AVAHO

Long thought to be untreatable, KRAS is one of the most difficult to treat oncogenic drivers responsible for approximately 25% of all tumors, including 68% of pancreatic tumors and 20% of all non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC).

We now have a treatment – sotorasib – for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC that is driven by a KRAS mutation (G12C). And, now, there is a second treatment – adagrasib – under study, which, according to a presentation recently made at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looks promising.

Ras is a membrane-bound regulatory protein (G protein) belonging to the family of guanosine triphosphatases (GTPases). Ras functions as a guanosine diphosphate/triphosphate binary switch by cycling between the active GTP-bound and the inactive GDP-bound states in response to extracellular stimuli. The KRAS (G12C) mutation affects the active form of KRAS and results in abnormally high concentrations of GTP-bound KRAS leading to hyperactivation of downstream oncogenic pathways and uncontrolled cell growth, specifically of ERK and MEK signaling pathways.

At the ASCO annual meeting in June, Spira and colleagues reported the results of cohort A of the KRYSTAL-1 study evaluating adagrasib as second-line therapy patients with advanced solid tumors harboring a KRAS (G12C) mutation. Like sotorasib, adagrasib is a KRAS (G12C) inhibitor that irreversibly and selectively binds KRAS (G12C), locking it in its inactive state. In this study, patients had to have failed first-line chemotherapy and immunotherapy with 43% of lung cancer patients responding. The 12-month overall survival (OS) was 51%, median overall survival was 12.6 and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months. Twenty-five patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutant NSCLC and active, untreated central nervous system metastases received adagrasib in a phase 1b cohort. The intracranial overall response rate was 31.6% and median intracranial PFS was 4.2 months. Systemic ORR was 35.0% (7/20), the disease control rate was 80.0% (16/20) and median duration of response was 9.6 months. Based on these data, a phase 3 trial evaluating adagrasib monotherapy versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with KRAS (G12C) mutant NSCLC is ongoing.

The Food and Drug Administration approval of sotorasib in 2021 was, in part, based on the results of a single-arm, phase 2, second-line study of patients who had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. An ORR rate of 37.1% was reported with a median PFS of 6.8 months and median OS of 12.5 months leading to the FDA approval. Responses were observed across the range of baseline PD-L1 expression levels: 48% of PD-L1 negative, 39% with PD-L1 between 1%-49%, and 22% of patients with a PD-L1 of greater than 50% having a response.

The major toxicities observed in these studies were gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting) and hepatic (elevated liver enzymes). About 97% of patients on adagrasib experienced any treatment-related adverse events, and 43% experienced a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event leading to dose reduction in 52% of patients, a dose interruption in 61% of patients, and a 7% discontinuation rate. About 70% of patients treated with sotorasib had a treatment-related adverse event of any grade, and 21% reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events.

A subgroup in the KRYSTAL-1 trial reported an intracranial ORR of 32% in patients with active, untreated CNS metastases. Median overall survival has not yet reached concordance between systemic and intracranial disease control was 88%. In addition, preliminary data from two patients with untreated CNS metastases from a phase 1b cohort found cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of adagrasib with a mean ratio of unbound brain-to-plasma concentration of 0.47, which is comparable or exceeds values for known CNS-penetrant tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Unfortunately, KRAS (G12C) is not the only KRAS mutation out there. There are a myriad of others, such as G12V and G12D. Hopefully, we will be seeing more drugs aimed at this set of important mutations. Another question, of course, is when and if these drugs will move to the first-line setting.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Long thought to be untreatable, KRAS is one of the most difficult to treat oncogenic drivers responsible for approximately 25% of all tumors, including 68% of pancreatic tumors and 20% of all non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC).

We now have a treatment – sotorasib – for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC that is driven by a KRAS mutation (G12C). And, now, there is a second treatment – adagrasib – under study, which, according to a presentation recently made at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looks promising.

Ras is a membrane-bound regulatory protein (G protein) belonging to the family of guanosine triphosphatases (GTPases). Ras functions as a guanosine diphosphate/triphosphate binary switch by cycling between the active GTP-bound and the inactive GDP-bound states in response to extracellular stimuli. The KRAS (G12C) mutation affects the active form of KRAS and results in abnormally high concentrations of GTP-bound KRAS leading to hyperactivation of downstream oncogenic pathways and uncontrolled cell growth, specifically of ERK and MEK signaling pathways.

At the ASCO annual meeting in June, Spira and colleagues reported the results of cohort A of the KRYSTAL-1 study evaluating adagrasib as second-line therapy patients with advanced solid tumors harboring a KRAS (G12C) mutation. Like sotorasib, adagrasib is a KRAS (G12C) inhibitor that irreversibly and selectively binds KRAS (G12C), locking it in its inactive state. In this study, patients had to have failed first-line chemotherapy and immunotherapy with 43% of lung cancer patients responding. The 12-month overall survival (OS) was 51%, median overall survival was 12.6 and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months. Twenty-five patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutant NSCLC and active, untreated central nervous system metastases received adagrasib in a phase 1b cohort. The intracranial overall response rate was 31.6% and median intracranial PFS was 4.2 months. Systemic ORR was 35.0% (7/20), the disease control rate was 80.0% (16/20) and median duration of response was 9.6 months. Based on these data, a phase 3 trial evaluating adagrasib monotherapy versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with KRAS (G12C) mutant NSCLC is ongoing.

The Food and Drug Administration approval of sotorasib in 2021 was, in part, based on the results of a single-arm, phase 2, second-line study of patients who had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. An ORR rate of 37.1% was reported with a median PFS of 6.8 months and median OS of 12.5 months leading to the FDA approval. Responses were observed across the range of baseline PD-L1 expression levels: 48% of PD-L1 negative, 39% with PD-L1 between 1%-49%, and 22% of patients with a PD-L1 of greater than 50% having a response.

The major toxicities observed in these studies were gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting) and hepatic (elevated liver enzymes). About 97% of patients on adagrasib experienced any treatment-related adverse events, and 43% experienced a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event leading to dose reduction in 52% of patients, a dose interruption in 61% of patients, and a 7% discontinuation rate. About 70% of patients treated with sotorasib had a treatment-related adverse event of any grade, and 21% reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events.

A subgroup in the KRYSTAL-1 trial reported an intracranial ORR of 32% in patients with active, untreated CNS metastases. Median overall survival has not yet reached concordance between systemic and intracranial disease control was 88%. In addition, preliminary data from two patients with untreated CNS metastases from a phase 1b cohort found cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of adagrasib with a mean ratio of unbound brain-to-plasma concentration of 0.47, which is comparable or exceeds values for known CNS-penetrant tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Unfortunately, KRAS (G12C) is not the only KRAS mutation out there. There are a myriad of others, such as G12V and G12D. Hopefully, we will be seeing more drugs aimed at this set of important mutations. Another question, of course, is when and if these drugs will move to the first-line setting.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

Long thought to be untreatable, KRAS is one of the most difficult to treat oncogenic drivers responsible for approximately 25% of all tumors, including 68% of pancreatic tumors and 20% of all non–small cell lung cancers (NSCLC).

We now have a treatment – sotorasib – for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC that is driven by a KRAS mutation (G12C). And, now, there is a second treatment – adagrasib – under study, which, according to a presentation recently made at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, looks promising.

Ras is a membrane-bound regulatory protein (G protein) belonging to the family of guanosine triphosphatases (GTPases). Ras functions as a guanosine diphosphate/triphosphate binary switch by cycling between the active GTP-bound and the inactive GDP-bound states in response to extracellular stimuli. The KRAS (G12C) mutation affects the active form of KRAS and results in abnormally high concentrations of GTP-bound KRAS leading to hyperactivation of downstream oncogenic pathways and uncontrolled cell growth, specifically of ERK and MEK signaling pathways.

At the ASCO annual meeting in June, Spira and colleagues reported the results of cohort A of the KRYSTAL-1 study evaluating adagrasib as second-line therapy patients with advanced solid tumors harboring a KRAS (G12C) mutation. Like sotorasib, adagrasib is a KRAS (G12C) inhibitor that irreversibly and selectively binds KRAS (G12C), locking it in its inactive state. In this study, patients had to have failed first-line chemotherapy and immunotherapy with 43% of lung cancer patients responding. The 12-month overall survival (OS) was 51%, median overall survival was 12.6 and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months. Twenty-five patients with KRAS (G12C)–mutant NSCLC and active, untreated central nervous system metastases received adagrasib in a phase 1b cohort. The intracranial overall response rate was 31.6% and median intracranial PFS was 4.2 months. Systemic ORR was 35.0% (7/20), the disease control rate was 80.0% (16/20) and median duration of response was 9.6 months. Based on these data, a phase 3 trial evaluating adagrasib monotherapy versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with KRAS (G12C) mutant NSCLC is ongoing.

The Food and Drug Administration approval of sotorasib in 2021 was, in part, based on the results of a single-arm, phase 2, second-line study of patients who had previously received platinum-based chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy. An ORR rate of 37.1% was reported with a median PFS of 6.8 months and median OS of 12.5 months leading to the FDA approval. Responses were observed across the range of baseline PD-L1 expression levels: 48% of PD-L1 negative, 39% with PD-L1 between 1%-49%, and 22% of patients with a PD-L1 of greater than 50% having a response.

The major toxicities observed in these studies were gastrointestinal (diarrhea, nausea, vomiting) and hepatic (elevated liver enzymes). About 97% of patients on adagrasib experienced any treatment-related adverse events, and 43% experienced a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event leading to dose reduction in 52% of patients, a dose interruption in 61% of patients, and a 7% discontinuation rate. About 70% of patients treated with sotorasib had a treatment-related adverse event of any grade, and 21% reported grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events.

A subgroup in the KRYSTAL-1 trial reported an intracranial ORR of 32% in patients with active, untreated CNS metastases. Median overall survival has not yet reached concordance between systemic and intracranial disease control was 88%. In addition, preliminary data from two patients with untreated CNS metastases from a phase 1b cohort found cerebrospinal fluid concentrations of adagrasib with a mean ratio of unbound brain-to-plasma concentration of 0.47, which is comparable or exceeds values for known CNS-penetrant tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Unfortunately, KRAS (G12C) is not the only KRAS mutation out there. There are a myriad of others, such as G12V and G12D. Hopefully, we will be seeing more drugs aimed at this set of important mutations. Another question, of course, is when and if these drugs will move to the first-line setting.

Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.

A new study confirms the very high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma faced by patients with cirrhosis who have been cured of hepatitis C, a finding the researchers hope will encourage clinicians to communicate risk information to patients and encourage regular HCC screening.

On average, the predicted probability of HCC in cirrhosis patients was 410 times greater than the equivalent probability in the general population, the study team found.

“As the prospect of HCV elimination approaches, a key challenge to the clinical community is the management of those who are cured of HCV but have a residual risk of HCC,” Hamish Innes, PhD, with Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, and colleagues wrote.

“Central to this is ensuring that cured cirrhosis patients understand the risk of HCC and are provided with appropriate surveillance,” they added. 

“Most patients with cirrhosis do not adhere to HCC screening guidelines,” Nina Beri, MD, medical oncologist with New York University Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.

The “important” finding in this study “should be conveyed to patients, as this may help improve screening adherence rates,” Dr. Beri said.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Findings may help promote screening uptake

Dr. Innes and colleagues compared the predicted probability of HCC in 1,803 Scottish adults (mean age, 50 years; 74% male) with cirrhosis and cured hepatitis C to the background risk in the general population of Scotland.

The mean predicted 3-year probability of HCC at the time of sustained viral response (SVR), determined using the aMAP prognostic model, was 3.64% (range, 0.012%-36.12%).

This contrasts with a 3-year HCC probability in the general population ranging from less than 0.0001% to 0.25% depending on demographics.

All patients with cirrhosis – even those at lowest risk – had a higher probability of HCC than the general population, but there was considerable heterogeneity from one patient to the next.

For example, the mean 3-year predicted probability was 18 times higher in the top quintile (9.8%) versus the lowest quintile (0.5%) of risk, the researchers found.

They could not identify a patient subgroup who exhibited a similar HCC risk profile to the general population, as was their hope going into the study.

Dr. Innes and colleagues have developed an online tool that allows clinicians to frame a patient›s 3-year HCC probability against the equivalent probability in the general population.

In the future, they said the scope of the tool could be extended by incorporating general population data from countries beyond Scotland.

“Our hope is that this tool will springboard patient-clinician discussions about HCC risk, and could mitigate low screening uptake,” Dr. Innes and colleagues wrote.
 

Curing HCV doesn’t eliminate risk

Commenting on the study, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said curing HCV is “very important and significantly reduces risk for complications, but it doesn’t return you to the normal population.”

Dr. Reau’s advice to cirrhosis patients: “Get screened twice a year.”

Dr. Beri said, in addition to conveying this risk to patients, “it is also important to disseminate this information to the community and to primary care practices, particularly as some patients may not currently follow in a specialized liver disease clinic.”

Also weighing in, Amit Singal, MD, chief of hepatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said this study highlights that underlying cirrhosis is “the strongest risk factor for the development of HCC.”

In contrast to other cancers, such as breast and colorectal cancer, in which high risk populations can be identified by readily available information such as age and sex, implementation of HCC screening programs requires identification of patients with cirrhosis, Dr. Singal noted.

“Underuse of HCC screening in clinical practice is often related to providers having difficulty at this step in the process and contributes to the high proportion of HCC detected at late stages,” he told this news organization.

“Availability of accurate noninvasive markers of fibrosis will hopefully help with better identification of patients with cirrhosis moving forward,” Dr. Singal said, “although we as hepatologists need to work closely with our primary care colleagues to ensure these tools are used routinely in at-risk patients, such as those with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, alcohol-associated liver disease, or history of cured (post-SVR) hepatitis C infection.”

The study was supported by the Medical Research Foundation and Public Health Scotland. Dr. Innes, Dr. Beri, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Singal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study confirms the very high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma faced by patients with cirrhosis who have been cured of hepatitis C, a finding the researchers hope will encourage clinicians to communicate risk information to patients and encourage regular HCC screening.

On average, the predicted probability of HCC in cirrhosis patients was 410 times greater than the equivalent probability in the general population, the study team found.

“As the prospect of HCV elimination approaches, a key challenge to the clinical community is the management of those who are cured of HCV but have a residual risk of HCC,” Hamish Innes, PhD, with Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, and colleagues wrote.

“Central to this is ensuring that cured cirrhosis patients understand the risk of HCC and are provided with appropriate surveillance,” they added. 

“Most patients with cirrhosis do not adhere to HCC screening guidelines,” Nina Beri, MD, medical oncologist with New York University Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.

The “important” finding in this study “should be conveyed to patients, as this may help improve screening adherence rates,” Dr. Beri said.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Findings may help promote screening uptake

Dr. Innes and colleagues compared the predicted probability of HCC in 1,803 Scottish adults (mean age, 50 years; 74% male) with cirrhosis and cured hepatitis C to the background risk in the general population of Scotland.

The mean predicted 3-year probability of HCC at the time of sustained viral response (SVR), determined using the aMAP prognostic model, was 3.64% (range, 0.012%-36.12%).

This contrasts with a 3-year HCC probability in the general population ranging from less than 0.0001% to 0.25% depending on demographics.

All patients with cirrhosis – even those at lowest risk – had a higher probability of HCC than the general population, but there was considerable heterogeneity from one patient to the next.

For example, the mean 3-year predicted probability was 18 times higher in the top quintile (9.8%) versus the lowest quintile (0.5%) of risk, the researchers found.

They could not identify a patient subgroup who exhibited a similar HCC risk profile to the general population, as was their hope going into the study.

Dr. Innes and colleagues have developed an online tool that allows clinicians to frame a patient›s 3-year HCC probability against the equivalent probability in the general population.

In the future, they said the scope of the tool could be extended by incorporating general population data from countries beyond Scotland.

“Our hope is that this tool will springboard patient-clinician discussions about HCC risk, and could mitigate low screening uptake,” Dr. Innes and colleagues wrote.
 

Curing HCV doesn’t eliminate risk

Commenting on the study, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said curing HCV is “very important and significantly reduces risk for complications, but it doesn’t return you to the normal population.”

Dr. Reau’s advice to cirrhosis patients: “Get screened twice a year.”

Dr. Beri said, in addition to conveying this risk to patients, “it is also important to disseminate this information to the community and to primary care practices, particularly as some patients may not currently follow in a specialized liver disease clinic.”

Also weighing in, Amit Singal, MD, chief of hepatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said this study highlights that underlying cirrhosis is “the strongest risk factor for the development of HCC.”

In contrast to other cancers, such as breast and colorectal cancer, in which high risk populations can be identified by readily available information such as age and sex, implementation of HCC screening programs requires identification of patients with cirrhosis, Dr. Singal noted.

“Underuse of HCC screening in clinical practice is often related to providers having difficulty at this step in the process and contributes to the high proportion of HCC detected at late stages,” he told this news organization.

“Availability of accurate noninvasive markers of fibrosis will hopefully help with better identification of patients with cirrhosis moving forward,” Dr. Singal said, “although we as hepatologists need to work closely with our primary care colleagues to ensure these tools are used routinely in at-risk patients, such as those with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, alcohol-associated liver disease, or history of cured (post-SVR) hepatitis C infection.”

The study was supported by the Medical Research Foundation and Public Health Scotland. Dr. Innes, Dr. Beri, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Singal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study confirms the very high risk of hepatocellular carcinoma faced by patients with cirrhosis who have been cured of hepatitis C, a finding the researchers hope will encourage clinicians to communicate risk information to patients and encourage regular HCC screening.

On average, the predicted probability of HCC in cirrhosis patients was 410 times greater than the equivalent probability in the general population, the study team found.

“As the prospect of HCV elimination approaches, a key challenge to the clinical community is the management of those who are cured of HCV but have a residual risk of HCC,” Hamish Innes, PhD, with Public Health Scotland, Glasgow, and colleagues wrote.

“Central to this is ensuring that cured cirrhosis patients understand the risk of HCC and are provided with appropriate surveillance,” they added. 

“Most patients with cirrhosis do not adhere to HCC screening guidelines,” Nina Beri, MD, medical oncologist with New York University Perlmutter Cancer Center, who wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview.

The “important” finding in this study “should be conveyed to patients, as this may help improve screening adherence rates,” Dr. Beri said.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Findings may help promote screening uptake

Dr. Innes and colleagues compared the predicted probability of HCC in 1,803 Scottish adults (mean age, 50 years; 74% male) with cirrhosis and cured hepatitis C to the background risk in the general population of Scotland.

The mean predicted 3-year probability of HCC at the time of sustained viral response (SVR), determined using the aMAP prognostic model, was 3.64% (range, 0.012%-36.12%).

This contrasts with a 3-year HCC probability in the general population ranging from less than 0.0001% to 0.25% depending on demographics.

All patients with cirrhosis – even those at lowest risk – had a higher probability of HCC than the general population, but there was considerable heterogeneity from one patient to the next.

For example, the mean 3-year predicted probability was 18 times higher in the top quintile (9.8%) versus the lowest quintile (0.5%) of risk, the researchers found.

They could not identify a patient subgroup who exhibited a similar HCC risk profile to the general population, as was their hope going into the study.

Dr. Innes and colleagues have developed an online tool that allows clinicians to frame a patient›s 3-year HCC probability against the equivalent probability in the general population.

In the future, they said the scope of the tool could be extended by incorporating general population data from countries beyond Scotland.

“Our hope is that this tool will springboard patient-clinician discussions about HCC risk, and could mitigate low screening uptake,” Dr. Innes and colleagues wrote.
 

Curing HCV doesn’t eliminate risk

Commenting on the study, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said curing HCV is “very important and significantly reduces risk for complications, but it doesn’t return you to the normal population.”

Dr. Reau’s advice to cirrhosis patients: “Get screened twice a year.”

Dr. Beri said, in addition to conveying this risk to patients, “it is also important to disseminate this information to the community and to primary care practices, particularly as some patients may not currently follow in a specialized liver disease clinic.”

Also weighing in, Amit Singal, MD, chief of hepatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said this study highlights that underlying cirrhosis is “the strongest risk factor for the development of HCC.”

In contrast to other cancers, such as breast and colorectal cancer, in which high risk populations can be identified by readily available information such as age and sex, implementation of HCC screening programs requires identification of patients with cirrhosis, Dr. Singal noted.

“Underuse of HCC screening in clinical practice is often related to providers having difficulty at this step in the process and contributes to the high proportion of HCC detected at late stages,” he told this news organization.

“Availability of accurate noninvasive markers of fibrosis will hopefully help with better identification of patients with cirrhosis moving forward,” Dr. Singal said, “although we as hepatologists need to work closely with our primary care colleagues to ensure these tools are used routinely in at-risk patients, such as those with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, alcohol-associated liver disease, or history of cured (post-SVR) hepatitis C infection.”

The study was supported by the Medical Research Foundation and Public Health Scotland. Dr. Innes, Dr. Beri, Dr. Reau, and Dr. Singal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Based on biomarker findings, some patients may be able to avoid radiation therapy following breast-conserving surgery, suggest results from the LUMINA trial.

The women in this trial who skipped radiotherapy, and were treated with breast-conserving surgery followed by endocrine therapy, had an overall survival rate of 97.2%. The local recurrence rate was 2.3%, which was the study’s primary endpoint.

“Women 55 and over, with low-grade luminal A-type breast cancer, following breast conserving surgery and treated with endocrine therapy alone, had a very low rate of local recurrence at 5 years,” commented lead author Timothy Joseph Whelan, MD.

“The prospective and multicenter nature of this study supports that these patients are candidates for the omission of radiotherapy,” said Dr. Whelan, oncology professor and Canada Research Chair in Breast Cancer Research at McMaster University and a radiation oncologist at the Juravinski Cancer Centre, both in Hamilton, Ont.

“Over 300,000 [people] are diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in North America annually, the majority in the United States,” said Dr. Whelan. “We estimate that these results could apply to 10%-15% of them, so about 30,000-40,000 women per year who could avoid the morbidity, the cost, and inconvenience of radiotherapy.”

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Whelan explained that adjuvant radiation therapy is generally prescribed following breast conservation therapy to lower the risk of local recurrence, but the treatment is also associated with acute and late toxicity. In addition, it can incur high costs and inconvenience for the patient.

Previous studies have found that among women older than 60 with low-grade, luminal A-type breast cancer who received only breast-conserving surgery, there was a low rate of local recurrence. In women aged older than 70 years, the risk of local recurrence was about 4%-5%.

This latest study focused on patients with breast cancer with a luminal A subtype combined with clinical pathological factors (defined as estrogen receptor ≥ 1%, progesterone receptor > 20%, HER2 negative, and Ki67 ≤ 13.25%).

This was a prospective, multicenter cohort study that included 501 patients aged 55 years and older who had undergone breast-conserving surgery for grade 1-2 T1N0 cancer.

The median patient age was 67, with 442 (88%) older than 75 years. The median tumor size was 1.1 cm.

Median follow-up was 5 years. The cohort was followed every 6 months for the first 2 years and then annually.

The primary outcome was local recurrence defined as time from enrollment to any invasive or noninvasive cancer in the ipsilateral breast, and secondary endpoints included contralateral breast cancer, relapse-free survival based on any recurrence, disease free survival, second cancer or death, and overall survival.

At five years, there were 10 events of local recurrence, for a rate of 2.3%. For secondary outcomes, there were eight events of contralateral breast cancer (1.9%); 12 relapses for a recurrence-free survival rate of 97.3%; 47 disease progression (23 second nonbreast cancers) for a disease-free survival rate of 89.9%; and 13 deaths, including 1 from breast cancer, for an overall survival of 97.2%.
 

Confirms earlier data

Penny R. Anderson, MD, professor in the department of radiation oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, commented that this was an “extremely well-designed and important study.

“It has identified a specific subset of patients to be appropriate candidates for consideration of omission of adjuvant breast radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery,” she added.

Although previously published trials have helped identify certain patient groups who have a low risk of local recurrence – and therefore, for whom it may be appropriate to omit radiation – they have been based on the traditional clinical and pathologic factors of tumor size, margin status, receptor status, and patient age.

“This LUMINA trial utilizes the molecular-defined intrinsic subtype of luminal A breast cancer to provide additional prognostic information,” she said. “This finding certainly suggests that this group of patients are ideal candidates for the omission of radiation, and that this should be discussed with these patients as a potential option in their treatment management.”

Overall, this trial is a “significant addition and a very relevant contribution to the literature demonstrating that adjuvant breast radiation may safely be omitted in this particular subgroup of breast cancer patients,” she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Commenting on the study, Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, told this news organization that she thinks the take-home message is that there is “clearly a population of early-stage breast cancer [patients] who after lumpectomy do not benefit from radiation.”

“I think where there will be discussion will be what is the optimal way of identifying that group,” she said, noting that in this study the patients were screened for Ki67, a marker of proliferation. 

Testing for Ki67 is not the standard of care, Dr. Gralow pointed out, and there is also a problem with reproducibility since “every lab does it somewhat differently, because it is not a standard pathology approach.”

There are now many unanswered questions, she noted. “Do we need that central testing of Ki67? Do we need to develop guidelines for how to do this? Is this better than if you’ve already run an Oncotype or a MammaPrint test to see if the patient needs chemo, then would that suffice? That is where the discussion will be. We can reduce the number of patients who need radiation without an increase in local regional recurrence.”

In terms of clinical practice, Dr. Gralow explained that there are already some  data supporting the omission of radiation therapy in an older population with ER-positive small low-grade tumors, and this has become a standard clinical practice. “It’s not based on solid data, but based on an accumulation of retrospective analyses,” she said. “So we have already been doing it for an older population. This would bring down the age group, and it would better define it, and test it prospectively.”
 

Limitations to note

Also commenting on the study, Deborah Axelrod, MD, director of clinical breast surgery at New York University Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, explained that, in the last decade, knowledge about the behavior of breast cancers based on molecular subtyping has greatly increased. “Results of studies such as this have given us information on which cancers need more treatment and for which cancers we can de-escalate treatment,” she said. “Refining this more, it’s about reducing the morbidity and improving quality of life without compromising the oncological outcome.”

She noted that a big strength of this LUMINA study is that it is prospective and multicenter. “It has been supported by other past studies as well and will define for which patients with newly treated breast cancers can we omit radiation, which has been the standard of care,” said Dr. Axelrod. “It is based on the age and biology of breast cancer in defining which patient can forgo radiation and showed a low risk of recurrence in a specific population of women with a favorable breast cancer profile”

There were limitations to the study. “There is a 5-year follow-up and local recurrence for ER-positive cancers continues to rise after 5 years, so longer-term follow-up will be important,” she said. Also, she pointed out that it is a single-arm study so there is no radiation therapy comparison arm.

Other limitations were that the patients were older with smaller tumors, and all were committed to 5 years of endocrine therapy, although compliance with that has not been reported. There may be some older patients who prefer radiation therapy, especially a week of accelerated partial breast irradiation, rather than commit to 5 years of endocrine therapy as mandated in this study.

“Overall, the takeaway message for patients is that the omission of radiation therapy should be considered an option for older women with localized breast cancer with favorable features who receive endocrine therapies,” said Dr. Axelrod.

LUMINA was sponsored by the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and the Canadian Cancer Society. Dr. Whelan has reported research funding from Exact Sciences (Inst). Dr. Axelrod and Dr. Anderson reported no disclosures. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Hexal, Puma BioTechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

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

Based on biomarker findings, some patients may be able to avoid radiation therapy following breast-conserving surgery, suggest results from the LUMINA trial.

The women in this trial who skipped radiotherapy, and were treated with breast-conserving surgery followed by endocrine therapy, had an overall survival rate of 97.2%. The local recurrence rate was 2.3%, which was the study’s primary endpoint.

“Women 55 and over, with low-grade luminal A-type breast cancer, following breast conserving surgery and treated with endocrine therapy alone, had a very low rate of local recurrence at 5 years,” commented lead author Timothy Joseph Whelan, MD.

“The prospective and multicenter nature of this study supports that these patients are candidates for the omission of radiotherapy,” said Dr. Whelan, oncology professor and Canada Research Chair in Breast Cancer Research at McMaster University and a radiation oncologist at the Juravinski Cancer Centre, both in Hamilton, Ont.

“Over 300,000 [people] are diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in North America annually, the majority in the United States,” said Dr. Whelan. “We estimate that these results could apply to 10%-15% of them, so about 30,000-40,000 women per year who could avoid the morbidity, the cost, and inconvenience of radiotherapy.”

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Whelan explained that adjuvant radiation therapy is generally prescribed following breast conservation therapy to lower the risk of local recurrence, but the treatment is also associated with acute and late toxicity. In addition, it can incur high costs and inconvenience for the patient.

Previous studies have found that among women older than 60 with low-grade, luminal A-type breast cancer who received only breast-conserving surgery, there was a low rate of local recurrence. In women aged older than 70 years, the risk of local recurrence was about 4%-5%.

This latest study focused on patients with breast cancer with a luminal A subtype combined with clinical pathological factors (defined as estrogen receptor ≥ 1%, progesterone receptor > 20%, HER2 negative, and Ki67 ≤ 13.25%).

This was a prospective, multicenter cohort study that included 501 patients aged 55 years and older who had undergone breast-conserving surgery for grade 1-2 T1N0 cancer.

The median patient age was 67, with 442 (88%) older than 75 years. The median tumor size was 1.1 cm.

Median follow-up was 5 years. The cohort was followed every 6 months for the first 2 years and then annually.

The primary outcome was local recurrence defined as time from enrollment to any invasive or noninvasive cancer in the ipsilateral breast, and secondary endpoints included contralateral breast cancer, relapse-free survival based on any recurrence, disease free survival, second cancer or death, and overall survival.

At five years, there were 10 events of local recurrence, for a rate of 2.3%. For secondary outcomes, there were eight events of contralateral breast cancer (1.9%); 12 relapses for a recurrence-free survival rate of 97.3%; 47 disease progression (23 second nonbreast cancers) for a disease-free survival rate of 89.9%; and 13 deaths, including 1 from breast cancer, for an overall survival of 97.2%.
 

Confirms earlier data

Penny R. Anderson, MD, professor in the department of radiation oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, commented that this was an “extremely well-designed and important study.

“It has identified a specific subset of patients to be appropriate candidates for consideration of omission of adjuvant breast radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery,” she added.

Although previously published trials have helped identify certain patient groups who have a low risk of local recurrence – and therefore, for whom it may be appropriate to omit radiation – they have been based on the traditional clinical and pathologic factors of tumor size, margin status, receptor status, and patient age.

“This LUMINA trial utilizes the molecular-defined intrinsic subtype of luminal A breast cancer to provide additional prognostic information,” she said. “This finding certainly suggests that this group of patients are ideal candidates for the omission of radiation, and that this should be discussed with these patients as a potential option in their treatment management.”

Overall, this trial is a “significant addition and a very relevant contribution to the literature demonstrating that adjuvant breast radiation may safely be omitted in this particular subgroup of breast cancer patients,” she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Commenting on the study, Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, told this news organization that she thinks the take-home message is that there is “clearly a population of early-stage breast cancer [patients] who after lumpectomy do not benefit from radiation.”

“I think where there will be discussion will be what is the optimal way of identifying that group,” she said, noting that in this study the patients were screened for Ki67, a marker of proliferation. 

Testing for Ki67 is not the standard of care, Dr. Gralow pointed out, and there is also a problem with reproducibility since “every lab does it somewhat differently, because it is not a standard pathology approach.”

There are now many unanswered questions, she noted. “Do we need that central testing of Ki67? Do we need to develop guidelines for how to do this? Is this better than if you’ve already run an Oncotype or a MammaPrint test to see if the patient needs chemo, then would that suffice? That is where the discussion will be. We can reduce the number of patients who need radiation without an increase in local regional recurrence.”

In terms of clinical practice, Dr. Gralow explained that there are already some  data supporting the omission of radiation therapy in an older population with ER-positive small low-grade tumors, and this has become a standard clinical practice. “It’s not based on solid data, but based on an accumulation of retrospective analyses,” she said. “So we have already been doing it for an older population. This would bring down the age group, and it would better define it, and test it prospectively.”
 

Limitations to note

Also commenting on the study, Deborah Axelrod, MD, director of clinical breast surgery at New York University Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, explained that, in the last decade, knowledge about the behavior of breast cancers based on molecular subtyping has greatly increased. “Results of studies such as this have given us information on which cancers need more treatment and for which cancers we can de-escalate treatment,” she said. “Refining this more, it’s about reducing the morbidity and improving quality of life without compromising the oncological outcome.”

She noted that a big strength of this LUMINA study is that it is prospective and multicenter. “It has been supported by other past studies as well and will define for which patients with newly treated breast cancers can we omit radiation, which has been the standard of care,” said Dr. Axelrod. “It is based on the age and biology of breast cancer in defining which patient can forgo radiation and showed a low risk of recurrence in a specific population of women with a favorable breast cancer profile”

There were limitations to the study. “There is a 5-year follow-up and local recurrence for ER-positive cancers continues to rise after 5 years, so longer-term follow-up will be important,” she said. Also, she pointed out that it is a single-arm study so there is no radiation therapy comparison arm.

Other limitations were that the patients were older with smaller tumors, and all were committed to 5 years of endocrine therapy, although compliance with that has not been reported. There may be some older patients who prefer radiation therapy, especially a week of accelerated partial breast irradiation, rather than commit to 5 years of endocrine therapy as mandated in this study.

“Overall, the takeaway message for patients is that the omission of radiation therapy should be considered an option for older women with localized breast cancer with favorable features who receive endocrine therapies,” said Dr. Axelrod.

LUMINA was sponsored by the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and the Canadian Cancer Society. Dr. Whelan has reported research funding from Exact Sciences (Inst). Dr. Axelrod and Dr. Anderson reported no disclosures. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Hexal, Puma BioTechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

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

Based on biomarker findings, some patients may be able to avoid radiation therapy following breast-conserving surgery, suggest results from the LUMINA trial.

The women in this trial who skipped radiotherapy, and were treated with breast-conserving surgery followed by endocrine therapy, had an overall survival rate of 97.2%. The local recurrence rate was 2.3%, which was the study’s primary endpoint.

“Women 55 and over, with low-grade luminal A-type breast cancer, following breast conserving surgery and treated with endocrine therapy alone, had a very low rate of local recurrence at 5 years,” commented lead author Timothy Joseph Whelan, MD.

“The prospective and multicenter nature of this study supports that these patients are candidates for the omission of radiotherapy,” said Dr. Whelan, oncology professor and Canada Research Chair in Breast Cancer Research at McMaster University and a radiation oncologist at the Juravinski Cancer Centre, both in Hamilton, Ont.

“Over 300,000 [people] are diagnosed with invasive breast cancer in North America annually, the majority in the United States,” said Dr. Whelan. “We estimate that these results could apply to 10%-15% of them, so about 30,000-40,000 women per year who could avoid the morbidity, the cost, and inconvenience of radiotherapy.”

The results were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Whelan explained that adjuvant radiation therapy is generally prescribed following breast conservation therapy to lower the risk of local recurrence, but the treatment is also associated with acute and late toxicity. In addition, it can incur high costs and inconvenience for the patient.

Previous studies have found that among women older than 60 with low-grade, luminal A-type breast cancer who received only breast-conserving surgery, there was a low rate of local recurrence. In women aged older than 70 years, the risk of local recurrence was about 4%-5%.

This latest study focused on patients with breast cancer with a luminal A subtype combined with clinical pathological factors (defined as estrogen receptor ≥ 1%, progesterone receptor > 20%, HER2 negative, and Ki67 ≤ 13.25%).

This was a prospective, multicenter cohort study that included 501 patients aged 55 years and older who had undergone breast-conserving surgery for grade 1-2 T1N0 cancer.

The median patient age was 67, with 442 (88%) older than 75 years. The median tumor size was 1.1 cm.

Median follow-up was 5 years. The cohort was followed every 6 months for the first 2 years and then annually.

The primary outcome was local recurrence defined as time from enrollment to any invasive or noninvasive cancer in the ipsilateral breast, and secondary endpoints included contralateral breast cancer, relapse-free survival based on any recurrence, disease free survival, second cancer or death, and overall survival.

At five years, there were 10 events of local recurrence, for a rate of 2.3%. For secondary outcomes, there were eight events of contralateral breast cancer (1.9%); 12 relapses for a recurrence-free survival rate of 97.3%; 47 disease progression (23 second nonbreast cancers) for a disease-free survival rate of 89.9%; and 13 deaths, including 1 from breast cancer, for an overall survival of 97.2%.
 

Confirms earlier data

Penny R. Anderson, MD, professor in the department of radiation oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, commented that this was an “extremely well-designed and important study.

“It has identified a specific subset of patients to be appropriate candidates for consideration of omission of adjuvant breast radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery,” she added.

Although previously published trials have helped identify certain patient groups who have a low risk of local recurrence – and therefore, for whom it may be appropriate to omit radiation – they have been based on the traditional clinical and pathologic factors of tumor size, margin status, receptor status, and patient age.

“This LUMINA trial utilizes the molecular-defined intrinsic subtype of luminal A breast cancer to provide additional prognostic information,” she said. “This finding certainly suggests that this group of patients are ideal candidates for the omission of radiation, and that this should be discussed with these patients as a potential option in their treatment management.”

Overall, this trial is a “significant addition and a very relevant contribution to the literature demonstrating that adjuvant breast radiation may safely be omitted in this particular subgroup of breast cancer patients,” she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Commenting on the study, Julie Gralow, MD, chief medical officer and executive vice president of ASCO, told this news organization that she thinks the take-home message is that there is “clearly a population of early-stage breast cancer [patients] who after lumpectomy do not benefit from radiation.”

“I think where there will be discussion will be what is the optimal way of identifying that group,” she said, noting that in this study the patients were screened for Ki67, a marker of proliferation. 

Testing for Ki67 is not the standard of care, Dr. Gralow pointed out, and there is also a problem with reproducibility since “every lab does it somewhat differently, because it is not a standard pathology approach.”

There are now many unanswered questions, she noted. “Do we need that central testing of Ki67? Do we need to develop guidelines for how to do this? Is this better than if you’ve already run an Oncotype or a MammaPrint test to see if the patient needs chemo, then would that suffice? That is where the discussion will be. We can reduce the number of patients who need radiation without an increase in local regional recurrence.”

In terms of clinical practice, Dr. Gralow explained that there are already some  data supporting the omission of radiation therapy in an older population with ER-positive small low-grade tumors, and this has become a standard clinical practice. “It’s not based on solid data, but based on an accumulation of retrospective analyses,” she said. “So we have already been doing it for an older population. This would bring down the age group, and it would better define it, and test it prospectively.”
 

Limitations to note

Also commenting on the study, Deborah Axelrod, MD, director of clinical breast surgery at New York University Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, explained that, in the last decade, knowledge about the behavior of breast cancers based on molecular subtyping has greatly increased. “Results of studies such as this have given us information on which cancers need more treatment and for which cancers we can de-escalate treatment,” she said. “Refining this more, it’s about reducing the morbidity and improving quality of life without compromising the oncological outcome.”

She noted that a big strength of this LUMINA study is that it is prospective and multicenter. “It has been supported by other past studies as well and will define for which patients with newly treated breast cancers can we omit radiation, which has been the standard of care,” said Dr. Axelrod. “It is based on the age and biology of breast cancer in defining which patient can forgo radiation and showed a low risk of recurrence in a specific population of women with a favorable breast cancer profile”

There were limitations to the study. “There is a 5-year follow-up and local recurrence for ER-positive cancers continues to rise after 5 years, so longer-term follow-up will be important,” she said. Also, she pointed out that it is a single-arm study so there is no radiation therapy comparison arm.

Other limitations were that the patients were older with smaller tumors, and all were committed to 5 years of endocrine therapy, although compliance with that has not been reported. There may be some older patients who prefer radiation therapy, especially a week of accelerated partial breast irradiation, rather than commit to 5 years of endocrine therapy as mandated in this study.

“Overall, the takeaway message for patients is that the omission of radiation therapy should be considered an option for older women with localized breast cancer with favorable features who receive endocrine therapies,” said Dr. Axelrod.

LUMINA was sponsored by the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and the Canadian Cancer Society. Dr. Whelan has reported research funding from Exact Sciences (Inst). Dr. Axelrod and Dr. Anderson reported no disclosures. Dr. Gralow reported relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca, Hexal, Puma BioTechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

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

For many Americans – especially those too young to know much about the Cold War or Hiroshima – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine might mark the first time they’ve truly considered the dangers of nuclear weapons. But dozens of hematologists in the United States already know the drill and have placed themselves on the front lines. These physicians stand prepared to treat patients exposed to radiation caused by nuclear accidents or attacks on U.S. soil.

They work nationwide at 74 medical centers that make up the Radiation Injury Treatment Network, ready to manage cases of acute radiation syndrome (ARS) during disasters. While RITN keeps a low profile, it’s been in the news lately amid anxieties about the Ukraine conflict, nuclear plant accidents, and the potential launching of nuclear weapons by foreign adversaries.

Wikimedia Commons

“The Radiation Injury Treatment Network helps plan responses for disaster scenarios where a person’s cells would be damaged after having been exposed to ionizing radiation,” program director Cullen Case Jr., MPA, said in an interview.

A U.S. Army veteran who took part in hurricane response early in his career, Mr. Case now oversees preparedness activities among all RITN hospitals, blood donor centers, and cord blood banks, in readiness for a mass casualty radiological incident. He also serves as a senior manager of the National Marrow Donor Program/Be a Match Marrow Registry.

Intense preparation for nuclear attacks or accidents is necessary, Mr. Case said, despite the doomsday scenarios disseminated on television shows and movies.

“The most frequent misconception we hear is that a nuclear disaster will encompass the whole world and be so complete that preparedness isn’t useful. However, many planning scenarios include smaller-scale incidents where survivors will need prompt and expert care,” he said.

In the wake of 9/11, the National Marrow Donor Program and the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation established the RITN in 2006, with a mission to prepare for nuclear disaster and help manage the response if one occurs.

National Archives/Wikimedia commons

“The widespread availability of radioactive material has made future exposure events, accidental or intentional, nearly inevitable,” RITN leaders warned in a 2008 report. “Hematologists, oncologists, and HSCT [hematopoietic stem cell transplantation] physicians are uniquely suited to care for victims of radiation exposure, creating a collective responsibility to prepare for a variety of contingencies.”

RITN doesn’t just train physicians, Mr. Case noted. All medical centers within the RITN are required to conduct an annual tabletop exercise where a radiation disaster scenario and a set of discussion questions are presented to the team.
 

Hematologists specially equipped to treat radiation injuries

Why are hematologists involved in treating people exposed to dangerously high levels of radiation? The answer has to do with how radiation harms the body, said Dr. Ann A. Jakubowski, a hematologist/oncologist and transplant physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who serves as a medical director for RITN.

“One of the most common toxicities from radiation exposure and a major player in acute radiation syndrome is hematologic toxicity– damage to the bone marrow by the radiation, with a resultant decrease in peripheral blood counts,” she said in an interview. “This is similar to what is often seen in the treatment of cancers with radiation and/or chemotherapy.”

In cases of severe and nonreversible radiation damage to the bone marrow, Dr. Jakubowski noted, “patients can be considered for a stem cell transplant to provide new healthy cells to repopulate the bone marrow, which provides recovery of peripheral blood counts. Hematologist/oncologists are the physicians who manage stem cell transplants.”

The crucial role of hematologists in radiation injuries is not new. In fact, these physicians have been closely intertwined with nuclear research since the dawn of the atomic age. The work of developing atomic bombs also led investigators to an understanding of the structure and processes of hematopoiesis and helped them to identify hematopoietic stem cells and prove their existence in humans.
 

Disaster response poses multiple challenges

As noted in a recent article in ASH Clinical News, the challenges of treating radiation injuries would be intense, especially in the event of a nuclear accident or attack that affects a wide area. For starters, how quickly can medical professionals be mobilized, and will there be enough physicians comfortable treating patients? Fortunately, irradiated patients should not pose a direct risk to medical professionals who treat them.

“The expectation is that the patients will all be decontaminated,” said Nelson Chao, MD, MBA, one of the founders of RITN and a hematologist/oncologist and transplant physician at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Jakubowski questions whether there will be adequate resources to handle the influx of patients who need more intensive treatment, as well as outpatients who “received lower doses of radiation and may experience a period of low blood counts but are expected to eventually recover blood counts.”

AFP/Getty Images

And if many people are injured, Dr. Chao asks, how will physicians “adopt altered standards of care to treat large numbers of patients?”

There will also be a need for physicians who aren’t hematologists, Dr. Jakubowski said. “There may be many victims who have both radiation exposure and traumatic or burn injuries, which need to be addressed first, before the hematologist can start addressing the consequences of ARS. Traumatic and burn injuries will require surgical resources.”

In addition, ARS affects the gastrointestinal track and central nervous system/cardiovascular, and it has multiple stages, she noted.

“Although we have methods of supporting the hematopoietic system – transfusions and growth factors – and even replacing it with a stem cell transplant, this will not necessarily fix the badly damaged other organs, Dr. Jakubowski said. “Also, not all radioactive isotopes are equal in their effects, nor are the various types of radiation exposure.”
 

Training goes beyond transplants and drugs

RITN offers individual hematologists specialized education about treating radiation injuries through annual exercises, modules, and “just-in-time” training.

For example, the RITN webpage devoted to triage includes guidelines for transferring radiation injury patients, triage guidelines for cytokine administration in cases of ARS, an exposure and symptom triage tool, and more. The treatment page includes details about subjects such as when human leukocyte antigen typing of casualties is appropriate and how to keep yourself safe while treating patients.

Another focus is teaching hematologists to react quickly in disasters, Mr. Case said. “The vast majority of hematologists have little to no experience in responding to disasters and making decisions with imperfect or incomplete information, as emergency medicine practitioners must do regularly.”

“Some of the RITN tabletop exercises present physicians and advanced practitioners with an incomplete set of patient information and ask physicians to then determine and prioritize their care,” Mr. Case said. “The resulting discussions help to lay the groundwork for being able to shift to the crisis standards of care mindset that would be necessary during a radiological disaster.”
 

Here’s how hematologists can get involved

If you want to help improve the nation’s response to radiation injuries, Mr. Case suggests checking RITN’s list of participating hospitals. If your facility is already part of this network, he said, contact its bone marrow transplant unit for more information.

In such cases, Dr. Jakubowski suggests that you “consider periodically giving a presentation to staff on the basics of radiation injury and the center’s role in RITN.” And if you’re not part of RITN, she said, consider contacting the network about becoming a member.

Hematologists, Mr. Case said, can also take advantage of RITN’s free short overview courses, review the RITN Treatment Guidelines, or watch short videos on the RITN’s YouTube channel.

He highlighted the Radiation Emergency Medical Management website administered by the Department of Health & Human Services, the Center for Disease Control’s radiation emergencies webpage, and the Department of Energy’s Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site.

For many Americans – especially those too young to know much about the Cold War or Hiroshima – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine might mark the first time they’ve truly considered the dangers of nuclear weapons. But dozens of hematologists in the United States already know the drill and have placed themselves on the front lines. These physicians stand prepared to treat patients exposed to radiation caused by nuclear accidents or attacks on U.S. soil.

They work nationwide at 74 medical centers that make up the Radiation Injury Treatment Network, ready to manage cases of acute radiation syndrome (ARS) during disasters. While RITN keeps a low profile, it’s been in the news lately amid anxieties about the Ukraine conflict, nuclear plant accidents, and the potential launching of nuclear weapons by foreign adversaries.

Wikimedia Commons

“The Radiation Injury Treatment Network helps plan responses for disaster scenarios where a person’s cells would be damaged after having been exposed to ionizing radiation,” program director Cullen Case Jr., MPA, said in an interview.

A U.S. Army veteran who took part in hurricane response early in his career, Mr. Case now oversees preparedness activities among all RITN hospitals, blood donor centers, and cord blood banks, in readiness for a mass casualty radiological incident. He also serves as a senior manager of the National Marrow Donor Program/Be a Match Marrow Registry.

Intense preparation for nuclear attacks or accidents is necessary, Mr. Case said, despite the doomsday scenarios disseminated on television shows and movies.

“The most frequent misconception we hear is that a nuclear disaster will encompass the whole world and be so complete that preparedness isn’t useful. However, many planning scenarios include smaller-scale incidents where survivors will need prompt and expert care,” he said.

In the wake of 9/11, the National Marrow Donor Program and the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation established the RITN in 2006, with a mission to prepare for nuclear disaster and help manage the response if one occurs.

National Archives/Wikimedia commons

“The widespread availability of radioactive material has made future exposure events, accidental or intentional, nearly inevitable,” RITN leaders warned in a 2008 report. “Hematologists, oncologists, and HSCT [hematopoietic stem cell transplantation] physicians are uniquely suited to care for victims of radiation exposure, creating a collective responsibility to prepare for a variety of contingencies.”

RITN doesn’t just train physicians, Mr. Case noted. All medical centers within the RITN are required to conduct an annual tabletop exercise where a radiation disaster scenario and a set of discussion questions are presented to the team.
 

Hematologists specially equipped to treat radiation injuries

Why are hematologists involved in treating people exposed to dangerously high levels of radiation? The answer has to do with how radiation harms the body, said Dr. Ann A. Jakubowski, a hematologist/oncologist and transplant physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who serves as a medical director for RITN.

“One of the most common toxicities from radiation exposure and a major player in acute radiation syndrome is hematologic toxicity– damage to the bone marrow by the radiation, with a resultant decrease in peripheral blood counts,” she said in an interview. “This is similar to what is often seen in the treatment of cancers with radiation and/or chemotherapy.”

In cases of severe and nonreversible radiation damage to the bone marrow, Dr. Jakubowski noted, “patients can be considered for a stem cell transplant to provide new healthy cells to repopulate the bone marrow, which provides recovery of peripheral blood counts. Hematologist/oncologists are the physicians who manage stem cell transplants.”

The crucial role of hematologists in radiation injuries is not new. In fact, these physicians have been closely intertwined with nuclear research since the dawn of the atomic age. The work of developing atomic bombs also led investigators to an understanding of the structure and processes of hematopoiesis and helped them to identify hematopoietic stem cells and prove their existence in humans.
 

Disaster response poses multiple challenges

As noted in a recent article in ASH Clinical News, the challenges of treating radiation injuries would be intense, especially in the event of a nuclear accident or attack that affects a wide area. For starters, how quickly can medical professionals be mobilized, and will there be enough physicians comfortable treating patients? Fortunately, irradiated patients should not pose a direct risk to medical professionals who treat them.

“The expectation is that the patients will all be decontaminated,” said Nelson Chao, MD, MBA, one of the founders of RITN and a hematologist/oncologist and transplant physician at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Jakubowski questions whether there will be adequate resources to handle the influx of patients who need more intensive treatment, as well as outpatients who “received lower doses of radiation and may experience a period of low blood counts but are expected to eventually recover blood counts.”

AFP/Getty Images

And if many people are injured, Dr. Chao asks, how will physicians “adopt altered standards of care to treat large numbers of patients?”

There will also be a need for physicians who aren’t hematologists, Dr. Jakubowski said. “There may be many victims who have both radiation exposure and traumatic or burn injuries, which need to be addressed first, before the hematologist can start addressing the consequences of ARS. Traumatic and burn injuries will require surgical resources.”

In addition, ARS affects the gastrointestinal track and central nervous system/cardiovascular, and it has multiple stages, she noted.

“Although we have methods of supporting the hematopoietic system – transfusions and growth factors – and even replacing it with a stem cell transplant, this will not necessarily fix the badly damaged other organs, Dr. Jakubowski said. “Also, not all radioactive isotopes are equal in their effects, nor are the various types of radiation exposure.”
 

Training goes beyond transplants and drugs

RITN offers individual hematologists specialized education about treating radiation injuries through annual exercises, modules, and “just-in-time” training.

For example, the RITN webpage devoted to triage includes guidelines for transferring radiation injury patients, triage guidelines for cytokine administration in cases of ARS, an exposure and symptom triage tool, and more. The treatment page includes details about subjects such as when human leukocyte antigen typing of casualties is appropriate and how to keep yourself safe while treating patients.

Another focus is teaching hematologists to react quickly in disasters, Mr. Case said. “The vast majority of hematologists have little to no experience in responding to disasters and making decisions with imperfect or incomplete information, as emergency medicine practitioners must do regularly.”

“Some of the RITN tabletop exercises present physicians and advanced practitioners with an incomplete set of patient information and ask physicians to then determine and prioritize their care,” Mr. Case said. “The resulting discussions help to lay the groundwork for being able to shift to the crisis standards of care mindset that would be necessary during a radiological disaster.”
 

Here’s how hematologists can get involved

If you want to help improve the nation’s response to radiation injuries, Mr. Case suggests checking RITN’s list of participating hospitals. If your facility is already part of this network, he said, contact its bone marrow transplant unit for more information.

In such cases, Dr. Jakubowski suggests that you “consider periodically giving a presentation to staff on the basics of radiation injury and the center’s role in RITN.” And if you’re not part of RITN, she said, consider contacting the network about becoming a member.

Hematologists, Mr. Case said, can also take advantage of RITN’s free short overview courses, review the RITN Treatment Guidelines, or watch short videos on the RITN’s YouTube channel.

He highlighted the Radiation Emergency Medical Management website administered by the Department of Health & Human Services, the Center for Disease Control’s radiation emergencies webpage, and the Department of Energy’s Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site.

For many Americans – especially those too young to know much about the Cold War or Hiroshima – Russia’s invasion of Ukraine might mark the first time they’ve truly considered the dangers of nuclear weapons. But dozens of hematologists in the United States already know the drill and have placed themselves on the front lines. These physicians stand prepared to treat patients exposed to radiation caused by nuclear accidents or attacks on U.S. soil.

They work nationwide at 74 medical centers that make up the Radiation Injury Treatment Network, ready to manage cases of acute radiation syndrome (ARS) during disasters. While RITN keeps a low profile, it’s been in the news lately amid anxieties about the Ukraine conflict, nuclear plant accidents, and the potential launching of nuclear weapons by foreign adversaries.

Wikimedia Commons

“The Radiation Injury Treatment Network helps plan responses for disaster scenarios where a person’s cells would be damaged after having been exposed to ionizing radiation,” program director Cullen Case Jr., MPA, said in an interview.

A U.S. Army veteran who took part in hurricane response early in his career, Mr. Case now oversees preparedness activities among all RITN hospitals, blood donor centers, and cord blood banks, in readiness for a mass casualty radiological incident. He also serves as a senior manager of the National Marrow Donor Program/Be a Match Marrow Registry.

Intense preparation for nuclear attacks or accidents is necessary, Mr. Case said, despite the doomsday scenarios disseminated on television shows and movies.

“The most frequent misconception we hear is that a nuclear disaster will encompass the whole world and be so complete that preparedness isn’t useful. However, many planning scenarios include smaller-scale incidents where survivors will need prompt and expert care,” he said.

In the wake of 9/11, the National Marrow Donor Program and the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation established the RITN in 2006, with a mission to prepare for nuclear disaster and help manage the response if one occurs.

National Archives/Wikimedia commons

“The widespread availability of radioactive material has made future exposure events, accidental or intentional, nearly inevitable,” RITN leaders warned in a 2008 report. “Hematologists, oncologists, and HSCT [hematopoietic stem cell transplantation] physicians are uniquely suited to care for victims of radiation exposure, creating a collective responsibility to prepare for a variety of contingencies.”

RITN doesn’t just train physicians, Mr. Case noted. All medical centers within the RITN are required to conduct an annual tabletop exercise where a radiation disaster scenario and a set of discussion questions are presented to the team.
 

Hematologists specially equipped to treat radiation injuries

Why are hematologists involved in treating people exposed to dangerously high levels of radiation? The answer has to do with how radiation harms the body, said Dr. Ann A. Jakubowski, a hematologist/oncologist and transplant physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, who serves as a medical director for RITN.

“One of the most common toxicities from radiation exposure and a major player in acute radiation syndrome is hematologic toxicity– damage to the bone marrow by the radiation, with a resultant decrease in peripheral blood counts,” she said in an interview. “This is similar to what is often seen in the treatment of cancers with radiation and/or chemotherapy.”

In cases of severe and nonreversible radiation damage to the bone marrow, Dr. Jakubowski noted, “patients can be considered for a stem cell transplant to provide new healthy cells to repopulate the bone marrow, which provides recovery of peripheral blood counts. Hematologist/oncologists are the physicians who manage stem cell transplants.”

The crucial role of hematologists in radiation injuries is not new. In fact, these physicians have been closely intertwined with nuclear research since the dawn of the atomic age. The work of developing atomic bombs also led investigators to an understanding of the structure and processes of hematopoiesis and helped them to identify hematopoietic stem cells and prove their existence in humans.
 

Disaster response poses multiple challenges

As noted in a recent article in ASH Clinical News, the challenges of treating radiation injuries would be intense, especially in the event of a nuclear accident or attack that affects a wide area. For starters, how quickly can medical professionals be mobilized, and will there be enough physicians comfortable treating patients? Fortunately, irradiated patients should not pose a direct risk to medical professionals who treat them.

“The expectation is that the patients will all be decontaminated,” said Nelson Chao, MD, MBA, one of the founders of RITN and a hematologist/oncologist and transplant physician at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

Dr. Jakubowski questions whether there will be adequate resources to handle the influx of patients who need more intensive treatment, as well as outpatients who “received lower doses of radiation and may experience a period of low blood counts but are expected to eventually recover blood counts.”

AFP/Getty Images

And if many people are injured, Dr. Chao asks, how will physicians “adopt altered standards of care to treat large numbers of patients?”

There will also be a need for physicians who aren’t hematologists, Dr. Jakubowski said. “There may be many victims who have both radiation exposure and traumatic or burn injuries, which need to be addressed first, before the hematologist can start addressing the consequences of ARS. Traumatic and burn injuries will require surgical resources.”

In addition, ARS affects the gastrointestinal track and central nervous system/cardiovascular, and it has multiple stages, she noted.

“Although we have methods of supporting the hematopoietic system – transfusions and growth factors – and even replacing it with a stem cell transplant, this will not necessarily fix the badly damaged other organs, Dr. Jakubowski said. “Also, not all radioactive isotopes are equal in their effects, nor are the various types of radiation exposure.”
 

Training goes beyond transplants and drugs

RITN offers individual hematologists specialized education about treating radiation injuries through annual exercises, modules, and “just-in-time” training.

For example, the RITN webpage devoted to triage includes guidelines for transferring radiation injury patients, triage guidelines for cytokine administration in cases of ARS, an exposure and symptom triage tool, and more. The treatment page includes details about subjects such as when human leukocyte antigen typing of casualties is appropriate and how to keep yourself safe while treating patients.

Another focus is teaching hematologists to react quickly in disasters, Mr. Case said. “The vast majority of hematologists have little to no experience in responding to disasters and making decisions with imperfect or incomplete information, as emergency medicine practitioners must do regularly.”

“Some of the RITN tabletop exercises present physicians and advanced practitioners with an incomplete set of patient information and ask physicians to then determine and prioritize their care,” Mr. Case said. “The resulting discussions help to lay the groundwork for being able to shift to the crisis standards of care mindset that would be necessary during a radiological disaster.”
 

Here’s how hematologists can get involved

If you want to help improve the nation’s response to radiation injuries, Mr. Case suggests checking RITN’s list of participating hospitals. If your facility is already part of this network, he said, contact its bone marrow transplant unit for more information.

In such cases, Dr. Jakubowski suggests that you “consider periodically giving a presentation to staff on the basics of radiation injury and the center’s role in RITN.” And if you’re not part of RITN, she said, consider contacting the network about becoming a member.

Hematologists, Mr. Case said, can also take advantage of RITN’s free short overview courses, review the RITN Treatment Guidelines, or watch short videos on the RITN’s YouTube channel.

He highlighted the Radiation Emergency Medical Management website administered by the Department of Health & Human Services, the Center for Disease Control’s radiation emergencies webpage, and the Department of Energy’s Radiation Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site.

Racial differences in cancer outcomes are widespread. Studies indicate that Black people face higher rates of mortality for most cancers than their White counterparts. To bridge this racial gap, researchers need to investigate the biological effects of structural racism and discrimination on cancer outcomes, experts say.

“As a physician, I always like to think that I can influence care in that if I just find the right drugs, help patients understand what their options are, it will help them,” said Ruth Carlos, MD, a radiologist with the University of Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor. But these things alone are often not enough, because a large proportion of the variation in cancer outcomes is attributable to neighborhood social conditions and the physical environment. “It is incredibly important for us to start to understand just how the neighborhood exerts this effect.”

In a commentary published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Carlos and colleagues highlighted the limitations of previous studies aimed at identifying the causes of racial differences in cancer outcomes. They call upon researchers to turn instead to the long-underexamined biological effects of structural racism and discrimination that contribute to these differences.

In the past, studies on the role of race in health outcomes largely looked at race as a proxy for genetic predisposition. But such an interpretation is flawed, because no genes are specific for a racial or ethnic group, Dr. Carlos and coauthors wrote. Researchers have shown that the vast majority of genetic variation occurs within, rather than between groups.

In an analysis published in Science, researchers reported that within-group differences account for more than 90% of genetic variation.

“Using race in these analyses was not necessarily wrong, but the inferences may have been flawed or incomplete,” Dr. Carlos said. On one hand, looking at genetic predisposition has led to important insights, such as the link between mutations in the BRCA gene and increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer.

However, genetic variation alone is not enough to explain the disparities in cancer outcomes between racial and ethnic groups. The fact that breast cancer can be more aggressive in Black women raises several questions, Dr. Carlos said. Is the cancer worse because Black women have a specific genetic predisposition? Is it worse because Black women exist in a society that marginalizes them and exposes them to increased stress, which in turn produces bad outcomes? Or, could it be both?

Despite progress in the screening, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, Black women are 40% more likely to die from the disease than White women. At the time of diagnosis, Black women are more likely to have high-grade, more aggressive breast cancer molecular subtypes, and to have had their cancer spread to the lymph nodes. They also tend to be diagnosed at more advanced stages of breast cancer while at the same time, experience higher rates of false-positive screening results.

Although researchers have hypothesized that genetic differences related to African or European ancestry might contribute, studies have not turned up any differences in cancer susceptibility genes by race. Other factors, such as racial differences in the stage of presentation, molecular subtypes, and disparities in treatment, have also emerged as potential culprits.

In her commentary, Dr. Carlos and colleagues wrote that disparities in breast cancer outcomes previously attributed to race need to be examined from multiple angles. This means looking at both the complex interactions between social conditions and policies, which encompass racism both at the individual and structural level, and stressors such as the experience of discrimination in addition to potential biological and genetic contributions.

Many studies now provide evidence for the harmful effects of racism on health. For breast cancer, specifically, studies also suggest that factors such as racial segregation can influence the stage at which Black women get diagnosed and their likelihood of dying from the disease.

However, an important question that remains is what biological changes occur in women exposed to the kind of persistent low-level stress that is associated with structural racism and discrimination, Dr. Carlos said. “We don’t know what stress pathways actually manifest in the body and how they eventually produce the disease.” Studies to address this issue are important, “especially if you would like to develop interventions to prevent or mitigate disease.”

To address this issue, Dr. Carlos and colleagues called upon the research community to conduct both studies that delineate the underlying biology as well as those that test potential interventions – particularly those associated with breast cancer screening outcomes – to try to shed light on why Black women receive more false positives and diagnoses of more aggressive cancer.

Interventions that can target these specific biological pathways could potentially reduce the negative effects of structural racism and discrimination as well as the effects of other social factors that contribute to breast cancer outcomes, “to ultimately help enhance clinical outcomes and close persistent disparities gaps,” the authors wrote.

Racial differences in cancer outcomes are widespread. Studies indicate that Black people face higher rates of mortality for most cancers than their White counterparts. To bridge this racial gap, researchers need to investigate the biological effects of structural racism and discrimination on cancer outcomes, experts say.

“As a physician, I always like to think that I can influence care in that if I just find the right drugs, help patients understand what their options are, it will help them,” said Ruth Carlos, MD, a radiologist with the University of Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor. But these things alone are often not enough, because a large proportion of the variation in cancer outcomes is attributable to neighborhood social conditions and the physical environment. “It is incredibly important for us to start to understand just how the neighborhood exerts this effect.”

In a commentary published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Carlos and colleagues highlighted the limitations of previous studies aimed at identifying the causes of racial differences in cancer outcomes. They call upon researchers to turn instead to the long-underexamined biological effects of structural racism and discrimination that contribute to these differences.

In the past, studies on the role of race in health outcomes largely looked at race as a proxy for genetic predisposition. But such an interpretation is flawed, because no genes are specific for a racial or ethnic group, Dr. Carlos and coauthors wrote. Researchers have shown that the vast majority of genetic variation occurs within, rather than between groups.

In an analysis published in Science, researchers reported that within-group differences account for more than 90% of genetic variation.

“Using race in these analyses was not necessarily wrong, but the inferences may have been flawed or incomplete,” Dr. Carlos said. On one hand, looking at genetic predisposition has led to important insights, such as the link between mutations in the BRCA gene and increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer.

However, genetic variation alone is not enough to explain the disparities in cancer outcomes between racial and ethnic groups. The fact that breast cancer can be more aggressive in Black women raises several questions, Dr. Carlos said. Is the cancer worse because Black women have a specific genetic predisposition? Is it worse because Black women exist in a society that marginalizes them and exposes them to increased stress, which in turn produces bad outcomes? Or, could it be both?

Despite progress in the screening, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, Black women are 40% more likely to die from the disease than White women. At the time of diagnosis, Black women are more likely to have high-grade, more aggressive breast cancer molecular subtypes, and to have had their cancer spread to the lymph nodes. They also tend to be diagnosed at more advanced stages of breast cancer while at the same time, experience higher rates of false-positive screening results.

Although researchers have hypothesized that genetic differences related to African or European ancestry might contribute, studies have not turned up any differences in cancer susceptibility genes by race. Other factors, such as racial differences in the stage of presentation, molecular subtypes, and disparities in treatment, have also emerged as potential culprits.

In her commentary, Dr. Carlos and colleagues wrote that disparities in breast cancer outcomes previously attributed to race need to be examined from multiple angles. This means looking at both the complex interactions between social conditions and policies, which encompass racism both at the individual and structural level, and stressors such as the experience of discrimination in addition to potential biological and genetic contributions.

Many studies now provide evidence for the harmful effects of racism on health. For breast cancer, specifically, studies also suggest that factors such as racial segregation can influence the stage at which Black women get diagnosed and their likelihood of dying from the disease.

However, an important question that remains is what biological changes occur in women exposed to the kind of persistent low-level stress that is associated with structural racism and discrimination, Dr. Carlos said. “We don’t know what stress pathways actually manifest in the body and how they eventually produce the disease.” Studies to address this issue are important, “especially if you would like to develop interventions to prevent or mitigate disease.”

To address this issue, Dr. Carlos and colleagues called upon the research community to conduct both studies that delineate the underlying biology as well as those that test potential interventions – particularly those associated with breast cancer screening outcomes – to try to shed light on why Black women receive more false positives and diagnoses of more aggressive cancer.

Interventions that can target these specific biological pathways could potentially reduce the negative effects of structural racism and discrimination as well as the effects of other social factors that contribute to breast cancer outcomes, “to ultimately help enhance clinical outcomes and close persistent disparities gaps,” the authors wrote.

Racial differences in cancer outcomes are widespread. Studies indicate that Black people face higher rates of mortality for most cancers than their White counterparts. To bridge this racial gap, researchers need to investigate the biological effects of structural racism and discrimination on cancer outcomes, experts say.

“As a physician, I always like to think that I can influence care in that if I just find the right drugs, help patients understand what their options are, it will help them,” said Ruth Carlos, MD, a radiologist with the University of Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor. But these things alone are often not enough, because a large proportion of the variation in cancer outcomes is attributable to neighborhood social conditions and the physical environment. “It is incredibly important for us to start to understand just how the neighborhood exerts this effect.”

In a commentary published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Carlos and colleagues highlighted the limitations of previous studies aimed at identifying the causes of racial differences in cancer outcomes. They call upon researchers to turn instead to the long-underexamined biological effects of structural racism and discrimination that contribute to these differences.

In the past, studies on the role of race in health outcomes largely looked at race as a proxy for genetic predisposition. But such an interpretation is flawed, because no genes are specific for a racial or ethnic group, Dr. Carlos and coauthors wrote. Researchers have shown that the vast majority of genetic variation occurs within, rather than between groups.

In an analysis published in Science, researchers reported that within-group differences account for more than 90% of genetic variation.

“Using race in these analyses was not necessarily wrong, but the inferences may have been flawed or incomplete,” Dr. Carlos said. On one hand, looking at genetic predisposition has led to important insights, such as the link between mutations in the BRCA gene and increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer.

However, genetic variation alone is not enough to explain the disparities in cancer outcomes between racial and ethnic groups. The fact that breast cancer can be more aggressive in Black women raises several questions, Dr. Carlos said. Is the cancer worse because Black women have a specific genetic predisposition? Is it worse because Black women exist in a society that marginalizes them and exposes them to increased stress, which in turn produces bad outcomes? Or, could it be both?

Despite progress in the screening, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, Black women are 40% more likely to die from the disease than White women. At the time of diagnosis, Black women are more likely to have high-grade, more aggressive breast cancer molecular subtypes, and to have had their cancer spread to the lymph nodes. They also tend to be diagnosed at more advanced stages of breast cancer while at the same time, experience higher rates of false-positive screening results.

Although researchers have hypothesized that genetic differences related to African or European ancestry might contribute, studies have not turned up any differences in cancer susceptibility genes by race. Other factors, such as racial differences in the stage of presentation, molecular subtypes, and disparities in treatment, have also emerged as potential culprits.

In her commentary, Dr. Carlos and colleagues wrote that disparities in breast cancer outcomes previously attributed to race need to be examined from multiple angles. This means looking at both the complex interactions between social conditions and policies, which encompass racism both at the individual and structural level, and stressors such as the experience of discrimination in addition to potential biological and genetic contributions.

Many studies now provide evidence for the harmful effects of racism on health. For breast cancer, specifically, studies also suggest that factors such as racial segregation can influence the stage at which Black women get diagnosed and their likelihood of dying from the disease.

However, an important question that remains is what biological changes occur in women exposed to the kind of persistent low-level stress that is associated with structural racism and discrimination, Dr. Carlos said. “We don’t know what stress pathways actually manifest in the body and how they eventually produce the disease.” Studies to address this issue are important, “especially if you would like to develop interventions to prevent or mitigate disease.”

To address this issue, Dr. Carlos and colleagues called upon the research community to conduct both studies that delineate the underlying biology as well as those that test potential interventions – particularly those associated with breast cancer screening outcomes – to try to shed light on why Black women receive more false positives and diagnoses of more aggressive cancer.

Interventions that can target these specific biological pathways could potentially reduce the negative effects of structural racism and discrimination as well as the effects of other social factors that contribute to breast cancer outcomes, “to ultimately help enhance clinical outcomes and close persistent disparities gaps,” the authors wrote.

A mother-of-three was killed at her hospital appointment in the United Kingdom by a doctor who botched a routine procedure, a court has heard. On July 5, Dr. Isyaka Mamman was sentenced at Manchester Crown Court to 3 years imprisonment after pleading guilty to the manslaughter by gross negligence of his patient.

Dr. Mamman, 85, had already been suspended once by medical watchdogs for lying about his age and was sacked but then re-employed by the Royal Oldham Hospital, where he was responsible for a series of critical incidents before the fatal appointment, Manchester Crown Court heard.

The Nigerian-born doctor had also used various dates of birth and left his previous job through “poor performance.”

‘Highly dangerous’ procedure

Shahida Parveen, 48, had gone to the hospital with her husband, Khizar Mahmood, for investigations into possible myeloproliferative disorder.

A bone marrow biopsy had been advised and the routine procedure was allocated to Dr. Mamman, who was working as a specialty doctor in hematology, Andrew Thomas QC, prosecuting, told the hearing.

Normally, bone marrow samples are taken from the hip bone but Dr. Mamman failed to obtain a sample at the first attempt.

Instead, he attempted a rare and “highly dangerous” procedure of getting a sample from Ms. Parveen’s sternum – despite objections from the patient and her husband.

Dr. Mamman, using the wrong biopsy needle, missed the bone and pierced her pericardium, the sac containing the heart, causing massive internal bleeding.

Ms. Parveen lost consciousness as soon as the needle was inserted, with her husband running from the room shouting: “He killed her. I told him to stop three times and he did not listen. He killed her.”

A crash team arrived but Ms. Parveen was confirmed dead later the same day, September 3, 2018.
 

Controversy over his ‘true age’

Dr. Mamman qualified as a doctor in Nigeria in 1965 and had worked in the United Kingdom since 1991. From 2004 until the time of the fatal incident he was employed by the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.

But his “true age” is a matter of “controversy,” the court heard, as his birthplace in rural Nigeria had no system of birth registration.

During his medical training he gave a date of birth of September 16, 1936, which meant that he was 21 years old when he began his medical training and 81 at the time of the fatal hospital incident.

But he knocked years off his age by adopting a birth date in 1941, provided to the NHS, suggesting he began his medical degree at the age of 16.

However, in about 2001 and approaching what was then the compulsory retirement age of 65, Dr. Mamman adopted an even later birth date – October 1947 – which he relied upon in an application for naturalisation as a British citizen – suggesting he started his degree course at the age of 10.

In 2004 he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council and suspended for 12 months for lying about his age.

The Pennine Trust sacked him but then re-employed him in 2006, after he had been restored to the register by the GMC, who accepted his date of birth to be 1943 – which meant he was 14 or 15 when he began his medical degree.

Dr. Mamman had left his previous employment with the Medway Trust because of “poor performance,” and in 2015 a formal complaint was made to the Oldham hospital when a patient complained he used “excessive force” during a bone marrow biopsy.

The patient was told that Dr. Mamman was in his 70s and his colleagues thought he should retire but they could not dismiss him purely because of his age. She was assured he would be put on light duties in future.

However, the same year there was another clinical incident, which resulted in serious injury to another patient, again during a bone marrow biopsy, and again involving a needle being inserted in the wrong place. The patient survived but has been left permanently disabled.

Michael Hayton, mitigating, said it was clear Dr. Mamman was a “failing” doctor and he should not have been allowed to continue treating patients.

He added: “He is not the only person at fault. He should not have been allowed to be in the position he was.

“There’s a grotesque catalogue of failings by the trust from 2015.”



This article contains information from PA Media.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.

A mother-of-three was killed at her hospital appointment in the United Kingdom by a doctor who botched a routine procedure, a court has heard. On July 5, Dr. Isyaka Mamman was sentenced at Manchester Crown Court to 3 years imprisonment after pleading guilty to the manslaughter by gross negligence of his patient.

Dr. Mamman, 85, had already been suspended once by medical watchdogs for lying about his age and was sacked but then re-employed by the Royal Oldham Hospital, where he was responsible for a series of critical incidents before the fatal appointment, Manchester Crown Court heard.

The Nigerian-born doctor had also used various dates of birth and left his previous job through “poor performance.”

‘Highly dangerous’ procedure

Shahida Parveen, 48, had gone to the hospital with her husband, Khizar Mahmood, for investigations into possible myeloproliferative disorder.

A bone marrow biopsy had been advised and the routine procedure was allocated to Dr. Mamman, who was working as a specialty doctor in hematology, Andrew Thomas QC, prosecuting, told the hearing.

Normally, bone marrow samples are taken from the hip bone but Dr. Mamman failed to obtain a sample at the first attempt.

Instead, he attempted a rare and “highly dangerous” procedure of getting a sample from Ms. Parveen’s sternum – despite objections from the patient and her husband.

Dr. Mamman, using the wrong biopsy needle, missed the bone and pierced her pericardium, the sac containing the heart, causing massive internal bleeding.

Ms. Parveen lost consciousness as soon as the needle was inserted, with her husband running from the room shouting: “He killed her. I told him to stop three times and he did not listen. He killed her.”

A crash team arrived but Ms. Parveen was confirmed dead later the same day, September 3, 2018.
 

Controversy over his ‘true age’

Dr. Mamman qualified as a doctor in Nigeria in 1965 and had worked in the United Kingdom since 1991. From 2004 until the time of the fatal incident he was employed by the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.

But his “true age” is a matter of “controversy,” the court heard, as his birthplace in rural Nigeria had no system of birth registration.

During his medical training he gave a date of birth of September 16, 1936, which meant that he was 21 years old when he began his medical training and 81 at the time of the fatal hospital incident.

But he knocked years off his age by adopting a birth date in 1941, provided to the NHS, suggesting he began his medical degree at the age of 16.

However, in about 2001 and approaching what was then the compulsory retirement age of 65, Dr. Mamman adopted an even later birth date – October 1947 – which he relied upon in an application for naturalisation as a British citizen – suggesting he started his degree course at the age of 10.

In 2004 he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council and suspended for 12 months for lying about his age.

The Pennine Trust sacked him but then re-employed him in 2006, after he had been restored to the register by the GMC, who accepted his date of birth to be 1943 – which meant he was 14 or 15 when he began his medical degree.

Dr. Mamman had left his previous employment with the Medway Trust because of “poor performance,” and in 2015 a formal complaint was made to the Oldham hospital when a patient complained he used “excessive force” during a bone marrow biopsy.

The patient was told that Dr. Mamman was in his 70s and his colleagues thought he should retire but they could not dismiss him purely because of his age. She was assured he would be put on light duties in future.

However, the same year there was another clinical incident, which resulted in serious injury to another patient, again during a bone marrow biopsy, and again involving a needle being inserted in the wrong place. The patient survived but has been left permanently disabled.

Michael Hayton, mitigating, said it was clear Dr. Mamman was a “failing” doctor and he should not have been allowed to continue treating patients.

He added: “He is not the only person at fault. He should not have been allowed to be in the position he was.

“There’s a grotesque catalogue of failings by the trust from 2015.”



This article contains information from PA Media.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.

A mother-of-three was killed at her hospital appointment in the United Kingdom by a doctor who botched a routine procedure, a court has heard. On July 5, Dr. Isyaka Mamman was sentenced at Manchester Crown Court to 3 years imprisonment after pleading guilty to the manslaughter by gross negligence of his patient.

Dr. Mamman, 85, had already been suspended once by medical watchdogs for lying about his age and was sacked but then re-employed by the Royal Oldham Hospital, where he was responsible for a series of critical incidents before the fatal appointment, Manchester Crown Court heard.

The Nigerian-born doctor had also used various dates of birth and left his previous job through “poor performance.”

‘Highly dangerous’ procedure

Shahida Parveen, 48, had gone to the hospital with her husband, Khizar Mahmood, for investigations into possible myeloproliferative disorder.

A bone marrow biopsy had been advised and the routine procedure was allocated to Dr. Mamman, who was working as a specialty doctor in hematology, Andrew Thomas QC, prosecuting, told the hearing.

Normally, bone marrow samples are taken from the hip bone but Dr. Mamman failed to obtain a sample at the first attempt.

Instead, he attempted a rare and “highly dangerous” procedure of getting a sample from Ms. Parveen’s sternum – despite objections from the patient and her husband.

Dr. Mamman, using the wrong biopsy needle, missed the bone and pierced her pericardium, the sac containing the heart, causing massive internal bleeding.

Ms. Parveen lost consciousness as soon as the needle was inserted, with her husband running from the room shouting: “He killed her. I told him to stop three times and he did not listen. He killed her.”

A crash team arrived but Ms. Parveen was confirmed dead later the same day, September 3, 2018.
 

Controversy over his ‘true age’

Dr. Mamman qualified as a doctor in Nigeria in 1965 and had worked in the United Kingdom since 1991. From 2004 until the time of the fatal incident he was employed by the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.

But his “true age” is a matter of “controversy,” the court heard, as his birthplace in rural Nigeria had no system of birth registration.

During his medical training he gave a date of birth of September 16, 1936, which meant that he was 21 years old when he began his medical training and 81 at the time of the fatal hospital incident.

But he knocked years off his age by adopting a birth date in 1941, provided to the NHS, suggesting he began his medical degree at the age of 16.

However, in about 2001 and approaching what was then the compulsory retirement age of 65, Dr. Mamman adopted an even later birth date – October 1947 – which he relied upon in an application for naturalisation as a British citizen – suggesting he started his degree course at the age of 10.

In 2004 he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council and suspended for 12 months for lying about his age.

The Pennine Trust sacked him but then re-employed him in 2006, after he had been restored to the register by the GMC, who accepted his date of birth to be 1943 – which meant he was 14 or 15 when he began his medical degree.

Dr. Mamman had left his previous employment with the Medway Trust because of “poor performance,” and in 2015 a formal complaint was made to the Oldham hospital when a patient complained he used “excessive force” during a bone marrow biopsy.

The patient was told that Dr. Mamman was in his 70s and his colleagues thought he should retire but they could not dismiss him purely because of his age. She was assured he would be put on light duties in future.

However, the same year there was another clinical incident, which resulted in serious injury to another patient, again during a bone marrow biopsy, and again involving a needle being inserted in the wrong place. The patient survived but has been left permanently disabled.

Michael Hayton, mitigating, said it was clear Dr. Mamman was a “failing” doctor and he should not have been allowed to continue treating patients.

He added: “He is not the only person at fault. He should not have been allowed to be in the position he was.

“There’s a grotesque catalogue of failings by the trust from 2015.”



This article contains information from PA Media.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Only a small number of research clinical trials for cancer drugs actually show benefit in quality of life, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The study found trials that failed to show improved quality of life often reported their quality of life outcomes more favorably. Non–immunotherapy-targeted drugs were found to lead to worse quality of life outcomes more often than did cytotoxic agents. And, while there is an association between quality of life benefit and overall survival, no such association was found with progression-free survival.

“In this study, we evaluated the outcomes of cancer drug trials with regard to patients’ quality of life and found that only a quarter of phase 3 cancer drug trials in the advanced-disease setting demonstrated improved quality of life,” wrote authors who were led by Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, of the Cancer Research Institute, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont.

“Improved quality of life outcomes were associated with improved overall survival but not with improved progression-free survival. Importantly, almost half of the cancer drugs drug trials that showed improved progression-free survival showed no improved overall survival or quality of life (i.e., PFS-only benefit). Some reports included conclusions regarding quality of life (QOL) findings that were not directly supported by the trial data, particularly for inferior or non–statistically significant QOL outcomes, thereby framing the findings in a favorable light or downplaying detrimental effects of the study intervention on QOL. Furthermore, contrary to common perception, inferior QOL outcomes were more common with targeted drugs than cytotoxic drugs. Taken together, these findings have important policy implications,” the authors wrote.

These findings are based on the results of a cohort study of 45 phase 3 research clinical trials of 24,806 patients. Only a small percentage of patients showed QOL benefits. The study found that industry-funded clinical trial reports often framed QOL findings more favorably than was warranted by the data.

The study found improved QOL with experimental agents in 11 of 45 randomized controlled trials (24.4%). Studies that reported improved QOL were more likely to also show improved overall survival as compared with trials in which quality of life was not improved (7 of 11 [64%] versus 10 of 34 [29%] trials). For improved progression-free survival, however, there was no positive association (6 of 11 [55%] trials versus 17 of 34 [50%] trials without improved QOL). Among six trials reporting worsening QOL, three (50%) were trials of targeted drugs. Among 11 trials reporting improved QOL, 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Among the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, the findings were framed favorably (versus neutrally or negatively) in the abstract or conclusions in 16 (47%), an observation that was statistically significantly associated with industry funding (chi-squared = 6.35; P = .01).

“It is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs”

To fulfill the obligation to inform patients about proposed treatments, the authors wrote that it is important to clearly understand and communicate the effects of cancer drugs on patient quality of life alongside their effects on overall survival and intermediate end points such as progression-free survival. “Patients with advanced cancer expect treatment to help them live longer or have better lives,” the authors wrote. In that respect, in clinical trials of cancer medicines, overall survival and quality of life are the most important measures. Toxicity profiles and disease progression delays do not reliably predict quality of life, and studies have shown poor correlations between quality of life, overall survival, and progression-free survival. This raises the question of validity of progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint. “Progression-free survival is meaningless without overall survival or quality of life gains,” Dr. Gyawali said in an interview.

Writing in The Lancet Oncology in March, Dr. Gyawali stated that, because progression free survival “does not directly measure how a patient feels or functions, or how long a patient lives, progression-free survival was not intended to inform clinical practice or establish whether a new therapy provides clinically meaningful benefits for patients. However, over the past 2 decades, it has become the most common primary endpoint in oncology clinical trials. We are deeply worried about how the term survival in this phrase can influence clinical practice and patient choices. We propose replacing the phrase progression-free survival with a less ambiguous term: progression-free interval.”

In JAMA Oncology, Dr. Gyawali aimed to elucidate relationships between QOL, overall survival, and progression-free survival, and to assess, as well, how QOL results are framed, especially in industry-sponsored research. When drug trials they analyzed showed no change in QOL but reported that QOL did not worsen or QOL was maintained rather than stating that QOL did not improve, or if there was downplaying of worse QOL outcomes, the study had favorable interpretation, Dr. Gyawali and associates wrote. The expectation of patients receiving cancer drugs would be improved QOL rather than “not worse” QOL, Dr. Gyawali said.

Regarding the finding that QOL outcomes were described as favorable in 47% of trials with unimproved QOL outcomes, Dr. Gyawali said, “the bias in reporting should be corrected by the reviewers and editors of journals. Also, quality of life reporting should be made mandatory. Without unbiased quality of life information, informed decision making on whether or not to use a certain drug is impossible. Patients and physicians need to know that information. Regulators can demand that this should be mandatory in all trials in noncurative settings.”

He remarked further on the worsening QOL in some targeted drug trials, “People tout chemo-free regimens as automatically having better quality of life, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Targeted drugs can have a severe impact on quality of life, probably due to prolonged duration of side effects. Quality of life should be measured and reported for all drugs.”

Dr. Gyawali and associates noted the limitation in that several studies with negative QOL results are not published at all or are published after a considerable delay, so the present observations may understate the issues that have been raised.

Dr. Gyawali declared that he received no funding and disclosed no conflicts of interest for this study.

Ann Marco, 73, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in late 2018, credits her oncology team for saving her life. They treated her with chemotherapy, debulking surgery, and more chemotherapy. But it is her second and current care team that helped restore Ms. Marco’s quality of life, directing her toward such resources as palliative care, physical therapy and counseling for her and her husband.

“I can’t say enough about my palliative care doctor. She helped me manage pain, and the fatigue associated with chemotherapy. When she noticed that my leg was swollen she suspected a blood clot and sent me for an ultrasound,” Ms. Marco said.

The ultrasound revealed that she did indeed have a blood clot, for which she received, and continues to receive, medication. “Because with ovarian cancer, you always have blood clots. So little things like that, though they’re not that little, have really helped me in my journey with this cancer,” Ms. Marco said.

That journey has had its ups and downs. One chemotherapy regimen was so intolerable she decided to discontinue it, with full support of her oncologist. I told her, I just want to live my life, whether that’s only 6 more months or 3 years, but I don’t want to live it like this. And she said, ‘Ann, we’re going to do what you want to do.’”

Nine months later, when her cancer started growing again, Ms. Marco returned to chemotherapy. But this regimen has been much more tolerable, and it also appears to be doing its job. A recent CT scan showed that the tumors are shrinking.

“They’ll never go away. I have metastatic cancer. But they’re smaller, and I was really thrilled about that. It’s the best news I’ve had in more than 3 years,” Ms. Marco said.
 

End-of-life aggressive care still common

Despite clinical guidelines advising against intensive or invasive end-of-life care, more than half of women with terminal ovarian cancer receive at least one aggressive intervention, shows a study published in JCO Oncology Practice.

“We have good evidence that the types of aggressive end-of-life care we looked at in this paper are generally related to a lower quality of life for patients, poorer bereavement outcomes for their families, and even shorter duration survivals,” said lead author Megan A. Mullins, PhD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “This suggests there’s a disconnect between what people think aggressive care might do and what it’s doing.”

In their evaluation of variation in end-of-life care, Dr. Mullins and her colleagues analyzed SEER-Medicare data on 6,288 women with ovarian cancer who died between 2016 and 2020. They found that 51% of those women received some form of aggressive cancer care. The most common forms were not being admitted to hospice (28.9%), receiving an invasive procedure (20.7%) and being admitted to an intensive care unit (18.6%).

Dr. Mullins noted that since palliative care was officially recognized as a specialty in 2006, there has been increasing guidance for earlier integration of palliative care and reducing the aggressiveness of end-of-life care; both ASCO and the National Quality Form have standards advising against aggressive end-of-life care.

“But there are a lot of complicated factors that I think make it hard to move the needle in this area,” she said. “For one thing, particularly with ovarian cancer, women tend to have recurrences. I’ve spoken with physicians who got their patients through a difficult patch; they rebounded and they did fine. You don’t know for sure if that’s going to happen again if you try something else. Prognostication is not an exact science.”

Also, end-of-life discussions can be challenging conversations. “Nobody wants to take hope away from their patients. But there’s evidence to show that these conversations don’t actually reduce patients’ hopes – that’s a misconception,” Dr. Mullins said.

“It’s challenging. In the United States, we don’t like to talk about death and dying. But I think having these conversations earlier and more often can help make them a more regular part of care,” she said.

Brittany A. Davidson, MD, a gynecologic oncologist with Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who wrote an accompanying editorial, acknowledges that end-of-life can be fraught with fear, anxiety, and a lot of emotion. But she finds helping patients and their families navigate the ups and downs of their cancer one of the most rewarding aspects of her career as a physician.

“We want to help patients and their family members make these transitions as smoothly as possible,” she said.

A proponent of communications skills training for physicians in general, Dr. Brittany said doctors can learn to identify cues that patients are ready to have conversations about their end-of-life care.

“Those cues will help us facilitate conversations sooner rather than later so we’re not waiting until the very end,” she said.

What these conversations consist of varies depending on where the patient is in her cancer trajectory. In a patient with recurrent ovarian or recurrent uterine cancer, this might start with making sure the patient understands that while their cancer is treatable, it is very unlikely to be curable.

“I have often had patients who have been treated for cancer for several years and didn’t know their cancer wasn’t curable. How many missed opportunities have we overlooked?” Dr. Davidson said.

Then the conversation can turn to the goals of treatment. What’s important to the patient? “Are there events they want to be around for? Symptoms they want to avoid? Some patients really want to know what it’s going to be like to die. I try to take the lead from the patient. Ask what kind of information is helpful to them. Is it numbers? Is it symptoms? It’s really different for everybody,” Dr. Davidson said.

Although Dr. Mullins’s research and Dr. Davidson’s editorial suggest there’s room for improvement toward achieving goal-concordant care in gynecological cancers, Dr. Davidson suspects these patients might be faring a bit better than patients with other types of cancer based on her own anecdotal observations.

“One of the unique things about gynecologic oncology is that we have an amazing longitudinal relationship with our patients – we are not only their surgeons, we’re their oncologists. In other solid tumors, care is fractionated.

“That’s one of the reasons I love gynecologic oncology. I have the opportunity to know my patients through all the stages they experience as part of their cancer. I’d like to think that allows me a better opportunity to get to know them and help them recognize the value of palliative care,” Dr. Mullins said.

Ann Marco, 73, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in late 2018, credits her oncology team for saving her life. They treated her with chemotherapy, debulking surgery, and more chemotherapy. But it is her second and current care team that helped restore Ms. Marco’s quality of life, directing her toward such resources as palliative care, physical therapy and counseling for her and her husband.

“I can’t say enough about my palliative care doctor. She helped me manage pain, and the fatigue associated with chemotherapy. When she noticed that my leg was swollen she suspected a blood clot and sent me for an ultrasound,” Ms. Marco said.

The ultrasound revealed that she did indeed have a blood clot, for which she received, and continues to receive, medication. “Because with ovarian cancer, you always have blood clots. So little things like that, though they’re not that little, have really helped me in my journey with this cancer,” Ms. Marco said.

That journey has had its ups and downs. One chemotherapy regimen was so intolerable she decided to discontinue it, with full support of her oncologist. I told her, I just want to live my life, whether that’s only 6 more months or 3 years, but I don’t want to live it like this. And she said, ‘Ann, we’re going to do what you want to do.’”

Nine months later, when her cancer started growing again, Ms. Marco returned to chemotherapy. But this regimen has been much more tolerable, and it also appears to be doing its job. A recent CT scan showed that the tumors are shrinking.

“They’ll never go away. I have metastatic cancer. But they’re smaller, and I was really thrilled about that. It’s the best news I’ve had in more than 3 years,” Ms. Marco said.
 

End-of-life aggressive care still common

Despite clinical guidelines advising against intensive or invasive end-of-life care, more than half of women with terminal ovarian cancer receive at least one aggressive intervention, shows a study published in JCO Oncology Practice.

“We have good evidence that the types of aggressive end-of-life care we looked at in this paper are generally related to a lower quality of life for patients, poorer bereavement outcomes for their families, and even shorter duration survivals,” said lead author Megan A. Mullins, PhD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “This suggests there’s a disconnect between what people think aggressive care might do and what it’s doing.”

In their evaluation of variation in end-of-life care, Dr. Mullins and her colleagues analyzed SEER-Medicare data on 6,288 women with ovarian cancer who died between 2016 and 2020. They found that 51% of those women received some form of aggressive cancer care. The most common forms were not being admitted to hospice (28.9%), receiving an invasive procedure (20.7%) and being admitted to an intensive care unit (18.6%).

Dr. Mullins noted that since palliative care was officially recognized as a specialty in 2006, there has been increasing guidance for earlier integration of palliative care and reducing the aggressiveness of end-of-life care; both ASCO and the National Quality Form have standards advising against aggressive end-of-life care.

“But there are a lot of complicated factors that I think make it hard to move the needle in this area,” she said. “For one thing, particularly with ovarian cancer, women tend to have recurrences. I’ve spoken with physicians who got their patients through a difficult patch; they rebounded and they did fine. You don’t know for sure if that’s going to happen again if you try something else. Prognostication is not an exact science.”

Also, end-of-life discussions can be challenging conversations. “Nobody wants to take hope away from their patients. But there’s evidence to show that these conversations don’t actually reduce patients’ hopes – that’s a misconception,” Dr. Mullins said.

“It’s challenging. In the United States, we don’t like to talk about death and dying. But I think having these conversations earlier and more often can help make them a more regular part of care,” she said.

Brittany A. Davidson, MD, a gynecologic oncologist with Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who wrote an accompanying editorial, acknowledges that end-of-life can be fraught with fear, anxiety, and a lot of emotion. But she finds helping patients and their families navigate the ups and downs of their cancer one of the most rewarding aspects of her career as a physician.

“We want to help patients and their family members make these transitions as smoothly as possible,” she said.

A proponent of communications skills training for physicians in general, Dr. Brittany said doctors can learn to identify cues that patients are ready to have conversations about their end-of-life care.

“Those cues will help us facilitate conversations sooner rather than later so we’re not waiting until the very end,” she said.

What these conversations consist of varies depending on where the patient is in her cancer trajectory. In a patient with recurrent ovarian or recurrent uterine cancer, this might start with making sure the patient understands that while their cancer is treatable, it is very unlikely to be curable.

“I have often had patients who have been treated for cancer for several years and didn’t know their cancer wasn’t curable. How many missed opportunities have we overlooked?” Dr. Davidson said.

Then the conversation can turn to the goals of treatment. What’s important to the patient? “Are there events they want to be around for? Symptoms they want to avoid? Some patients really want to know what it’s going to be like to die. I try to take the lead from the patient. Ask what kind of information is helpful to them. Is it numbers? Is it symptoms? It’s really different for everybody,” Dr. Davidson said.

Although Dr. Mullins’s research and Dr. Davidson’s editorial suggest there’s room for improvement toward achieving goal-concordant care in gynecological cancers, Dr. Davidson suspects these patients might be faring a bit better than patients with other types of cancer based on her own anecdotal observations.

“One of the unique things about gynecologic oncology is that we have an amazing longitudinal relationship with our patients – we are not only their surgeons, we’re their oncologists. In other solid tumors, care is fractionated.

“That’s one of the reasons I love gynecologic oncology. I have the opportunity to know my patients through all the stages they experience as part of their cancer. I’d like to think that allows me a better opportunity to get to know them and help them recognize the value of palliative care,” Dr. Mullins said.

Ann Marco, 73, who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in late 2018, credits her oncology team for saving her life. They treated her with chemotherapy, debulking surgery, and more chemotherapy. But it is her second and current care team that helped restore Ms. Marco’s quality of life, directing her toward such resources as palliative care, physical therapy and counseling for her and her husband.

“I can’t say enough about my palliative care doctor. She helped me manage pain, and the fatigue associated with chemotherapy. When she noticed that my leg was swollen she suspected a blood clot and sent me for an ultrasound,” Ms. Marco said.

The ultrasound revealed that she did indeed have a blood clot, for which she received, and continues to receive, medication. “Because with ovarian cancer, you always have blood clots. So little things like that, though they’re not that little, have really helped me in my journey with this cancer,” Ms. Marco said.

That journey has had its ups and downs. One chemotherapy regimen was so intolerable she decided to discontinue it, with full support of her oncologist. I told her, I just want to live my life, whether that’s only 6 more months or 3 years, but I don’t want to live it like this. And she said, ‘Ann, we’re going to do what you want to do.’”

Nine months later, when her cancer started growing again, Ms. Marco returned to chemotherapy. But this regimen has been much more tolerable, and it also appears to be doing its job. A recent CT scan showed that the tumors are shrinking.

“They’ll never go away. I have metastatic cancer. But they’re smaller, and I was really thrilled about that. It’s the best news I’ve had in more than 3 years,” Ms. Marco said.
 

End-of-life aggressive care still common

Despite clinical guidelines advising against intensive or invasive end-of-life care, more than half of women with terminal ovarian cancer receive at least one aggressive intervention, shows a study published in JCO Oncology Practice.

“We have good evidence that the types of aggressive end-of-life care we looked at in this paper are generally related to a lower quality of life for patients, poorer bereavement outcomes for their families, and even shorter duration survivals,” said lead author Megan A. Mullins, PhD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “This suggests there’s a disconnect between what people think aggressive care might do and what it’s doing.”

In their evaluation of variation in end-of-life care, Dr. Mullins and her colleagues analyzed SEER-Medicare data on 6,288 women with ovarian cancer who died between 2016 and 2020. They found that 51% of those women received some form of aggressive cancer care. The most common forms were not being admitted to hospice (28.9%), receiving an invasive procedure (20.7%) and being admitted to an intensive care unit (18.6%).

Dr. Mullins noted that since palliative care was officially recognized as a specialty in 2006, there has been increasing guidance for earlier integration of palliative care and reducing the aggressiveness of end-of-life care; both ASCO and the National Quality Form have standards advising against aggressive end-of-life care.

“But there are a lot of complicated factors that I think make it hard to move the needle in this area,” she said. “For one thing, particularly with ovarian cancer, women tend to have recurrences. I’ve spoken with physicians who got their patients through a difficult patch; they rebounded and they did fine. You don’t know for sure if that’s going to happen again if you try something else. Prognostication is not an exact science.”

Also, end-of-life discussions can be challenging conversations. “Nobody wants to take hope away from their patients. But there’s evidence to show that these conversations don’t actually reduce patients’ hopes – that’s a misconception,” Dr. Mullins said.

“It’s challenging. In the United States, we don’t like to talk about death and dying. But I think having these conversations earlier and more often can help make them a more regular part of care,” she said.

Brittany A. Davidson, MD, a gynecologic oncologist with Duke Health in Durham, N.C., who wrote an accompanying editorial, acknowledges that end-of-life can be fraught with fear, anxiety, and a lot of emotion. But she finds helping patients and their families navigate the ups and downs of their cancer one of the most rewarding aspects of her career as a physician.

“We want to help patients and their family members make these transitions as smoothly as possible,” she said.

A proponent of communications skills training for physicians in general, Dr. Brittany said doctors can learn to identify cues that patients are ready to have conversations about their end-of-life care.

“Those cues will help us facilitate conversations sooner rather than later so we’re not waiting until the very end,” she said.

What these conversations consist of varies depending on where the patient is in her cancer trajectory. In a patient with recurrent ovarian or recurrent uterine cancer, this might start with making sure the patient understands that while their cancer is treatable, it is very unlikely to be curable.

“I have often had patients who have been treated for cancer for several years and didn’t know their cancer wasn’t curable. How many missed opportunities have we overlooked?” Dr. Davidson said.

Then the conversation can turn to the goals of treatment. What’s important to the patient? “Are there events they want to be around for? Symptoms they want to avoid? Some patients really want to know what it’s going to be like to die. I try to take the lead from the patient. Ask what kind of information is helpful to them. Is it numbers? Is it symptoms? It’s really different for everybody,” Dr. Davidson said.

Although Dr. Mullins’s research and Dr. Davidson’s editorial suggest there’s room for improvement toward achieving goal-concordant care in gynecological cancers, Dr. Davidson suspects these patients might be faring a bit better than patients with other types of cancer based on her own anecdotal observations.

“One of the unique things about gynecologic oncology is that we have an amazing longitudinal relationship with our patients – we are not only their surgeons, we’re their oncologists. In other solid tumors, care is fractionated.

“That’s one of the reasons I love gynecologic oncology. I have the opportunity to know my patients through all the stages they experience as part of their cancer. I’d like to think that allows me a better opportunity to get to know them and help them recognize the value of palliative care,” Dr. Mullins said.

Findings from a cohort study highlight a potential role of tumor grade for predicting mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma response to immunotherapy, researchers report in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

The analysis, which was among patients with either high-grade or low-grade recurrent or metastatic mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) tumors, revealed that tumor grade was independently associated with immunotherapy response.

“Generally, one would expect high-grade tumors to do worse because they are more aggressive,” said Rajarsi Mandal, MD, the study’s lead author. “But it’s thought that high-grade tumors have higher degrees of chromosomal instability with a lot more mutations generated throughout the genome of these tumors ... and we know that higher mutation rates correlate with higher responses to immunotherapy.”

Researchers found that the proportion of patients having a beneficial response to immunotherapy was larger for patients with high grade tumors (12 of 35; 34.3%) than those with low grade tumors (2 of 25, 8.0%) (difference, 26.3%; 95% confidence interval, 7.3%-45.3%). The odds of having a clinically beneficial response to immunotherapy was increased 5.35-fold (95% CI, 1.04-27.37) in patients with high-grade tumors. Among four patients with low-grade tumors and eight patients with high-grade tumors with available tumor mutational burden data, the mean tumor mutational burden was greater for patients with high-grade tumors (mean [standard deviation], 8.6 [5.4] mut/Mb; n = 8) than for patients with low grade tumors (mean [SD], 3.6 [1.1] mut/Mb; n = 4) (difference, 5.0 mut/Mb; 95% CI, −1.4 to 11.4 mut/Mb; Cohen d, 1.2).

“High tumor grade is not a guarantee but it possibly provides an easy biomarker and a good rationale to say that there’s a better chance the patient will respond to immune checkpoint inhibition,” said Dr. Mandal who is a head and neck cancer surgeon with the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Previous studies of HNSCC tumors that are refractory to traditional therapies, including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, have demonstrated a clinically beneficial response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). An association between increased tumor mutational burden and beneficial response to ICIs has been shown in other cancers.

Researchers hypothesized that tumor histological grade may be associated with responses to immune checkpoint blockade, and designed their study to examine the association between tumor grade and immunotherapy response in patients treated with ICIs for recurrent or metastatic mucosal HNSCC.

In a single-center retrospective cohort study, investigators reviewed the medical records of 60 adult patients (mean age, 64.6 years; 85% male) with a primary mucosal HNSCC tumor treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, or durvalumab) treated between July 1, 2015, and Jan. 22, 2020. They stratified them into those with low grade tumors (well differentiated and moderately differentiated) and those with high grade tumors (poorly differentiated). A clinically beneficial immunotherapy response, defined as complete response or partial response was the primary outcome.

Thirty-eight patients in the study cohort were current or former smokers. The most common primary tumor sight was at the oropharynx. Outcomes among those with high-grade tumors were improved, compared with those with low-grade tumors, for median progression-free survival (5.9 months vs. 3.3 months), median overall survival (16.6 months vs. 15.0 months, and risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.94).

The study’s main limitation was its small sample size and small number of patients who had a clinically beneficial immunotherapy response.

Dr. Mandal had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Findings from a cohort study highlight a potential role of tumor grade for predicting mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma response to immunotherapy, researchers report in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

The analysis, which was among patients with either high-grade or low-grade recurrent or metastatic mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) tumors, revealed that tumor grade was independently associated with immunotherapy response.

“Generally, one would expect high-grade tumors to do worse because they are more aggressive,” said Rajarsi Mandal, MD, the study’s lead author. “But it’s thought that high-grade tumors have higher degrees of chromosomal instability with a lot more mutations generated throughout the genome of these tumors ... and we know that higher mutation rates correlate with higher responses to immunotherapy.”

Researchers found that the proportion of patients having a beneficial response to immunotherapy was larger for patients with high grade tumors (12 of 35; 34.3%) than those with low grade tumors (2 of 25, 8.0%) (difference, 26.3%; 95% confidence interval, 7.3%-45.3%). The odds of having a clinically beneficial response to immunotherapy was increased 5.35-fold (95% CI, 1.04-27.37) in patients with high-grade tumors. Among four patients with low-grade tumors and eight patients with high-grade tumors with available tumor mutational burden data, the mean tumor mutational burden was greater for patients with high-grade tumors (mean [standard deviation], 8.6 [5.4] mut/Mb; n = 8) than for patients with low grade tumors (mean [SD], 3.6 [1.1] mut/Mb; n = 4) (difference, 5.0 mut/Mb; 95% CI, −1.4 to 11.4 mut/Mb; Cohen d, 1.2).

“High tumor grade is not a guarantee but it possibly provides an easy biomarker and a good rationale to say that there’s a better chance the patient will respond to immune checkpoint inhibition,” said Dr. Mandal who is a head and neck cancer surgeon with the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Previous studies of HNSCC tumors that are refractory to traditional therapies, including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, have demonstrated a clinically beneficial response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). An association between increased tumor mutational burden and beneficial response to ICIs has been shown in other cancers.

Researchers hypothesized that tumor histological grade may be associated with responses to immune checkpoint blockade, and designed their study to examine the association between tumor grade and immunotherapy response in patients treated with ICIs for recurrent or metastatic mucosal HNSCC.

In a single-center retrospective cohort study, investigators reviewed the medical records of 60 adult patients (mean age, 64.6 years; 85% male) with a primary mucosal HNSCC tumor treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, or durvalumab) treated between July 1, 2015, and Jan. 22, 2020. They stratified them into those with low grade tumors (well differentiated and moderately differentiated) and those with high grade tumors (poorly differentiated). A clinically beneficial immunotherapy response, defined as complete response or partial response was the primary outcome.

Thirty-eight patients in the study cohort were current or former smokers. The most common primary tumor sight was at the oropharynx. Outcomes among those with high-grade tumors were improved, compared with those with low-grade tumors, for median progression-free survival (5.9 months vs. 3.3 months), median overall survival (16.6 months vs. 15.0 months, and risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.94).

The study’s main limitation was its small sample size and small number of patients who had a clinically beneficial immunotherapy response.

Dr. Mandal had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Findings from a cohort study highlight a potential role of tumor grade for predicting mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma response to immunotherapy, researchers report in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

The analysis, which was among patients with either high-grade or low-grade recurrent or metastatic mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) tumors, revealed that tumor grade was independently associated with immunotherapy response.

“Generally, one would expect high-grade tumors to do worse because they are more aggressive,” said Rajarsi Mandal, MD, the study’s lead author. “But it’s thought that high-grade tumors have higher degrees of chromosomal instability with a lot more mutations generated throughout the genome of these tumors ... and we know that higher mutation rates correlate with higher responses to immunotherapy.”

Researchers found that the proportion of patients having a beneficial response to immunotherapy was larger for patients with high grade tumors (12 of 35; 34.3%) than those with low grade tumors (2 of 25, 8.0%) (difference, 26.3%; 95% confidence interval, 7.3%-45.3%). The odds of having a clinically beneficial response to immunotherapy was increased 5.35-fold (95% CI, 1.04-27.37) in patients with high-grade tumors. Among four patients with low-grade tumors and eight patients with high-grade tumors with available tumor mutational burden data, the mean tumor mutational burden was greater for patients with high-grade tumors (mean [standard deviation], 8.6 [5.4] mut/Mb; n = 8) than for patients with low grade tumors (mean [SD], 3.6 [1.1] mut/Mb; n = 4) (difference, 5.0 mut/Mb; 95% CI, −1.4 to 11.4 mut/Mb; Cohen d, 1.2).

“High tumor grade is not a guarantee but it possibly provides an easy biomarker and a good rationale to say that there’s a better chance the patient will respond to immune checkpoint inhibition,” said Dr. Mandal who is a head and neck cancer surgeon with the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Previous studies of HNSCC tumors that are refractory to traditional therapies, including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, have demonstrated a clinically beneficial response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). An association between increased tumor mutational burden and beneficial response to ICIs has been shown in other cancers.

Researchers hypothesized that tumor histological grade may be associated with responses to immune checkpoint blockade, and designed their study to examine the association between tumor grade and immunotherapy response in patients treated with ICIs for recurrent or metastatic mucosal HNSCC.

In a single-center retrospective cohort study, investigators reviewed the medical records of 60 adult patients (mean age, 64.6 years; 85% male) with a primary mucosal HNSCC tumor treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, ipilimumab, or durvalumab) treated between July 1, 2015, and Jan. 22, 2020. They stratified them into those with low grade tumors (well differentiated and moderately differentiated) and those with high grade tumors (poorly differentiated). A clinically beneficial immunotherapy response, defined as complete response or partial response was the primary outcome.

Thirty-eight patients in the study cohort were current or former smokers. The most common primary tumor sight was at the oropharynx. Outcomes among those with high-grade tumors were improved, compared with those with low-grade tumors, for median progression-free survival (5.9 months vs. 3.3 months), median overall survival (16.6 months vs. 15.0 months, and risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.94).

The study’s main limitation was its small sample size and small number of patients who had a clinically beneficial immunotherapy response.

Dr. Mandal had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

A large Danish study has found that cancer increases the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, especially certain types of cancer, most notably pancreatic malignancies.

“Our study demonstrates that there is an elevated risk of developing diabetes if a person is affected by lung, pancreatic, breast, brain, urinary tract, or uterine cancers,” said Lykke Sylow, PhD, associate professor in the Molecular Metabolism in Cancer and Ageing Group at the University of Copenhagen, in a statement.

“It is great to see such a large, well-designed study confirm the findings of previous smaller studies and observations,” said Elias S. Siraj, MD, the David L. Bernd Distinguished Chair for EVMS-Sentara Cardiovascular Diabetes Program at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, when asked for comment by this news organization. Dr. Siraj also noted that “in clinical care we do observe that many patients develop diabetes after being diagnosed with cancer although one needs a well-designed study to confirm that observation.”
 

Diabetes risk highest with pancreatic cancer

Type 2 diabetes at the time of cancer diagnosis is known to increase cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, but not much is known about whether cancer is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, the researchers state in their study, published in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Sylow and colleagues from the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, analyzed a database consisting of 112 million blood samples from 1.3 million Danes from 2000 to 2015. They looked at cancer cases with an incidence of more than 1,000 and excluded individuals with diabetes prior to cancer diagnosis. 

They found an increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes for all cancers (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.14). For pancreatic cancer, the hazard ratio rose to 5.0 (95% CI, 3.62-6.90), for brain and nervous system cancers the hazard ratio was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.22-1.95), and for uterine cancer the hazard ratio was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.10-1.84).

The link with pancreatic cancer was not surprising, said Dr. Sylow.

Dr. Siraj agreed, noting that a few studies have shown a strong association. “It has also been observed for years that many patients with pancreatic cancer may present with new-onset diabetes,” he said. “The mechanism is not clearly understood but could include a direct damage of the beta cells by the pancreatic cancer or could be due to a paraneoplastic secretion of special factors by the cancer that can affect beta-cell function or insulin resistance,” said Dr. Siraj, who is also professor and chief of endocrinology and director of the Strelitz Diabetes Center at Eastern Virginia Medical School.

The higher diabetes risk associated with brain and nervous system cancers has not been previously described and is “an intriguing finding,” he said.

In their statement, the Danish investigators said there is nothing in their research to suggest why some cancers are associated with a higher risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, but they offered some theories, including that chemotherapeutics and perhaps the cancer, itself, may contribute.

“We know that cancer cells are able to secrete substances that can affect organs and possibility contribute to an increased incidence of diabetes,” said Dr. Sylow in the statement.
 

Increased mortality risk in those with cancer and type 2 diabetes

Dr. Sylow and colleagues also analyzed mortality in a subset of 28,308 patients with cancer who were still alive 2 years after diagnosis. They documented a 21% higher rate of all-cause mortality in these patients compared with those who did not have new-onset type 2 diabetes.

“We do not know enough about the patients who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but we think our findings illustrate a potential new area of intervention in the cancer clinic,” Dr. Sylow said. However, the findings still require replication before drawing any definite conclusions, she added.

Christoffer Johansen, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Rigshospitalet, said in the statement that it might be prudent to screen patients with lung, breast, brain, uterine, and urinary tract cancers for diabetes. “Early intervention could have an impact on certain cancer patients,” said Dr. Johansen.

Dr. Siraj said he would urge oncologists to routinely monitor blood glucose levels during cancer treatment and as part of long-term surveillance, and to consider the potential risk of new-onset diabetes when choosing a cancer therapy. If diabetes is diagnosed, clinicians should be sure that it’s managed by a primary care physician or endocrinologist, “as proper treatment may contribute to better outcomes of the cancer,” said Dr. Siraj.

Endocrinologists should consider the possibility of pancreatic cancer if someone with few risk factors for type 2 diabetes has a new-onset diagnosis, he said. And they should aim for good glycemic control in those with new-onset type 2 diabetes, as it may lead to better cancer outcomes, he said.

Dr. Sylow has reported grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Johansen has reported serving as an educator for Janssen and Pfizer. Coauthors have received grant support from the Danish Cancer Society and served as consultants, on advisory boards, or as educators for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, GSK, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

A large Danish study has found that cancer increases the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, especially certain types of cancer, most notably pancreatic malignancies.

“Our study demonstrates that there is an elevated risk of developing diabetes if a person is affected by lung, pancreatic, breast, brain, urinary tract, or uterine cancers,” said Lykke Sylow, PhD, associate professor in the Molecular Metabolism in Cancer and Ageing Group at the University of Copenhagen, in a statement.

“It is great to see such a large, well-designed study confirm the findings of previous smaller studies and observations,” said Elias S. Siraj, MD, the David L. Bernd Distinguished Chair for EVMS-Sentara Cardiovascular Diabetes Program at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, when asked for comment by this news organization. Dr. Siraj also noted that “in clinical care we do observe that many patients develop diabetes after being diagnosed with cancer although one needs a well-designed study to confirm that observation.”
 

Diabetes risk highest with pancreatic cancer

Type 2 diabetes at the time of cancer diagnosis is known to increase cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, but not much is known about whether cancer is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, the researchers state in their study, published in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Sylow and colleagues from the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, analyzed a database consisting of 112 million blood samples from 1.3 million Danes from 2000 to 2015. They looked at cancer cases with an incidence of more than 1,000 and excluded individuals with diabetes prior to cancer diagnosis. 

They found an increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes for all cancers (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.14). For pancreatic cancer, the hazard ratio rose to 5.0 (95% CI, 3.62-6.90), for brain and nervous system cancers the hazard ratio was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.22-1.95), and for uterine cancer the hazard ratio was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.10-1.84).

The link with pancreatic cancer was not surprising, said Dr. Sylow.

Dr. Siraj agreed, noting that a few studies have shown a strong association. “It has also been observed for years that many patients with pancreatic cancer may present with new-onset diabetes,” he said. “The mechanism is not clearly understood but could include a direct damage of the beta cells by the pancreatic cancer or could be due to a paraneoplastic secretion of special factors by the cancer that can affect beta-cell function or insulin resistance,” said Dr. Siraj, who is also professor and chief of endocrinology and director of the Strelitz Diabetes Center at Eastern Virginia Medical School.

The higher diabetes risk associated with brain and nervous system cancers has not been previously described and is “an intriguing finding,” he said.

In their statement, the Danish investigators said there is nothing in their research to suggest why some cancers are associated with a higher risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, but they offered some theories, including that chemotherapeutics and perhaps the cancer, itself, may contribute.

“We know that cancer cells are able to secrete substances that can affect organs and possibility contribute to an increased incidence of diabetes,” said Dr. Sylow in the statement.
 

Increased mortality risk in those with cancer and type 2 diabetes

Dr. Sylow and colleagues also analyzed mortality in a subset of 28,308 patients with cancer who were still alive 2 years after diagnosis. They documented a 21% higher rate of all-cause mortality in these patients compared with those who did not have new-onset type 2 diabetes.

“We do not know enough about the patients who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but we think our findings illustrate a potential new area of intervention in the cancer clinic,” Dr. Sylow said. However, the findings still require replication before drawing any definite conclusions, she added.

Christoffer Johansen, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Rigshospitalet, said in the statement that it might be prudent to screen patients with lung, breast, brain, uterine, and urinary tract cancers for diabetes. “Early intervention could have an impact on certain cancer patients,” said Dr. Johansen.

Dr. Siraj said he would urge oncologists to routinely monitor blood glucose levels during cancer treatment and as part of long-term surveillance, and to consider the potential risk of new-onset diabetes when choosing a cancer therapy. If diabetes is diagnosed, clinicians should be sure that it’s managed by a primary care physician or endocrinologist, “as proper treatment may contribute to better outcomes of the cancer,” said Dr. Siraj.

Endocrinologists should consider the possibility of pancreatic cancer if someone with few risk factors for type 2 diabetes has a new-onset diagnosis, he said. And they should aim for good glycemic control in those with new-onset type 2 diabetes, as it may lead to better cancer outcomes, he said.

Dr. Sylow has reported grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Johansen has reported serving as an educator for Janssen and Pfizer. Coauthors have received grant support from the Danish Cancer Society and served as consultants, on advisory boards, or as educators for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, GSK, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

A large Danish study has found that cancer increases the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, especially certain types of cancer, most notably pancreatic malignancies.

“Our study demonstrates that there is an elevated risk of developing diabetes if a person is affected by lung, pancreatic, breast, brain, urinary tract, or uterine cancers,” said Lykke Sylow, PhD, associate professor in the Molecular Metabolism in Cancer and Ageing Group at the University of Copenhagen, in a statement.

“It is great to see such a large, well-designed study confirm the findings of previous smaller studies and observations,” said Elias S. Siraj, MD, the David L. Bernd Distinguished Chair for EVMS-Sentara Cardiovascular Diabetes Program at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, when asked for comment by this news organization. Dr. Siraj also noted that “in clinical care we do observe that many patients develop diabetes after being diagnosed with cancer although one needs a well-designed study to confirm that observation.”
 

Diabetes risk highest with pancreatic cancer

Type 2 diabetes at the time of cancer diagnosis is known to increase cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, but not much is known about whether cancer is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, the researchers state in their study, published in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Sylow and colleagues from the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, analyzed a database consisting of 112 million blood samples from 1.3 million Danes from 2000 to 2015. They looked at cancer cases with an incidence of more than 1,000 and excluded individuals with diabetes prior to cancer diagnosis. 

They found an increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes for all cancers (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.14). For pancreatic cancer, the hazard ratio rose to 5.0 (95% CI, 3.62-6.90), for brain and nervous system cancers the hazard ratio was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.22-1.95), and for uterine cancer the hazard ratio was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.10-1.84).

The link with pancreatic cancer was not surprising, said Dr. Sylow.

Dr. Siraj agreed, noting that a few studies have shown a strong association. “It has also been observed for years that many patients with pancreatic cancer may present with new-onset diabetes,” he said. “The mechanism is not clearly understood but could include a direct damage of the beta cells by the pancreatic cancer or could be due to a paraneoplastic secretion of special factors by the cancer that can affect beta-cell function or insulin resistance,” said Dr. Siraj, who is also professor and chief of endocrinology and director of the Strelitz Diabetes Center at Eastern Virginia Medical School.

The higher diabetes risk associated with brain and nervous system cancers has not been previously described and is “an intriguing finding,” he said.

In their statement, the Danish investigators said there is nothing in their research to suggest why some cancers are associated with a higher risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, but they offered some theories, including that chemotherapeutics and perhaps the cancer, itself, may contribute.

“We know that cancer cells are able to secrete substances that can affect organs and possibility contribute to an increased incidence of diabetes,” said Dr. Sylow in the statement.
 

Increased mortality risk in those with cancer and type 2 diabetes

Dr. Sylow and colleagues also analyzed mortality in a subset of 28,308 patients with cancer who were still alive 2 years after diagnosis. They documented a 21% higher rate of all-cause mortality in these patients compared with those who did not have new-onset type 2 diabetes.

“We do not know enough about the patients who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but we think our findings illustrate a potential new area of intervention in the cancer clinic,” Dr. Sylow said. However, the findings still require replication before drawing any definite conclusions, she added.

Christoffer Johansen, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Rigshospitalet, said in the statement that it might be prudent to screen patients with lung, breast, brain, uterine, and urinary tract cancers for diabetes. “Early intervention could have an impact on certain cancer patients,” said Dr. Johansen.

Dr. Siraj said he would urge oncologists to routinely monitor blood glucose levels during cancer treatment and as part of long-term surveillance, and to consider the potential risk of new-onset diabetes when choosing a cancer therapy. If diabetes is diagnosed, clinicians should be sure that it’s managed by a primary care physician or endocrinologist, “as proper treatment may contribute to better outcomes of the cancer,” said Dr. Siraj.

Endocrinologists should consider the possibility of pancreatic cancer if someone with few risk factors for type 2 diabetes has a new-onset diagnosis, he said. And they should aim for good glycemic control in those with new-onset type 2 diabetes, as it may lead to better cancer outcomes, he said.

Dr. Sylow has reported grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Johansen has reported serving as an educator for Janssen and Pfizer. Coauthors have received grant support from the Danish Cancer Society and served as consultants, on advisory boards, or as educators for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, GSK, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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