBI with or without a tumor-bed boost.

The conventional WBI regimen consisted of a total of 50 Gy delivered over 25 fractions. The hypofractionated regimen consisted of a total dose of 42.5 Gy delivered in 16 fractions. Patients assigned to get a boost dose to the tumor bed received an additional 16 Gy in eight fractions after WBI.

Of the 1,608 patients enrolled who eligible for randomization, 803 received a boost dose and 805 did not. As noted before, the risk of recurrence at 5 years was significantly lower with boosting, with 5-year free-from-local-recurrence rates of 97.1%, compared with 92.7% for patients who did not get a tumor-bed boost.

There were no significant differences according to fractionation schedule, however: among all randomly assigned patients the rate of 5-year freedom from recurrence was 94.9% for both the conventionally fractionated and hypofractionated WBI groups.

Not surprisingly, patients who received the boost dose had higher rates of grade 2 or greater toxicities, including breast pain (14% vs. 10%; P = .03) and induration (14% vs. 6%; P < .001).

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Breast Cancer Now, OncoSuisse, Dutch Cancer Society, and Canadian Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Chua disclosed grant support from the organizations and others.

Giving a boost radiation dose to the tumor bed following breast-conserving surgery and whole breast irradiation (WBI) has been shown to be effective at reducing recurrence of invasive breast cancer, and now a multinational randomized trial has shown that it can do the same for patients with non–low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

“The results provide the first randomized trial data to support the use of boost radiation after postoperative WBI in these patients to improve local control,” wrote the authors, led by Boon H. Chua, PhD, from the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Among 1,608 patients with DCIS with at least one clinical or pathological marker for increased risk of local recurrence, 5-year rates of freedom from local recurrence were 97.1% for patients assigned to received a tumor bed boost versus 92.7% for patients who did not receive a boost dose. This difference translated into a hazard ratio for recurrence with radiation boost of 0.47 (P < .001).

“Our results support the use of tumor-bed boost radiation after postoperative WBI in patients with non–low-risk DCIS to optimize local control, and the adoption of moderately hypofractionated whole breast irradiation in practice to improve the balance of local control, toxicity, and socioeconomic burdens of treatment,” the authors wrote in a study published in The Lancet.

The investigators, from cancer centers in Australia, Europe, and Canada, noted that the advent of screening mammography was followed by a substantial increase in the diagnosis of DCIS. They also noted that patients who undergo breast-conserving surgery for DCIS are at risk for local recurrence, and half of recurrences present as invasive disease.

In addition, they said, there were high recurrence rates in randomized clinical for patients with DCIS who received conventionally fractionated WBI without a tumor boost following surgery.

“Further, the inconvenience of a 5- to 6-week course of conventionally fractionated WBI decreased the quality of life of patients. Thus, tailoring radiation dose fractionation according to recurrence risk is a prominent controversy in the radiation treatment of DCIS,” they wrote.
 

Four-way trial

To see whether a tumor-bed boost following WBI and alternative WBI fractionation schedules could improve outcomes for patients with non–low-risk DCIS, the researchers enrolled patients and assigned them on an equal basis to one of four groups, in which they would receive either conventional or hypofractionated WBI with or without a tumor-bed boost.

The conventional WBI regimen consisted of a total of 50 Gy delivered over 25 fractions. The hypofractionated regimen consisted of a total dose of 42.5 Gy delivered in 16 fractions. Patients assigned to get a boost dose to the tumor bed received an additional 16 Gy in eight fractions after WBI.

Of the 1,608 patients enrolled who eligible for randomization, 803 received a boost dose and 805 did not. As noted before, the risk of recurrence at 5 years was significantly lower with boosting, with 5-year free-from-local-recurrence rates of 97.1%, compared with 92.7% for patients who did not get a tumor-bed boost.

There were no significant differences according to fractionation schedule, however: among all randomly assigned patients the rate of 5-year freedom from recurrence was 94.9% for both the conventionally fractionated and hypofractionated WBI groups.

Not surprisingly, patients who received the boost dose had higher rates of grade 2 or greater toxicities, including breast pain (14% vs. 10%; P = .03) and induration (14% vs. 6%; P < .001).

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Breast Cancer Now, OncoSuisse, Dutch Cancer Society, and Canadian Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Chua disclosed grant support from the organizations and others.

Giving a boost radiation dose to the tumor bed following breast-conserving surgery and whole breast irradiation (WBI) has been shown to be effective at reducing recurrence of invasive breast cancer, and now a multinational randomized trial has shown that it can do the same for patients with non–low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

“The results provide the first randomized trial data to support the use of boost radiation after postoperative WBI in these patients to improve local control,” wrote the authors, led by Boon H. Chua, PhD, from the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Among 1,608 patients with DCIS with at least one clinical or pathological marker for increased risk of local recurrence, 5-year rates of freedom from local recurrence were 97.1% for patients assigned to received a tumor bed boost versus 92.7% for patients who did not receive a boost dose. This difference translated into a hazard ratio for recurrence with radiation boost of 0.47 (P < .001).

“Our results support the use of tumor-bed boost radiation after postoperative WBI in patients with non–low-risk DCIS to optimize local control, and the adoption of moderately hypofractionated whole breast irradiation in practice to improve the balance of local control, toxicity, and socioeconomic burdens of treatment,” the authors wrote in a study published in The Lancet.

The investigators, from cancer centers in Australia, Europe, and Canada, noted that the advent of screening mammography was followed by a substantial increase in the diagnosis of DCIS. They also noted that patients who undergo breast-conserving surgery for DCIS are at risk for local recurrence, and half of recurrences present as invasive disease.

In addition, they said, there were high recurrence rates in randomized clinical for patients with DCIS who received conventionally fractionated WBI without a tumor boost following surgery.

“Further, the inconvenience of a 5- to 6-week course of conventionally fractionated WBI decreased the quality of life of patients. Thus, tailoring radiation dose fractionation according to recurrence risk is a prominent controversy in the radiation treatment of DCIS,” they wrote.
 

Four-way trial

To see whether a tumor-bed boost following WBI and alternative WBI fractionation schedules could improve outcomes for patients with non–low-risk DCIS, the researchers enrolled patients and assigned them on an equal basis to one of four groups, in which they would receive either conventional or hypofractionated WBI with or without a tumor-bed boost.

The conventional WBI regimen consisted of a total of 50 Gy delivered over 25 fractions. The hypofractionated regimen consisted of a total dose of 42.5 Gy delivered in 16 fractions. Patients assigned to get a boost dose to the tumor bed received an additional 16 Gy in eight fractions after WBI.

Of the 1,608 patients enrolled who eligible for randomization, 803 received a boost dose and 805 did not. As noted before, the risk of recurrence at 5 years was significantly lower with boosting, with 5-year free-from-local-recurrence rates of 97.1%, compared with 92.7% for patients who did not get a tumor-bed boost.

There were no significant differences according to fractionation schedule, however: among all randomly assigned patients the rate of 5-year freedom from recurrence was 94.9% for both the conventionally fractionated and hypofractionated WBI groups.

Not surprisingly, patients who received the boost dose had higher rates of grade 2 or greater toxicities, including breast pain (14% vs. 10%; P = .03) and induration (14% vs. 6%; P < .001).

The study was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Breast Cancer Now, OncoSuisse, Dutch Cancer Society, and Canadian Cancer Trials Group. Dr. Chua disclosed grant support from the organizations and others.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)–guided through-the-needle biopsies (TTNBs) of pancreatic cystic lesions are sufficient for accurate molecular analysis, which offers a superior alternative to cyst fluid obtained via fine-needle aspiration, based on a prospective study.

For highest diagnostic clarity, next-generation sequencing (NGS) of TTNBs can be paired with histology, lead author Charlotte Vestrup Rift, MD, PhD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues reported.

“The diagnostic algorithm for the management of [pancreatic cystic lesions] includes endoscopic ultrasound examination with aspiration of cyst fluid for cytology,” the investigators wrote in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. “However, the reported sensitivity of cytology is low [at 54%]. A new microforceps, introduced through a 19-gauge needle, has proven useful for procurement of [TTNBs] that represent both the epithelial and stromal component of the cyst wall. TTNBs have a high sensitivity of 86% for the diagnosis of mucinous cysts.”

Dr. Rift and colleagues evaluated the impact of introducing NGS to the diagnostic process. They noted that concomitant mutations in GNAS and KRAS are diagnostic for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs), while other mutations have been linked with progression to cancer.

The study involved 101 patients with pancreatic cystic lesions larger than 15 mm in diameter, mean age of 68 years, among whom 91 had residual TTNBs available after microscopic analysis. These samples underwent a 51-gene NGS panel that included the “most prevalent hot-spot mutations.” Diagnoses were sorted into four categories: neoplastic cyst, mucinous cyst, IPMN, or serous cystic neoplasm.

The primary endpoint was diagnostic yield, both for molecular analysis of TTNBs and for molecular analysis plus histopathology of TTNBs. Sensitivity and specificity of NGS were also determined using histopathology as the gold standard.

Relying on NGS alone, diagnostic yields were 44.5% and 27.7% for detecting a mucinous cyst and determining type of cyst, respectively. These yields rose to 73.3% and 70.3%, respectively, when NGS was used with microscopic evaluation. Continuing with this combined approach, sensitivity and specificity were 83.7% and 81.8%, respectively, for the diagnosis of a mucinous cyst. Sensitivity and specificity were higher still, at 87.2% and 84.6%, respectively, for identifying IPMNs.

The adverse-event rate was 9.9%, with a risk of postprocedure acute pancreatitis of 8.9 % and procedure-associated intracystic bleeding of 3%, according to the authors.

Limitations of the study include the relatively small sample size and the single-center design.

“TTNB-NGS is not sufficient as a stand-alone diagnostic tool as of yet but has a high diagnostic yield when combined with microscopic evaluation and subtyping by immunohistochemistry,” the investigators concluded. “The advantage of EUS-TTNB over EUS–[fine-needle aspiration] is the ability to perform detailed cyst subtyping and the high technical success rate of the procedure. ... However, the procedure comes with a risk of adverse events and thus should be offered to patients where the value of an exact diagnosis outweighs the risks.”

“Molecular subtyping is emerging as a useful clinical test for diagnosing pancreatic cysts,” said Margaret Geraldine Keane, MBBS, MSc, of Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, although she noted that NGS remains expensive and sporadically available, “which limits its clinical utility and incorporation into diagnostic algorithms for pancreatic cysts. In the future, as the cost of sequencing reduces, and availability improves, this may change.”

For now, Dr. Keane advised physicians to reserve molecular subtyping for cases in which “accurate cyst subtyping will change management ... or when other tests have not provided a clear diagnosis.”

She said the present study is valuable because better diagnostic tests are badly needed for patients with pancreatic cysts, considering the high rate of surgical overtreatment.

“Having more diagnostic tests, such as those described in this publication [to be used on their own or in combination] to decide which patients need surgery, is important,” Dr. Keane said who was not involved in the study.

Better diagnostic tests could also improve outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer, she said, noting a 5-year survival rate of 10%.

“This outcome is in large part attributable to the late stage at which the majority of patients are diagnosed,” Dr. Keane said. “If patients can be diagnosed earlier, survival dramatically improves. Improvements in diagnostic tests for premalignant pancreatic cystic lesions are therefore vital.”

The study was supported by Rigshospitalets Research Foundation, The Novo Nordisk Foundation, The Danish Cancer Society, and others, although they did not have a role in conducting the study or preparing the manuscript. One investigator disclosed a relationship with MediGlobe. The other investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Keane disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)–guided through-the-needle biopsies (TTNBs) of pancreatic cystic lesions are sufficient for accurate molecular analysis, which offers a superior alternative to cyst fluid obtained via fine-needle aspiration, based on a prospective study.

For highest diagnostic clarity, next-generation sequencing (NGS) of TTNBs can be paired with histology, lead author Charlotte Vestrup Rift, MD, PhD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues reported.

“The diagnostic algorithm for the management of [pancreatic cystic lesions] includes endoscopic ultrasound examination with aspiration of cyst fluid for cytology,” the investigators wrote in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. “However, the reported sensitivity of cytology is low [at 54%]. A new microforceps, introduced through a 19-gauge needle, has proven useful for procurement of [TTNBs] that represent both the epithelial and stromal component of the cyst wall. TTNBs have a high sensitivity of 86% for the diagnosis of mucinous cysts.”

Dr. Rift and colleagues evaluated the impact of introducing NGS to the diagnostic process. They noted that concomitant mutations in GNAS and KRAS are diagnostic for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs), while other mutations have been linked with progression to cancer.

The study involved 101 patients with pancreatic cystic lesions larger than 15 mm in diameter, mean age of 68 years, among whom 91 had residual TTNBs available after microscopic analysis. These samples underwent a 51-gene NGS panel that included the “most prevalent hot-spot mutations.” Diagnoses were sorted into four categories: neoplastic cyst, mucinous cyst, IPMN, or serous cystic neoplasm.

The primary endpoint was diagnostic yield, both for molecular analysis of TTNBs and for molecular analysis plus histopathology of TTNBs. Sensitivity and specificity of NGS were also determined using histopathology as the gold standard.

Relying on NGS alone, diagnostic yields were 44.5% and 27.7% for detecting a mucinous cyst and determining type of cyst, respectively. These yields rose to 73.3% and 70.3%, respectively, when NGS was used with microscopic evaluation. Continuing with this combined approach, sensitivity and specificity were 83.7% and 81.8%, respectively, for the diagnosis of a mucinous cyst. Sensitivity and specificity were higher still, at 87.2% and 84.6%, respectively, for identifying IPMNs.

The adverse-event rate was 9.9%, with a risk of postprocedure acute pancreatitis of 8.9 % and procedure-associated intracystic bleeding of 3%, according to the authors.

Limitations of the study include the relatively small sample size and the single-center design.

“TTNB-NGS is not sufficient as a stand-alone diagnostic tool as of yet but has a high diagnostic yield when combined with microscopic evaluation and subtyping by immunohistochemistry,” the investigators concluded. “The advantage of EUS-TTNB over EUS–[fine-needle aspiration] is the ability to perform detailed cyst subtyping and the high technical success rate of the procedure. ... However, the procedure comes with a risk of adverse events and thus should be offered to patients where the value of an exact diagnosis outweighs the risks.”

“Molecular subtyping is emerging as a useful clinical test for diagnosing pancreatic cysts,” said Margaret Geraldine Keane, MBBS, MSc, of Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, although she noted that NGS remains expensive and sporadically available, “which limits its clinical utility and incorporation into diagnostic algorithms for pancreatic cysts. In the future, as the cost of sequencing reduces, and availability improves, this may change.”

For now, Dr. Keane advised physicians to reserve molecular subtyping for cases in which “accurate cyst subtyping will change management ... or when other tests have not provided a clear diagnosis.”

She said the present study is valuable because better diagnostic tests are badly needed for patients with pancreatic cysts, considering the high rate of surgical overtreatment.

“Having more diagnostic tests, such as those described in this publication [to be used on their own or in combination] to decide which patients need surgery, is important,” Dr. Keane said who was not involved in the study.

Better diagnostic tests could also improve outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer, she said, noting a 5-year survival rate of 10%.

“This outcome is in large part attributable to the late stage at which the majority of patients are diagnosed,” Dr. Keane said. “If patients can be diagnosed earlier, survival dramatically improves. Improvements in diagnostic tests for premalignant pancreatic cystic lesions are therefore vital.”

The study was supported by Rigshospitalets Research Foundation, The Novo Nordisk Foundation, The Danish Cancer Society, and others, although they did not have a role in conducting the study or preparing the manuscript. One investigator disclosed a relationship with MediGlobe. The other investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Keane disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)–guided through-the-needle biopsies (TTNBs) of pancreatic cystic lesions are sufficient for accurate molecular analysis, which offers a superior alternative to cyst fluid obtained via fine-needle aspiration, based on a prospective study.

For highest diagnostic clarity, next-generation sequencing (NGS) of TTNBs can be paired with histology, lead author Charlotte Vestrup Rift, MD, PhD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues reported.

“The diagnostic algorithm for the management of [pancreatic cystic lesions] includes endoscopic ultrasound examination with aspiration of cyst fluid for cytology,” the investigators wrote in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. “However, the reported sensitivity of cytology is low [at 54%]. A new microforceps, introduced through a 19-gauge needle, has proven useful for procurement of [TTNBs] that represent both the epithelial and stromal component of the cyst wall. TTNBs have a high sensitivity of 86% for the diagnosis of mucinous cysts.”

Dr. Rift and colleagues evaluated the impact of introducing NGS to the diagnostic process. They noted that concomitant mutations in GNAS and KRAS are diagnostic for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs), while other mutations have been linked with progression to cancer.

The study involved 101 patients with pancreatic cystic lesions larger than 15 mm in diameter, mean age of 68 years, among whom 91 had residual TTNBs available after microscopic analysis. These samples underwent a 51-gene NGS panel that included the “most prevalent hot-spot mutations.” Diagnoses were sorted into four categories: neoplastic cyst, mucinous cyst, IPMN, or serous cystic neoplasm.

The primary endpoint was diagnostic yield, both for molecular analysis of TTNBs and for molecular analysis plus histopathology of TTNBs. Sensitivity and specificity of NGS were also determined using histopathology as the gold standard.

Relying on NGS alone, diagnostic yields were 44.5% and 27.7% for detecting a mucinous cyst and determining type of cyst, respectively. These yields rose to 73.3% and 70.3%, respectively, when NGS was used with microscopic evaluation. Continuing with this combined approach, sensitivity and specificity were 83.7% and 81.8%, respectively, for the diagnosis of a mucinous cyst. Sensitivity and specificity were higher still, at 87.2% and 84.6%, respectively, for identifying IPMNs.

The adverse-event rate was 9.9%, with a risk of postprocedure acute pancreatitis of 8.9 % and procedure-associated intracystic bleeding of 3%, according to the authors.

Limitations of the study include the relatively small sample size and the single-center design.

“TTNB-NGS is not sufficient as a stand-alone diagnostic tool as of yet but has a high diagnostic yield when combined with microscopic evaluation and subtyping by immunohistochemistry,” the investigators concluded. “The advantage of EUS-TTNB over EUS–[fine-needle aspiration] is the ability to perform detailed cyst subtyping and the high technical success rate of the procedure. ... However, the procedure comes with a risk of adverse events and thus should be offered to patients where the value of an exact diagnosis outweighs the risks.”

“Molecular subtyping is emerging as a useful clinical test for diagnosing pancreatic cysts,” said Margaret Geraldine Keane, MBBS, MSc, of Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, although she noted that NGS remains expensive and sporadically available, “which limits its clinical utility and incorporation into diagnostic algorithms for pancreatic cysts. In the future, as the cost of sequencing reduces, and availability improves, this may change.”

For now, Dr. Keane advised physicians to reserve molecular subtyping for cases in which “accurate cyst subtyping will change management ... or when other tests have not provided a clear diagnosis.”

She said the present study is valuable because better diagnostic tests are badly needed for patients with pancreatic cysts, considering the high rate of surgical overtreatment.

“Having more diagnostic tests, such as those described in this publication [to be used on their own or in combination] to decide which patients need surgery, is important,” Dr. Keane said who was not involved in the study.

Better diagnostic tests could also improve outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer, she said, noting a 5-year survival rate of 10%.

“This outcome is in large part attributable to the late stage at which the majority of patients are diagnosed,” Dr. Keane said. “If patients can be diagnosed earlier, survival dramatically improves. Improvements in diagnostic tests for premalignant pancreatic cystic lesions are therefore vital.”

The study was supported by Rigshospitalets Research Foundation, The Novo Nordisk Foundation, The Danish Cancer Society, and others, although they did not have a role in conducting the study or preparing the manuscript. One investigator disclosed a relationship with MediGlobe. The other investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Keane disclosed no conflicts of interest.

An international team of researchers have developed a “molecular map” of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and used it to refine genetic subtypes and variations that appear to be linked to clinical outcomes.

Released in a report in Nature Genetics, the map has doubled the number of genetic traits linked the disease from around 100 to 202, lead author Binyamin A. Knisbacher, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard Medical Schoo, Boston, said in an interview.

“It also delineated the molecular landscape of the two immunoglobulin gene (IGHV) subtypes, refined CLL subtyping, and built richer genetic prognostic models,” he said.

According to Dr. Knisbacher, CLL “has been at the forefront of genomic discovery,” and research has shown that there’s a wide variety of somatic mutations that drive CLL initiation across the patient population. However, as many as 10% of cases don’t appear to be driven by any known genetic variation, he said, and there’s a need to identify more subtypes and “build richer prognostic models of patient survival” based on genetics and multiomics such as genomics, transcriptomics, and epigenomics.

For the new study, researchers analyzed RNA and DNA from 1,095 patients with CLL and 54 patients with monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis and built what they say is the largest CLL dataset in existence. It’s twice the size of previous datasets, Dr. Knisbacher said.

“We found that RNA expression data was extremely informative for characterizing CLL,” Dr. Knisbacher said. “The RNA expression subtypes refined the ‘classic’ two IGHV subtypes. It is well documented that patients with U-CLL (IGHV-unmutated CLL) have substantially worse clinical outcome in comparison to M-CLL patients (IGHV-mutated CLLs). We found that M-CLLs that have RNA expression profiles similar to U-CLLs have worse survival than M-CLLs with a typical expression profile. Failure-free survival was 50% shorter – 5.3 versus 10.7 years median failure-free survival.”

In addition, he said, “U-CLLs with expression similar to M-CLLs had better survival than U-CLLs with an RNA expression profile typical to U-CLLs.”

The researchers have made their molecular map publicly available at https://cllmap.org/. Researchers can use it “to discover more about each subtype of CLL, and these future studies can help to improve clinical prognosis for the benefit of the patient,” Dr. Knisbacher said.

The study authors added that “this molecular foundation may allow for better prediction of response to therapy or provide the basis for rational combination of novel agents.”

Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief science officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, said in an interview that the study “provides foundational data further subtyping CLL patients and outcomes. It identifies new targets for therapy or diagnostic predictions in the future. This type of foundational work has proven invaluable in the development of new medicines for cancer in general.”

While there are many medications that have improved therapeutic outcomes in CLL, he added, “cures – or life-long disease control –remain elusive for many patients. Therefore, new molecular insights are needed that could personalize therapies or even lead to entirely new therapies.”

In addition, he said, although prevention of CLL still remains elusive, “it is conceivable that some of the mutations found in this paper occur early in the CLL trajectory, perhaps even before the disease is presented clinically.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Broad/IBM Cancer Resistance Research Project. Dr. Knisbacher and several other authors disclose that they are inventors on a patent related to CLL. Several authors report various relationships with industry. Dr. Greenberger has no disclosures.
 

An international team of researchers have developed a “molecular map” of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and used it to refine genetic subtypes and variations that appear to be linked to clinical outcomes.

Released in a report in Nature Genetics, the map has doubled the number of genetic traits linked the disease from around 100 to 202, lead author Binyamin A. Knisbacher, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard Medical Schoo, Boston, said in an interview.

“It also delineated the molecular landscape of the two immunoglobulin gene (IGHV) subtypes, refined CLL subtyping, and built richer genetic prognostic models,” he said.

According to Dr. Knisbacher, CLL “has been at the forefront of genomic discovery,” and research has shown that there’s a wide variety of somatic mutations that drive CLL initiation across the patient population. However, as many as 10% of cases don’t appear to be driven by any known genetic variation, he said, and there’s a need to identify more subtypes and “build richer prognostic models of patient survival” based on genetics and multiomics such as genomics, transcriptomics, and epigenomics.

For the new study, researchers analyzed RNA and DNA from 1,095 patients with CLL and 54 patients with monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis and built what they say is the largest CLL dataset in existence. It’s twice the size of previous datasets, Dr. Knisbacher said.

“We found that RNA expression data was extremely informative for characterizing CLL,” Dr. Knisbacher said. “The RNA expression subtypes refined the ‘classic’ two IGHV subtypes. It is well documented that patients with U-CLL (IGHV-unmutated CLL) have substantially worse clinical outcome in comparison to M-CLL patients (IGHV-mutated CLLs). We found that M-CLLs that have RNA expression profiles similar to U-CLLs have worse survival than M-CLLs with a typical expression profile. Failure-free survival was 50% shorter – 5.3 versus 10.7 years median failure-free survival.”

In addition, he said, “U-CLLs with expression similar to M-CLLs had better survival than U-CLLs with an RNA expression profile typical to U-CLLs.”

The researchers have made their molecular map publicly available at https://cllmap.org/. Researchers can use it “to discover more about each subtype of CLL, and these future studies can help to improve clinical prognosis for the benefit of the patient,” Dr. Knisbacher said.

The study authors added that “this molecular foundation may allow for better prediction of response to therapy or provide the basis for rational combination of novel agents.”

Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief science officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, said in an interview that the study “provides foundational data further subtyping CLL patients and outcomes. It identifies new targets for therapy or diagnostic predictions in the future. This type of foundational work has proven invaluable in the development of new medicines for cancer in general.”

While there are many medications that have improved therapeutic outcomes in CLL, he added, “cures – or life-long disease control –remain elusive for many patients. Therefore, new molecular insights are needed that could personalize therapies or even lead to entirely new therapies.”

In addition, he said, although prevention of CLL still remains elusive, “it is conceivable that some of the mutations found in this paper occur early in the CLL trajectory, perhaps even before the disease is presented clinically.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Broad/IBM Cancer Resistance Research Project. Dr. Knisbacher and several other authors disclose that they are inventors on a patent related to CLL. Several authors report various relationships with industry. Dr. Greenberger has no disclosures.
 

An international team of researchers have developed a “molecular map” of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and used it to refine genetic subtypes and variations that appear to be linked to clinical outcomes.

Released in a report in Nature Genetics, the map has doubled the number of genetic traits linked the disease from around 100 to 202, lead author Binyamin A. Knisbacher, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard Medical Schoo, Boston, said in an interview.

“It also delineated the molecular landscape of the two immunoglobulin gene (IGHV) subtypes, refined CLL subtyping, and built richer genetic prognostic models,” he said.

According to Dr. Knisbacher, CLL “has been at the forefront of genomic discovery,” and research has shown that there’s a wide variety of somatic mutations that drive CLL initiation across the patient population. However, as many as 10% of cases don’t appear to be driven by any known genetic variation, he said, and there’s a need to identify more subtypes and “build richer prognostic models of patient survival” based on genetics and multiomics such as genomics, transcriptomics, and epigenomics.

For the new study, researchers analyzed RNA and DNA from 1,095 patients with CLL and 54 patients with monoclonal B cell lymphocytosis and built what they say is the largest CLL dataset in existence. It’s twice the size of previous datasets, Dr. Knisbacher said.

“We found that RNA expression data was extremely informative for characterizing CLL,” Dr. Knisbacher said. “The RNA expression subtypes refined the ‘classic’ two IGHV subtypes. It is well documented that patients with U-CLL (IGHV-unmutated CLL) have substantially worse clinical outcome in comparison to M-CLL patients (IGHV-mutated CLLs). We found that M-CLLs that have RNA expression profiles similar to U-CLLs have worse survival than M-CLLs with a typical expression profile. Failure-free survival was 50% shorter – 5.3 versus 10.7 years median failure-free survival.”

In addition, he said, “U-CLLs with expression similar to M-CLLs had better survival than U-CLLs with an RNA expression profile typical to U-CLLs.”

The researchers have made their molecular map publicly available at https://cllmap.org/. Researchers can use it “to discover more about each subtype of CLL, and these future studies can help to improve clinical prognosis for the benefit of the patient,” Dr. Knisbacher said.

The study authors added that “this molecular foundation may allow for better prediction of response to therapy or provide the basis for rational combination of novel agents.”

Lee Greenberger, PhD, chief science officer of the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, said in an interview that the study “provides foundational data further subtyping CLL patients and outcomes. It identifies new targets for therapy or diagnostic predictions in the future. This type of foundational work has proven invaluable in the development of new medicines for cancer in general.”

While there are many medications that have improved therapeutic outcomes in CLL, he added, “cures – or life-long disease control –remain elusive for many patients. Therefore, new molecular insights are needed that could personalize therapies or even lead to entirely new therapies.”

In addition, he said, although prevention of CLL still remains elusive, “it is conceivable that some of the mutations found in this paper occur early in the CLL trajectory, perhaps even before the disease is presented clinically.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Broad/IBM Cancer Resistance Research Project. Dr. Knisbacher and several other authors disclose that they are inventors on a patent related to CLL. Several authors report various relationships with industry. Dr. Greenberger has no disclosures.
 

In June, Rebecca A. Shatsky, MD, a medical oncologist, turned to Twitter for advice: “What do you do/say when a patient won’t believe you that they have #CANCER. As an oncologist this comes up every now and then and proves very difficult, looking to hear how others have dealt and what works best to help patients here.”

About a dozen people weighed in, offering various thoughts on how to approach these thorny situations. One oncologist suggested revisiting the conversation a few days later, after the patient has more time to process; others suggested sharing the pathology report or images with their patient.

Another person simply noted that “if a [patient] doesn’t want to believe they have cancer, no amount of evidence will change that.”

Based on the initial responses, “it appears there is a paucity of answers sadly,” wrote Dr. Shatsky, a breast cancer specialist at University of California, San Diego.

But for Dr. Shatsky, these incidents spoke to another alarming trend: a rampant mistrust of the medical community that is “becoming MORE common instead of less.”
 

‘Erosion of trust’

Overall, experts say that situations like the one Dr. Shatsky described – patients who don’t believe their cancer diagnosis – occur infrequently.

But denial comes in many forms, and complete disbelief is probably the most extreme. Patients may also downplay the severity of their disease, shy away from hearing bad news, or refuse standard treatment or their doctor’s advice.

Like Dr. Shatsky, these experts say they are also seeing a troubling increase in patients who don’t believe their physicians or don’t trust their recommendations.

“I think there’s an erosion of trust in expertise, in general,” said Ronald M. Epstein, MD, professor of family medicine and psychiatry & oncology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.). “People distrust science more than they did maybe 20 or 30 years ago, or at least that seems to be the case.”

Denial and distrust in cancer care are not new. These responses – along with wishful thinking, distraction, and minimization – are long-established responses among oncology patients. In 1972, Avery D. Weisman, MD, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote his book “On Dying and Denying,” and ever since, denial and similar responses have been explored in the oncology literature.

Much of this research has focused on the latter stages of illness, but denial can be present at diagnosis as well. One study of patients with breast cancer, carried out nearly 30 years ago, suggested that denial of diagnosis generally occurs early in a patient’s course of illness and decreases over time, but may arise again in the terminal phase of cancer. Another analysis, evaluating this phenomenon across 13 studies, found that the prevalence of denial at diagnosis ranged from 4% to as high as 47%. 

An oncologist delivers somewhere between 10,000 to 30,000 episodes of bad news over the course of a career, so there’s always a chance that a patient will respond in a way that’s on the “spectrum of disbelief,” said Paul Helft, MD, professor of medicine and recently retired director of the ethics center at Indiana University, Indianapolis.

Diane Meier, MD, said denial and disbelief are natural, protective responses to difficult or frightening news.

When patients exhibit denial, Dr. Meier advises patience and time. Physicians can also ask the patient if there’s a person they trust – a family member or faith leader, for example – who could speak on their behalf about possible next steps.

“The main thing is not to find ourselves in opposition to the patient ... or threaten them with what will happen if they don’t listen to us,” said Dr. Meier, a professor of geriatrics and palliative medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

And physicians should be careful when they feel themselves wanting to argue with or lecture a patient.

“The minute we feel that urge coming on, that’s a signal to us to stop and realize that something is going on inside the patient that we don’t understand,” she said. “Forcing information on a person who is signaling in every way that they don’t want it and can’t handle it is not a recipe for trust or a high-quality relationship.”
 

Refusing expert advice

Jennifer Lycette, MD, has encountered a growing number of patients who don’t believe their disease should be treated the way she or other oncologists recommend. Some patients remain adamant about sticking with alternative medicine or doing nothing, despite growing sicker.

“I’ve even had situations where the tumor might be visible, like growing through the skin, and people still double down that whatever they’re doing is working,” said Dr. Lycette, a hematologist and medical oncologist at the Providence Seaside Cancer Center in Seaside, Ore.

She encourages these patients to get a second opinion and tries to keep an open mind about alternative approaches. If she’s not familiar with something a patient is considering, she’ll research it with them.

But she makes sure to point out any risks associated with these approaches. While some alternative therapies can support patients through standard treatment, she strongly cautions patients against using these therapies in place of standard treatment.

“The bottom line is to keep the lines of communication open,” she said.

Like Dr. Lycette, Dr. Helft has been encountering more patients with alternative health beliefs who rely on people outside of the medical system for elements of their care.

In the past, he used to tell these patients that science is incomplete, and physicians don’t know everything. But he’s changed his tune.

“I’ve taken to just telling them what I believe, which is that the majority of things that they hear and are being sold are almost certainly ineffective and a waste of money,” he said. “I’ve come to accept that people are adults, and they make their own decisions, and sometimes they make decisions that are not the ones that I would make or want them to make.”
 

Delivering bad news

Dr. Helft often sees patients seeking a second or third opinion on their cancer. These patients may not all be in denial about having cancer, but they typically don’t want to hear bad news, which can make treatment a challenge.

To handle these scenarios, Dr. Helft has developed a system of responses for engaging with patients. He borrows an approach described in 2008 where he acknowledges a patient’s emotional distress and tries to understand why they may not want to know more.

For instance, he might tell a patient: “I have formulated an opinion about your situation, but it sounds as if you have heard many negative descriptions previously. I don’t want to burden you with one more if you don’t feel prepared to talk about it.”

Trying to understand why a patient is resistant to hearing about their condition may also help build trust. “If you could help me understand your thinking about why you would rather not talk about prognosis, it will help me know more about how to discuss other serious issues,” is one approach highlighted in the 2008 guide.

Behind the scenes, Dr. Helft will privately assess how much information about a patient’s prognosis is salient to their decision making, especially if the patient appears to misunderstand their prognosis or if there are various options for treatment over the long-term. 

Dr. Helft will also ask patients how much they want to know. Do they want to discuss no options? A few? All and in detail?

This approach implicitly recognizes that the information is highly stressful but avoids being overly blunt, he notes. It can also help steer patients on the right treatment track and minimize poor decision making.

Samantha Winemaker, MD, a palliative care physician in Hamilton, Ont., finds patients often go through an adjustment period after learning about a new diagnosis. The reaction tends to range from needing time to accept the diagnosis as real to jumping in to understand as much as possible.

Dr. Winemaker, who cohosts “The Waiting Room Revolution” podcast that focuses on helping people deal with a serious illness, encourages physicians to be realistic with patients about their prognosis and deliver news with a dose of gentle truth from the start.

“We should invite patients ‘into the know’ as early as possible, while maintaining hope,” she said.

She calls this approach of balancing hope and reality “walking two roads” and said it extends throughout the illness journey. This way, patients are less likely to be surprised if things make a turn for the worse.

“We should never wait until the 11th hour to give someone bad news,” she said.
 

‘We all want to hope’

Dr. Epstein has listened to hundreds of hours of discussion between doctors and patients as part of his research on communication. He often hears doctors initiate difficult conversations by lecturing a patient.

Many physicians mistakenly believe that, if they say something authoritatively, patients will believe it, he said. But the opposite often happens – patients shut down and instinctively distrust the physician.

Dr. Epstein teaches doctors to establish trust before providing difficult information. Even when a patient expresses outlandish ideas about their illness, treat them with dignity and respect, he advised. “If people don’t feel respected, you don’t have a leg to stand on and there’s no point in trying to convince them.”

Patients and physicians often leave conversations with discordant views of what’s ahead. In one study, two-thirds of patients held wildly different views on their prognosis, compared with their doctors, and most had no idea they were at odds with their physician.

In the past, Dr. Epstein has tried to close the gap between his understanding of a patient’s prognosis and the patient’s. But more recently he has become less convinced of the need to do so.

“What I try to do now is focus more on the uncertainty there,” he said. He uses phrases like: “Given that we don’t know how long you will live, I just need to know what you would want me to do if things took a turn for the worse” or “I’m worried that if you don’t have the surgery, you might experience more pain in the future.”

He urged doctors to pay attention to their word choices. Use care with the phrase “response rate” – patients sometimes mistake this to mean that they are being cured. And, instead of telling patients they “must” do something, he says that he worries about consequences for them if they don’t.

He asks patients what they’re hearing from other people in their lives or online. Sometimes patients say that people close to them are encouraging them to stop medical treatment or pursue alternative therapies. When that happens, Dr. Epstein asks to meet with that person to talk to them about his concerns for their loved one.

He also acknowledges calculated uncertainty often exists in medicine. That, he says, leaves open the potential for exceptional circumstances.

“And we all want to hope,” Dr. Epstein said.

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

In June, Rebecca A. Shatsky, MD, a medical oncologist, turned to Twitter for advice: “What do you do/say when a patient won’t believe you that they have #CANCER. As an oncologist this comes up every now and then and proves very difficult, looking to hear how others have dealt and what works best to help patients here.”

About a dozen people weighed in, offering various thoughts on how to approach these thorny situations. One oncologist suggested revisiting the conversation a few days later, after the patient has more time to process; others suggested sharing the pathology report or images with their patient.

Another person simply noted that “if a [patient] doesn’t want to believe they have cancer, no amount of evidence will change that.”

Based on the initial responses, “it appears there is a paucity of answers sadly,” wrote Dr. Shatsky, a breast cancer specialist at University of California, San Diego.

But for Dr. Shatsky, these incidents spoke to another alarming trend: a rampant mistrust of the medical community that is “becoming MORE common instead of less.”
 

‘Erosion of trust’

Overall, experts say that situations like the one Dr. Shatsky described – patients who don’t believe their cancer diagnosis – occur infrequently.

But denial comes in many forms, and complete disbelief is probably the most extreme. Patients may also downplay the severity of their disease, shy away from hearing bad news, or refuse standard treatment or their doctor’s advice.

Like Dr. Shatsky, these experts say they are also seeing a troubling increase in patients who don’t believe their physicians or don’t trust their recommendations.

“I think there’s an erosion of trust in expertise, in general,” said Ronald M. Epstein, MD, professor of family medicine and psychiatry & oncology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.). “People distrust science more than they did maybe 20 or 30 years ago, or at least that seems to be the case.”

Denial and distrust in cancer care are not new. These responses – along with wishful thinking, distraction, and minimization – are long-established responses among oncology patients. In 1972, Avery D. Weisman, MD, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote his book “On Dying and Denying,” and ever since, denial and similar responses have been explored in the oncology literature.

Much of this research has focused on the latter stages of illness, but denial can be present at diagnosis as well. One study of patients with breast cancer, carried out nearly 30 years ago, suggested that denial of diagnosis generally occurs early in a patient’s course of illness and decreases over time, but may arise again in the terminal phase of cancer. Another analysis, evaluating this phenomenon across 13 studies, found that the prevalence of denial at diagnosis ranged from 4% to as high as 47%. 

An oncologist delivers somewhere between 10,000 to 30,000 episodes of bad news over the course of a career, so there’s always a chance that a patient will respond in a way that’s on the “spectrum of disbelief,” said Paul Helft, MD, professor of medicine and recently retired director of the ethics center at Indiana University, Indianapolis.

Diane Meier, MD, said denial and disbelief are natural, protective responses to difficult or frightening news.

When patients exhibit denial, Dr. Meier advises patience and time. Physicians can also ask the patient if there’s a person they trust – a family member or faith leader, for example – who could speak on their behalf about possible next steps.

“The main thing is not to find ourselves in opposition to the patient ... or threaten them with what will happen if they don’t listen to us,” said Dr. Meier, a professor of geriatrics and palliative medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

And physicians should be careful when they feel themselves wanting to argue with or lecture a patient.

“The minute we feel that urge coming on, that’s a signal to us to stop and realize that something is going on inside the patient that we don’t understand,” she said. “Forcing information on a person who is signaling in every way that they don’t want it and can’t handle it is not a recipe for trust or a high-quality relationship.”
 

Refusing expert advice

Jennifer Lycette, MD, has encountered a growing number of patients who don’t believe their disease should be treated the way she or other oncologists recommend. Some patients remain adamant about sticking with alternative medicine or doing nothing, despite growing sicker.

“I’ve even had situations where the tumor might be visible, like growing through the skin, and people still double down that whatever they’re doing is working,” said Dr. Lycette, a hematologist and medical oncologist at the Providence Seaside Cancer Center in Seaside, Ore.

She encourages these patients to get a second opinion and tries to keep an open mind about alternative approaches. If she’s not familiar with something a patient is considering, she’ll research it with them.

But she makes sure to point out any risks associated with these approaches. While some alternative therapies can support patients through standard treatment, she strongly cautions patients against using these therapies in place of standard treatment.

“The bottom line is to keep the lines of communication open,” she said.

Like Dr. Lycette, Dr. Helft has been encountering more patients with alternative health beliefs who rely on people outside of the medical system for elements of their care.

In the past, he used to tell these patients that science is incomplete, and physicians don’t know everything. But he’s changed his tune.

“I’ve taken to just telling them what I believe, which is that the majority of things that they hear and are being sold are almost certainly ineffective and a waste of money,” he said. “I’ve come to accept that people are adults, and they make their own decisions, and sometimes they make decisions that are not the ones that I would make or want them to make.”
 

Delivering bad news

Dr. Helft often sees patients seeking a second or third opinion on their cancer. These patients may not all be in denial about having cancer, but they typically don’t want to hear bad news, which can make treatment a challenge.

To handle these scenarios, Dr. Helft has developed a system of responses for engaging with patients. He borrows an approach described in 2008 where he acknowledges a patient’s emotional distress and tries to understand why they may not want to know more.

For instance, he might tell a patient: “I have formulated an opinion about your situation, but it sounds as if you have heard many negative descriptions previously. I don’t want to burden you with one more if you don’t feel prepared to talk about it.”

Trying to understand why a patient is resistant to hearing about their condition may also help build trust. “If you could help me understand your thinking about why you would rather not talk about prognosis, it will help me know more about how to discuss other serious issues,” is one approach highlighted in the 2008 guide.

Behind the scenes, Dr. Helft will privately assess how much information about a patient’s prognosis is salient to their decision making, especially if the patient appears to misunderstand their prognosis or if there are various options for treatment over the long-term. 

Dr. Helft will also ask patients how much they want to know. Do they want to discuss no options? A few? All and in detail?

This approach implicitly recognizes that the information is highly stressful but avoids being overly blunt, he notes. It can also help steer patients on the right treatment track and minimize poor decision making.

Samantha Winemaker, MD, a palliative care physician in Hamilton, Ont., finds patients often go through an adjustment period after learning about a new diagnosis. The reaction tends to range from needing time to accept the diagnosis as real to jumping in to understand as much as possible.

Dr. Winemaker, who cohosts “The Waiting Room Revolution” podcast that focuses on helping people deal with a serious illness, encourages physicians to be realistic with patients about their prognosis and deliver news with a dose of gentle truth from the start.

“We should invite patients ‘into the know’ as early as possible, while maintaining hope,” she said.

She calls this approach of balancing hope and reality “walking two roads” and said it extends throughout the illness journey. This way, patients are less likely to be surprised if things make a turn for the worse.

“We should never wait until the 11th hour to give someone bad news,” she said.
 

‘We all want to hope’

Dr. Epstein has listened to hundreds of hours of discussion between doctors and patients as part of his research on communication. He often hears doctors initiate difficult conversations by lecturing a patient.

Many physicians mistakenly believe that, if they say something authoritatively, patients will believe it, he said. But the opposite often happens – patients shut down and instinctively distrust the physician.

Dr. Epstein teaches doctors to establish trust before providing difficult information. Even when a patient expresses outlandish ideas about their illness, treat them with dignity and respect, he advised. “If people don’t feel respected, you don’t have a leg to stand on and there’s no point in trying to convince them.”

Patients and physicians often leave conversations with discordant views of what’s ahead. In one study, two-thirds of patients held wildly different views on their prognosis, compared with their doctors, and most had no idea they were at odds with their physician.

In the past, Dr. Epstein has tried to close the gap between his understanding of a patient’s prognosis and the patient’s. But more recently he has become less convinced of the need to do so.

“What I try to do now is focus more on the uncertainty there,” he said. He uses phrases like: “Given that we don’t know how long you will live, I just need to know what you would want me to do if things took a turn for the worse” or “I’m worried that if you don’t have the surgery, you might experience more pain in the future.”

He urged doctors to pay attention to their word choices. Use care with the phrase “response rate” – patients sometimes mistake this to mean that they are being cured. And, instead of telling patients they “must” do something, he says that he worries about consequences for them if they don’t.

He asks patients what they’re hearing from other people in their lives or online. Sometimes patients say that people close to them are encouraging them to stop medical treatment or pursue alternative therapies. When that happens, Dr. Epstein asks to meet with that person to talk to them about his concerns for their loved one.

He also acknowledges calculated uncertainty often exists in medicine. That, he says, leaves open the potential for exceptional circumstances.

“And we all want to hope,” Dr. Epstein said.

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

In June, Rebecca A. Shatsky, MD, a medical oncologist, turned to Twitter for advice: “What do you do/say when a patient won’t believe you that they have #CANCER. As an oncologist this comes up every now and then and proves very difficult, looking to hear how others have dealt and what works best to help patients here.”

About a dozen people weighed in, offering various thoughts on how to approach these thorny situations. One oncologist suggested revisiting the conversation a few days later, after the patient has more time to process; others suggested sharing the pathology report or images with their patient.

Another person simply noted that “if a [patient] doesn’t want to believe they have cancer, no amount of evidence will change that.”

Based on the initial responses, “it appears there is a paucity of answers sadly,” wrote Dr. Shatsky, a breast cancer specialist at University of California, San Diego.

But for Dr. Shatsky, these incidents spoke to another alarming trend: a rampant mistrust of the medical community that is “becoming MORE common instead of less.”
 

‘Erosion of trust’

Overall, experts say that situations like the one Dr. Shatsky described – patients who don’t believe their cancer diagnosis – occur infrequently.

But denial comes in many forms, and complete disbelief is probably the most extreme. Patients may also downplay the severity of their disease, shy away from hearing bad news, or refuse standard treatment or their doctor’s advice.

Like Dr. Shatsky, these experts say they are also seeing a troubling increase in patients who don’t believe their physicians or don’t trust their recommendations.

“I think there’s an erosion of trust in expertise, in general,” said Ronald M. Epstein, MD, professor of family medicine and psychiatry & oncology at the University of Rochester (N.Y.). “People distrust science more than they did maybe 20 or 30 years ago, or at least that seems to be the case.”

Denial and distrust in cancer care are not new. These responses – along with wishful thinking, distraction, and minimization – are long-established responses among oncology patients. In 1972, Avery D. Weisman, MD, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote his book “On Dying and Denying,” and ever since, denial and similar responses have been explored in the oncology literature.

Much of this research has focused on the latter stages of illness, but denial can be present at diagnosis as well. One study of patients with breast cancer, carried out nearly 30 years ago, suggested that denial of diagnosis generally occurs early in a patient’s course of illness and decreases over time, but may arise again in the terminal phase of cancer. Another analysis, evaluating this phenomenon across 13 studies, found that the prevalence of denial at diagnosis ranged from 4% to as high as 47%. 

An oncologist delivers somewhere between 10,000 to 30,000 episodes of bad news over the course of a career, so there’s always a chance that a patient will respond in a way that’s on the “spectrum of disbelief,” said Paul Helft, MD, professor of medicine and recently retired director of the ethics center at Indiana University, Indianapolis.

Diane Meier, MD, said denial and disbelief are natural, protective responses to difficult or frightening news.

When patients exhibit denial, Dr. Meier advises patience and time. Physicians can also ask the patient if there’s a person they trust – a family member or faith leader, for example – who could speak on their behalf about possible next steps.

“The main thing is not to find ourselves in opposition to the patient ... or threaten them with what will happen if they don’t listen to us,” said Dr. Meier, a professor of geriatrics and palliative medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

And physicians should be careful when they feel themselves wanting to argue with or lecture a patient.

“The minute we feel that urge coming on, that’s a signal to us to stop and realize that something is going on inside the patient that we don’t understand,” she said. “Forcing information on a person who is signaling in every way that they don’t want it and can’t handle it is not a recipe for trust or a high-quality relationship.”
 

Refusing expert advice

Jennifer Lycette, MD, has encountered a growing number of patients who don’t believe their disease should be treated the way she or other oncologists recommend. Some patients remain adamant about sticking with alternative medicine or doing nothing, despite growing sicker.

“I’ve even had situations where the tumor might be visible, like growing through the skin, and people still double down that whatever they’re doing is working,” said Dr. Lycette, a hematologist and medical oncologist at the Providence Seaside Cancer Center in Seaside, Ore.

She encourages these patients to get a second opinion and tries to keep an open mind about alternative approaches. If she’s not familiar with something a patient is considering, she’ll research it with them.

But she makes sure to point out any risks associated with these approaches. While some alternative therapies can support patients through standard treatment, she strongly cautions patients against using these therapies in place of standard treatment.

“The bottom line is to keep the lines of communication open,” she said.

Like Dr. Lycette, Dr. Helft has been encountering more patients with alternative health beliefs who rely on people outside of the medical system for elements of their care.

In the past, he used to tell these patients that science is incomplete, and physicians don’t know everything. But he’s changed his tune.

“I’ve taken to just telling them what I believe, which is that the majority of things that they hear and are being sold are almost certainly ineffective and a waste of money,” he said. “I’ve come to accept that people are adults, and they make their own decisions, and sometimes they make decisions that are not the ones that I would make or want them to make.”
 

Delivering bad news

Dr. Helft often sees patients seeking a second or third opinion on their cancer. These patients may not all be in denial about having cancer, but they typically don’t want to hear bad news, which can make treatment a challenge.

To handle these scenarios, Dr. Helft has developed a system of responses for engaging with patients. He borrows an approach described in 2008 where he acknowledges a patient’s emotional distress and tries to understand why they may not want to know more.

For instance, he might tell a patient: “I have formulated an opinion about your situation, but it sounds as if you have heard many negative descriptions previously. I don’t want to burden you with one more if you don’t feel prepared to talk about it.”

Trying to understand why a patient is resistant to hearing about their condition may also help build trust. “If you could help me understand your thinking about why you would rather not talk about prognosis, it will help me know more about how to discuss other serious issues,” is one approach highlighted in the 2008 guide.

Behind the scenes, Dr. Helft will privately assess how much information about a patient’s prognosis is salient to their decision making, especially if the patient appears to misunderstand their prognosis or if there are various options for treatment over the long-term. 

Dr. Helft will also ask patients how much they want to know. Do they want to discuss no options? A few? All and in detail?

This approach implicitly recognizes that the information is highly stressful but avoids being overly blunt, he notes. It can also help steer patients on the right treatment track and minimize poor decision making.

Samantha Winemaker, MD, a palliative care physician in Hamilton, Ont., finds patients often go through an adjustment period after learning about a new diagnosis. The reaction tends to range from needing time to accept the diagnosis as real to jumping in to understand as much as possible.

Dr. Winemaker, who cohosts “The Waiting Room Revolution” podcast that focuses on helping people deal with a serious illness, encourages physicians to be realistic with patients about their prognosis and deliver news with a dose of gentle truth from the start.

“We should invite patients ‘into the know’ as early as possible, while maintaining hope,” she said.

She calls this approach of balancing hope and reality “walking two roads” and said it extends throughout the illness journey. This way, patients are less likely to be surprised if things make a turn for the worse.

“We should never wait until the 11th hour to give someone bad news,” she said.
 

‘We all want to hope’

Dr. Epstein has listened to hundreds of hours of discussion between doctors and patients as part of his research on communication. He often hears doctors initiate difficult conversations by lecturing a patient.

Many physicians mistakenly believe that, if they say something authoritatively, patients will believe it, he said. But the opposite often happens – patients shut down and instinctively distrust the physician.

Dr. Epstein teaches doctors to establish trust before providing difficult information. Even when a patient expresses outlandish ideas about their illness, treat them with dignity and respect, he advised. “If people don’t feel respected, you don’t have a leg to stand on and there’s no point in trying to convince them.”

Patients and physicians often leave conversations with discordant views of what’s ahead. In one study, two-thirds of patients held wildly different views on their prognosis, compared with their doctors, and most had no idea they were at odds with their physician.

In the past, Dr. Epstein has tried to close the gap between his understanding of a patient’s prognosis and the patient’s. But more recently he has become less convinced of the need to do so.

“What I try to do now is focus more on the uncertainty there,” he said. He uses phrases like: “Given that we don’t know how long you will live, I just need to know what you would want me to do if things took a turn for the worse” or “I’m worried that if you don’t have the surgery, you might experience more pain in the future.”

He urged doctors to pay attention to their word choices. Use care with the phrase “response rate” – patients sometimes mistake this to mean that they are being cured. And, instead of telling patients they “must” do something, he says that he worries about consequences for them if they don’t.

He asks patients what they’re hearing from other people in their lives or online. Sometimes patients say that people close to them are encouraging them to stop medical treatment or pursue alternative therapies. When that happens, Dr. Epstein asks to meet with that person to talk to them about his concerns for their loved one.

He also acknowledges calculated uncertainty often exists in medicine. That, he says, leaves open the potential for exceptional circumstances.

“And we all want to hope,” Dr. Epstein said.

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