AVAHO

Breast cancer screening modality has less effect on the probability of false-positive results than screening interval, patient age, and breast density according to a new study comparing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with digital mammography.

Although DBT was associated with a modest improvement in recalls for false-positive results compared with mammography, about half of women in both groups received at least one false-positive result over a 10-year period of annual screening, reported senior author Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, from the University of California, Davis, and colleagues.

By contrast, the authors reported “substantial reductions” in false-positive recalls with biennial screening. Specifically, while annual mammography and DBT resulted in cumulative 10-year false-positive recall rates of 56.3% and 49.6% respectively, biennial rates were 38.1% and 35.7%.

The comparative effectiveness study, published in JAMA Network Open, included 903,495 women who underwent 10 years of breast cancer screening at 126 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. The mean age of participants was 57.6 years, and 46% of them had dense breasts. A total of 2,969,055 screening exams were performed (15% DBT), with each woman receiving a mean of 3.3 exams over 10 years. Most participants (71.8%) had annual exams, while 16.8% had biennial, with the remainder being performed at intervals of 3 years or more.

Investigators looked at the cumulative rate of three kinds of false-positive results over 10 years: false-positive recalls for further imaging, false-positive short-interval follow-up recommendations, and false-positive biopsy recommendations. A result was considered false positive if there was no diagnosis of invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ within 1 year of the screening examination and before the next screening examination.

Overall, across all screening intervals, and after adjusting for age and breast density, the percentage of false-positive results was slightly lower for DBT vs. mammography: 7.6% vs. 9.0%, respectively, for false-positive recalls; 1.8% vs. 2.1%, respectively, for false-positive short-interval follow-up recommendations; and 1.1% vs. 1.2% for false-positive biopsy recommendations. “We did not observe consistent clinically meaningful differences in the cumulative probabilities of false-positive short-interval follow-up or biopsy recommendation by screening modality,” they noted, adding that, although DBT provided “modest” reductions in false-positive recalls, compared with mammography (2.4% less for biennial screening and 6.7% less for annual screening), “nonetheless, this percentage equates to many thousands of individuals in absolute numbers, especially for annual screening, which is the dominant practice in the U.S.”

The authors also noted that, regardless of screening modality, all three types of false-positive results were substantially lower for biennial versus annual mammograph, and depended on age and breast density. The highest cumulative rates of false-positive results occurred in women aged 40-49 years (68.0% with annual digital mammography and 60.8% with annual DBT). Women with extremely dense breasts had the highest probability of all three types of false positive, which “may be due to the lack of interspersed fat within dense fibroglandular tissue, with the contrast between the fat and tissue being a requirement for more accurate detection of suspicious features by interpreting radiologists.”

The study findings “offer new information about the potential harms of repeated screening, which may be used to inform screening guidelines and decision-making between individuals and their physicians. However, it is important to weigh these and other potential harms with potential benefits of earlier diagnosis. … Women at high risk of an advanced cancer under biennial screening, including some women with dense breasts, may reduce their risk with annual screening,” they suggested.

Although DBT is now widely used in the United States, amid growing optimism about its superiority over digital mammography, this study reminds clinicians to counsel patients appropriately, according to Lydia E. Pace, MD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “Unfortunately, the growing availability of DBT does not substantially change the likelihood that women will experience a false-positive result over years of regular mammograms,” she wrote in an invited commentary published with the study. She noted that, although many women tolerate false-positive results, “they are associated with at least transient anxiety as well as time, inconvenience, and expense. More information is needed to understand the association of DBT with overdiagnosis, which is the more clinically important harm of screening.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Miglioretti and Dr. Pace reported no conflicts of interest. One coauthor of the study is an unpaid consultant for Grail, for the STRIVE study, and another coauthor receives personal fees from Grail for work on a data safety monitoring board. No other disclosures were reported.

Breast cancer screening modality has less effect on the probability of false-positive results than screening interval, patient age, and breast density according to a new study comparing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with digital mammography.

Although DBT was associated with a modest improvement in recalls for false-positive results compared with mammography, about half of women in both groups received at least one false-positive result over a 10-year period of annual screening, reported senior author Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, from the University of California, Davis, and colleagues.

By contrast, the authors reported “substantial reductions” in false-positive recalls with biennial screening. Specifically, while annual mammography and DBT resulted in cumulative 10-year false-positive recall rates of 56.3% and 49.6% respectively, biennial rates were 38.1% and 35.7%.

The comparative effectiveness study, published in JAMA Network Open, included 903,495 women who underwent 10 years of breast cancer screening at 126 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. The mean age of participants was 57.6 years, and 46% of them had dense breasts. A total of 2,969,055 screening exams were performed (15% DBT), with each woman receiving a mean of 3.3 exams over 10 years. Most participants (71.8%) had annual exams, while 16.8% had biennial, with the remainder being performed at intervals of 3 years or more.

Investigators looked at the cumulative rate of three kinds of false-positive results over 10 years: false-positive recalls for further imaging, false-positive short-interval follow-up recommendations, and false-positive biopsy recommendations. A result was considered false positive if there was no diagnosis of invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ within 1 year of the screening examination and before the next screening examination.

Overall, across all screening intervals, and after adjusting for age and breast density, the percentage of false-positive results was slightly lower for DBT vs. mammography: 7.6% vs. 9.0%, respectively, for false-positive recalls; 1.8% vs. 2.1%, respectively, for false-positive short-interval follow-up recommendations; and 1.1% vs. 1.2% for false-positive biopsy recommendations. “We did not observe consistent clinically meaningful differences in the cumulative probabilities of false-positive short-interval follow-up or biopsy recommendation by screening modality,” they noted, adding that, although DBT provided “modest” reductions in false-positive recalls, compared with mammography (2.4% less for biennial screening and 6.7% less for annual screening), “nonetheless, this percentage equates to many thousands of individuals in absolute numbers, especially for annual screening, which is the dominant practice in the U.S.”

The authors also noted that, regardless of screening modality, all three types of false-positive results were substantially lower for biennial versus annual mammograph, and depended on age and breast density. The highest cumulative rates of false-positive results occurred in women aged 40-49 years (68.0% with annual digital mammography and 60.8% with annual DBT). Women with extremely dense breasts had the highest probability of all three types of false positive, which “may be due to the lack of interspersed fat within dense fibroglandular tissue, with the contrast between the fat and tissue being a requirement for more accurate detection of suspicious features by interpreting radiologists.”

The study findings “offer new information about the potential harms of repeated screening, which may be used to inform screening guidelines and decision-making between individuals and their physicians. However, it is important to weigh these and other potential harms with potential benefits of earlier diagnosis. … Women at high risk of an advanced cancer under biennial screening, including some women with dense breasts, may reduce their risk with annual screening,” they suggested.

Although DBT is now widely used in the United States, amid growing optimism about its superiority over digital mammography, this study reminds clinicians to counsel patients appropriately, according to Lydia E. Pace, MD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “Unfortunately, the growing availability of DBT does not substantially change the likelihood that women will experience a false-positive result over years of regular mammograms,” she wrote in an invited commentary published with the study. She noted that, although many women tolerate false-positive results, “they are associated with at least transient anxiety as well as time, inconvenience, and expense. More information is needed to understand the association of DBT with overdiagnosis, which is the more clinically important harm of screening.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Miglioretti and Dr. Pace reported no conflicts of interest. One coauthor of the study is an unpaid consultant for Grail, for the STRIVE study, and another coauthor receives personal fees from Grail for work on a data safety monitoring board. No other disclosures were reported.

Breast cancer screening modality has less effect on the probability of false-positive results than screening interval, patient age, and breast density according to a new study comparing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) with digital mammography.

Although DBT was associated with a modest improvement in recalls for false-positive results compared with mammography, about half of women in both groups received at least one false-positive result over a 10-year period of annual screening, reported senior author Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, from the University of California, Davis, and colleagues.

By contrast, the authors reported “substantial reductions” in false-positive recalls with biennial screening. Specifically, while annual mammography and DBT resulted in cumulative 10-year false-positive recall rates of 56.3% and 49.6% respectively, biennial rates were 38.1% and 35.7%.

The comparative effectiveness study, published in JAMA Network Open, included 903,495 women who underwent 10 years of breast cancer screening at 126 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. The mean age of participants was 57.6 years, and 46% of them had dense breasts. A total of 2,969,055 screening exams were performed (15% DBT), with each woman receiving a mean of 3.3 exams over 10 years. Most participants (71.8%) had annual exams, while 16.8% had biennial, with the remainder being performed at intervals of 3 years or more.

Investigators looked at the cumulative rate of three kinds of false-positive results over 10 years: false-positive recalls for further imaging, false-positive short-interval follow-up recommendations, and false-positive biopsy recommendations. A result was considered false positive if there was no diagnosis of invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ within 1 year of the screening examination and before the next screening examination.

Overall, across all screening intervals, and after adjusting for age and breast density, the percentage of false-positive results was slightly lower for DBT vs. mammography: 7.6% vs. 9.0%, respectively, for false-positive recalls; 1.8% vs. 2.1%, respectively, for false-positive short-interval follow-up recommendations; and 1.1% vs. 1.2% for false-positive biopsy recommendations. “We did not observe consistent clinically meaningful differences in the cumulative probabilities of false-positive short-interval follow-up or biopsy recommendation by screening modality,” they noted, adding that, although DBT provided “modest” reductions in false-positive recalls, compared with mammography (2.4% less for biennial screening and 6.7% less for annual screening), “nonetheless, this percentage equates to many thousands of individuals in absolute numbers, especially for annual screening, which is the dominant practice in the U.S.”

The authors also noted that, regardless of screening modality, all three types of false-positive results were substantially lower for biennial versus annual mammograph, and depended on age and breast density. The highest cumulative rates of false-positive results occurred in women aged 40-49 years (68.0% with annual digital mammography and 60.8% with annual DBT). Women with extremely dense breasts had the highest probability of all three types of false positive, which “may be due to the lack of interspersed fat within dense fibroglandular tissue, with the contrast between the fat and tissue being a requirement for more accurate detection of suspicious features by interpreting radiologists.”

The study findings “offer new information about the potential harms of repeated screening, which may be used to inform screening guidelines and decision-making between individuals and their physicians. However, it is important to weigh these and other potential harms with potential benefits of earlier diagnosis. … Women at high risk of an advanced cancer under biennial screening, including some women with dense breasts, may reduce their risk with annual screening,” they suggested.

Although DBT is now widely used in the United States, amid growing optimism about its superiority over digital mammography, this study reminds clinicians to counsel patients appropriately, according to Lydia E. Pace, MD, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “Unfortunately, the growing availability of DBT does not substantially change the likelihood that women will experience a false-positive result over years of regular mammograms,” she wrote in an invited commentary published with the study. She noted that, although many women tolerate false-positive results, “they are associated with at least transient anxiety as well as time, inconvenience, and expense. More information is needed to understand the association of DBT with overdiagnosis, which is the more clinically important harm of screening.”

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Miglioretti and Dr. Pace reported no conflicts of interest. One coauthor of the study is an unpaid consultant for Grail, for the STRIVE study, and another coauthor receives personal fees from Grail for work on a data safety monitoring board. No other disclosures were reported.

During a recent virtual medical malpractice trial, the judge called a break, and the participants left their screens. When the trial resumed a short time later, one juror was missing. The court called his phone, but there was no answer.

“Everyone had to keep waiting and waiting while the bailiff kept trying to call,” recalled Elizabeth Leedom, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Seattle. “The juror fell asleep.”

The sleeping juror caused a significant delay in the trial, Ms. Leedom said. Finally, he woke up, and the trial was able to continue.

In another instance, a potential juror showed up drunk to a virtual jury selection. The man was slurring his words as he answered questions, Ms. Leedom said, and when asked if he was okay, he admitted that he had a drinking problem. The judge asked whether he had consumed alcohol, and the man admitted that he’d been drinking that day. He was excused from jury selection.

These alarming incidents are among the mishaps that happen during virtual medical malpractice trials. Since the pandemic started, many courts have moved to virtual settings to slow the spread of COVID-19. Although some courts have now shifted back to in-person trials, some areas continue to mandate virtual malpractice trials, hearings, and depositions.

Such trials can save money and are convenient, but legal experts say virtual trials present serious challenges for physicians and raise concerns about fairness. Some jurors are not taking virtual cases seriously or do not stay focused on the subject matter, according to attorneys.

“Virtual trials are not as fair to physicians as in-person trials,” said Andrew DeSimone, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Lexington, Ky. “It’s too easy not to pay attention in a virtual setting. And when you are dealing with complex medical topics, juror attention is a paramount issue.”
 

Casual settings, constant interruptions during jury selections

Understanding and reaching the jury have been the greatest challenges with virtual and hybrid trials, said Laura Eschleman, a medical liability defense attorney based in Atlanta. Hybrid trials are part virtual and part in person.

Ms. Eschleman has participated in jury selections via Zoom in which jurors lounge in bed during the process and spouses and children waltz into the room as they please, she said.

“With over 36 Zoom boxes of potential jurors, assessing each potential juror was difficult to say the least,” she said. “[Jury selection] has always been an opportunity to introduce the defendant physicians to the jurors as humans; doing it virtually took that away. It is difficult to humanize a box on a screen.”

Regarding one virtual jury selection, Ms. Eschleman said the court had narrowed the pool to a final 12 jurors when one juror’s wife burst into his room and started yelling in front of his computer.

The judge allowed her to speak, and the crying woman begged the judge not to select her husband for the trial because it would disrupt the couple’s child care. After a lengthy exchange, they learned that the child was 16 years old and had his own car. The husband disagreed with his wife and wanted to remain a juror.

“This would have never happened had the twelfth juror been called to an in-person jury selection,” Ms. Eschleman said.

Keeping juries focused while the trial is underway can also be a problem, DeSimone said. He describes the courtroom during malpractice trials as a theater of sorts. Jurors watch intently as witnesses testify, evidence is presented, and the judge gives instructions. During virtual trials, however, watching through a screen doesn’t always yield the same captive audiences, he said.

“During Zoom, it’s much harder to connect with the jury because they won’t be as tuned into it,” he said. “If the jury believes the physician is empathetic, conscientious, caring, and compassionate, they will give the physician the benefit of the doubt, even if something went wrong or a bad outcome occurred. Developing that connection through good eye contact, being a teacher, and showing compassion is the most important thing a physician can do when testifying.”

A related challenge is that medical experts can’t connect as well with jurors, and some may have trouble conveying their message from a screen, said Evan Lyman, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in White Plains, N.Y.

“Some experts like to get out of the witness box and kind of take over the courtroom with a laser pointer or a white board,” he said. “For some, that’s what makes them effective experts. Some experts lose their touch when they can’t do that.”

Technical difficulties during virtual trials can cause further woes, said Kari Adams, vice president of claims for Physicians Insurance – A Mutual Company. She recalled a recent case in which technical problems arose during the defense attorney’s closing arguments.

“It’s hard to see our defense attorneys who are used to using all of their advocacy skills, all of their charisma trying to convey it in a virtual format,” she said. “When it’s disrupted, it can really throw things. A lot of their advocacy and personality can play through, but it’s just a little less in that forum.”
 

Doc fights against virtual trial

When Texas cardiologist Amin Al-Ahmad’s malpractice trial was changed to a virtual format because of COVID-19 concerns, Dr. Al-Ahmad and his attorneys fought the move.

They argued that the malpractice case was too complex for a virtual format and that a video trial would deprive Dr. Al-Ahmad of his rights to due process, including the right to trial by jury.

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s case involved allegations that he had failed to promptly diagnose and treat an atrial esophageal fistula, resulting in a patient’s stroke and ongoing neurologic problems. The trial was expected to last up to 10 days. Nine witnesses were expected to testify, and $1 million in damages were at stake, according to court documents.

“The length of trial anticipated, complexity of the medical issues, the confidential medical information at issue, and the number of anticipated medical records exhibits lead to a real risk of juror ‘Zoom fatigue,’ even if the trial is not interrupted with technology glitches, such as jurors dropping off the link or sound loss,” Dr. Al-Ahmad’s attorneys wrote in a petition to the Texas Supreme Court. “The risks of forcing [the defendants] to trial through the procedure of a remote or virtual jury trial are numerous. Not least of these is the risk that [defendants’] relators will be prevented from presenting an adequate defense or being able to fully preserve error during a virtual trial.”

Another concern regards the lack of uniformity from county to county in conducting a virtual trial, said David A. Wright, an attorney for Dr. Al-Ahmad. Some counties don’t permit them, while others permit parties to opt out of virtual trials, he noted.

“Even those that hold virtual trials seem to have different procedures and rules,” he said. “Travis County, where I have tried my virtual cases, has iPads that they provide to each juror so that they are limited to using just the county iPad for the trial. Others, I have heard, permit jurors to use their own devices. There are simply no uniform rules.”

Despite requests to the trial court and petitions to the appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Al-Ahmad lost his bid to have his trial delayed until in-person trials resumed. The Texas Supreme Court in late 2021 refused to halt the virtual trial.

Dr. Al-Ahmad, based in Austin, declined to comment through his attorney. Mr. Wright said the court’s denial “was not unexpected.”

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s virtual trial went forward in October 2021, and the jury ruled in his favor.

“We were very pleased with the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Wright said.
 

Are virtual trials ending in higher awards?

In addition to jurors’ not taking their roles as seriously, the casual vibe of virtual trials may also be diminishing how jurors view the verdict’s magnitude.

“Virtual trials don’t have the gravity or the seriousness of a real trial,” Ms. Leedom said. “I don’t think the importance of the jury’s decision weighs on them as much during a Zoom trial as it does an in-person trial.”

Alarmingly, Ms. Leedom said that, in her experience, damages in virtual trials have been higher in comparison with damages awarded during in-person trials.

Ms. Adams agreed with this observation.

“We’ll still win cases, but we’re concerned that, in the cases we lose, the damages can be slightly higher because there hasn’t been that interpersonal connection with the defendant,” she said. “It almost becomes like monopoly money to jurors.”
 

Remember these tips during virtual trials

Physicians undergoing virtual trials may have better experiences if they keep a few tips in mind.

Mr. DeSimone emphasized the importance of eye contact with jurors, which can be tricky during virtual settings. It helps if physicians look at the camera, rather than the screen, while talking.

Physicians should be cognizant of their facial expressions as they watch others speak.

“Don’t roll your eyes like: ‘Oh my gosh, he’s an idiot,’ ” Mr. DeSimone said. “Keep a poker face. Be respectful of what’s going on. Don’t be lulled into letting your guard down.”

Before the virtual trial, practice the cross examination and direct examination with your attorney and record it, Ms. Leedom said. That way, doctors can watch how they present on video and make necessary changes before the real trial. Lighting is also important, she noted. Her firm provides special lamps to clients and witnesses for virtual trials and proceedings.

“The lighting makes a huge difference,” she said.

Its also a good idea for physicians to have a paper copy of the records or exhibits that are going to be used so it’s easy for them to flip through them while on the screen. Physicians should also be mindful of how they come across during video depositions, which are sometimes played during virtual trials, Ms. Adams said.

“If you’re not looking professional during the video deposition – you’re eating, you’re not dressed well – the plaintiff’s attorney will take the most inopportune segment of the deposition and portray the physician as: ‘Look, here’s someone who was careless in the medical care, and look, they don’t even look professional when they’re testifying about this horrifying experience,’ ” she said. “They’ll use the clips to make a very careful provider appear distracted.”
 

Are virtual trials and hearings here to stay?

Whether virtual malpractice trials continue will largely depend on the location in which physicians practice. Some insurance carriers are opting to continue virtual trials, but in some areas, trials are being delayed until in-person proceedings can resume, Ms. Adams said. Some areas never adopted video trials and never ceased in-person trials.

“I think it’s going to be very regionally based,” she said. “Some of the smaller, rural counties just don’t have the capacity or the resources to continue, so they’ll probably just go back to in person.”

Not all virtual proceedings are problematic for physicians, say legal experts. Virtual depositions can be beneficial for doctors because they are less intimidating and confrontational than in-person depositions, Mr. Lyman said.

Additionally, virtual mediations can take much less time than in-person mediations, Ms. Adams said. Video depositions and mediations also save travel costs and reduce time missed from work for physicians.

“But I hope we all go back to in-person trials,” Ms. Leedom said. “Even here in King County, [Washington,] where we’ve done federal and state court trials by Zoom, I’m hopeful that it will go back to in-person trials.”

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

During a recent virtual medical malpractice trial, the judge called a break, and the participants left their screens. When the trial resumed a short time later, one juror was missing. The court called his phone, but there was no answer.

“Everyone had to keep waiting and waiting while the bailiff kept trying to call,” recalled Elizabeth Leedom, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Seattle. “The juror fell asleep.”

The sleeping juror caused a significant delay in the trial, Ms. Leedom said. Finally, he woke up, and the trial was able to continue.

In another instance, a potential juror showed up drunk to a virtual jury selection. The man was slurring his words as he answered questions, Ms. Leedom said, and when asked if he was okay, he admitted that he had a drinking problem. The judge asked whether he had consumed alcohol, and the man admitted that he’d been drinking that day. He was excused from jury selection.

These alarming incidents are among the mishaps that happen during virtual medical malpractice trials. Since the pandemic started, many courts have moved to virtual settings to slow the spread of COVID-19. Although some courts have now shifted back to in-person trials, some areas continue to mandate virtual malpractice trials, hearings, and depositions.

Such trials can save money and are convenient, but legal experts say virtual trials present serious challenges for physicians and raise concerns about fairness. Some jurors are not taking virtual cases seriously or do not stay focused on the subject matter, according to attorneys.

“Virtual trials are not as fair to physicians as in-person trials,” said Andrew DeSimone, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Lexington, Ky. “It’s too easy not to pay attention in a virtual setting. And when you are dealing with complex medical topics, juror attention is a paramount issue.”
 

Casual settings, constant interruptions during jury selections

Understanding and reaching the jury have been the greatest challenges with virtual and hybrid trials, said Laura Eschleman, a medical liability defense attorney based in Atlanta. Hybrid trials are part virtual and part in person.

Ms. Eschleman has participated in jury selections via Zoom in which jurors lounge in bed during the process and spouses and children waltz into the room as they please, she said.

“With over 36 Zoom boxes of potential jurors, assessing each potential juror was difficult to say the least,” she said. “[Jury selection] has always been an opportunity to introduce the defendant physicians to the jurors as humans; doing it virtually took that away. It is difficult to humanize a box on a screen.”

Regarding one virtual jury selection, Ms. Eschleman said the court had narrowed the pool to a final 12 jurors when one juror’s wife burst into his room and started yelling in front of his computer.

The judge allowed her to speak, and the crying woman begged the judge not to select her husband for the trial because it would disrupt the couple’s child care. After a lengthy exchange, they learned that the child was 16 years old and had his own car. The husband disagreed with his wife and wanted to remain a juror.

“This would have never happened had the twelfth juror been called to an in-person jury selection,” Ms. Eschleman said.

Keeping juries focused while the trial is underway can also be a problem, DeSimone said. He describes the courtroom during malpractice trials as a theater of sorts. Jurors watch intently as witnesses testify, evidence is presented, and the judge gives instructions. During virtual trials, however, watching through a screen doesn’t always yield the same captive audiences, he said.

“During Zoom, it’s much harder to connect with the jury because they won’t be as tuned into it,” he said. “If the jury believes the physician is empathetic, conscientious, caring, and compassionate, they will give the physician the benefit of the doubt, even if something went wrong or a bad outcome occurred. Developing that connection through good eye contact, being a teacher, and showing compassion is the most important thing a physician can do when testifying.”

A related challenge is that medical experts can’t connect as well with jurors, and some may have trouble conveying their message from a screen, said Evan Lyman, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in White Plains, N.Y.

“Some experts like to get out of the witness box and kind of take over the courtroom with a laser pointer or a white board,” he said. “For some, that’s what makes them effective experts. Some experts lose their touch when they can’t do that.”

Technical difficulties during virtual trials can cause further woes, said Kari Adams, vice president of claims for Physicians Insurance – A Mutual Company. She recalled a recent case in which technical problems arose during the defense attorney’s closing arguments.

“It’s hard to see our defense attorneys who are used to using all of their advocacy skills, all of their charisma trying to convey it in a virtual format,” she said. “When it’s disrupted, it can really throw things. A lot of their advocacy and personality can play through, but it’s just a little less in that forum.”
 

Doc fights against virtual trial

When Texas cardiologist Amin Al-Ahmad’s malpractice trial was changed to a virtual format because of COVID-19 concerns, Dr. Al-Ahmad and his attorneys fought the move.

They argued that the malpractice case was too complex for a virtual format and that a video trial would deprive Dr. Al-Ahmad of his rights to due process, including the right to trial by jury.

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s case involved allegations that he had failed to promptly diagnose and treat an atrial esophageal fistula, resulting in a patient’s stroke and ongoing neurologic problems. The trial was expected to last up to 10 days. Nine witnesses were expected to testify, and $1 million in damages were at stake, according to court documents.

“The length of trial anticipated, complexity of the medical issues, the confidential medical information at issue, and the number of anticipated medical records exhibits lead to a real risk of juror ‘Zoom fatigue,’ even if the trial is not interrupted with technology glitches, such as jurors dropping off the link or sound loss,” Dr. Al-Ahmad’s attorneys wrote in a petition to the Texas Supreme Court. “The risks of forcing [the defendants] to trial through the procedure of a remote or virtual jury trial are numerous. Not least of these is the risk that [defendants’] relators will be prevented from presenting an adequate defense or being able to fully preserve error during a virtual trial.”

Another concern regards the lack of uniformity from county to county in conducting a virtual trial, said David A. Wright, an attorney for Dr. Al-Ahmad. Some counties don’t permit them, while others permit parties to opt out of virtual trials, he noted.

“Even those that hold virtual trials seem to have different procedures and rules,” he said. “Travis County, where I have tried my virtual cases, has iPads that they provide to each juror so that they are limited to using just the county iPad for the trial. Others, I have heard, permit jurors to use their own devices. There are simply no uniform rules.”

Despite requests to the trial court and petitions to the appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Al-Ahmad lost his bid to have his trial delayed until in-person trials resumed. The Texas Supreme Court in late 2021 refused to halt the virtual trial.

Dr. Al-Ahmad, based in Austin, declined to comment through his attorney. Mr. Wright said the court’s denial “was not unexpected.”

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s virtual trial went forward in October 2021, and the jury ruled in his favor.

“We were very pleased with the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Wright said.
 

Are virtual trials ending in higher awards?

In addition to jurors’ not taking their roles as seriously, the casual vibe of virtual trials may also be diminishing how jurors view the verdict’s magnitude.

“Virtual trials don’t have the gravity or the seriousness of a real trial,” Ms. Leedom said. “I don’t think the importance of the jury’s decision weighs on them as much during a Zoom trial as it does an in-person trial.”

Alarmingly, Ms. Leedom said that, in her experience, damages in virtual trials have been higher in comparison with damages awarded during in-person trials.

Ms. Adams agreed with this observation.

“We’ll still win cases, but we’re concerned that, in the cases we lose, the damages can be slightly higher because there hasn’t been that interpersonal connection with the defendant,” she said. “It almost becomes like monopoly money to jurors.”
 

Remember these tips during virtual trials

Physicians undergoing virtual trials may have better experiences if they keep a few tips in mind.

Mr. DeSimone emphasized the importance of eye contact with jurors, which can be tricky during virtual settings. It helps if physicians look at the camera, rather than the screen, while talking.

Physicians should be cognizant of their facial expressions as they watch others speak.

“Don’t roll your eyes like: ‘Oh my gosh, he’s an idiot,’ ” Mr. DeSimone said. “Keep a poker face. Be respectful of what’s going on. Don’t be lulled into letting your guard down.”

Before the virtual trial, practice the cross examination and direct examination with your attorney and record it, Ms. Leedom said. That way, doctors can watch how they present on video and make necessary changes before the real trial. Lighting is also important, she noted. Her firm provides special lamps to clients and witnesses for virtual trials and proceedings.

“The lighting makes a huge difference,” she said.

Its also a good idea for physicians to have a paper copy of the records or exhibits that are going to be used so it’s easy for them to flip through them while on the screen. Physicians should also be mindful of how they come across during video depositions, which are sometimes played during virtual trials, Ms. Adams said.

“If you’re not looking professional during the video deposition – you’re eating, you’re not dressed well – the plaintiff’s attorney will take the most inopportune segment of the deposition and portray the physician as: ‘Look, here’s someone who was careless in the medical care, and look, they don’t even look professional when they’re testifying about this horrifying experience,’ ” she said. “They’ll use the clips to make a very careful provider appear distracted.”
 

Are virtual trials and hearings here to stay?

Whether virtual malpractice trials continue will largely depend on the location in which physicians practice. Some insurance carriers are opting to continue virtual trials, but in some areas, trials are being delayed until in-person proceedings can resume, Ms. Adams said. Some areas never adopted video trials and never ceased in-person trials.

“I think it’s going to be very regionally based,” she said. “Some of the smaller, rural counties just don’t have the capacity or the resources to continue, so they’ll probably just go back to in person.”

Not all virtual proceedings are problematic for physicians, say legal experts. Virtual depositions can be beneficial for doctors because they are less intimidating and confrontational than in-person depositions, Mr. Lyman said.

Additionally, virtual mediations can take much less time than in-person mediations, Ms. Adams said. Video depositions and mediations also save travel costs and reduce time missed from work for physicians.

“But I hope we all go back to in-person trials,” Ms. Leedom said. “Even here in King County, [Washington,] where we’ve done federal and state court trials by Zoom, I’m hopeful that it will go back to in-person trials.”

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

During a recent virtual medical malpractice trial, the judge called a break, and the participants left their screens. When the trial resumed a short time later, one juror was missing. The court called his phone, but there was no answer.

“Everyone had to keep waiting and waiting while the bailiff kept trying to call,” recalled Elizabeth Leedom, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Seattle. “The juror fell asleep.”

The sleeping juror caused a significant delay in the trial, Ms. Leedom said. Finally, he woke up, and the trial was able to continue.

In another instance, a potential juror showed up drunk to a virtual jury selection. The man was slurring his words as he answered questions, Ms. Leedom said, and when asked if he was okay, he admitted that he had a drinking problem. The judge asked whether he had consumed alcohol, and the man admitted that he’d been drinking that day. He was excused from jury selection.

These alarming incidents are among the mishaps that happen during virtual medical malpractice trials. Since the pandemic started, many courts have moved to virtual settings to slow the spread of COVID-19. Although some courts have now shifted back to in-person trials, some areas continue to mandate virtual malpractice trials, hearings, and depositions.

Such trials can save money and are convenient, but legal experts say virtual trials present serious challenges for physicians and raise concerns about fairness. Some jurors are not taking virtual cases seriously or do not stay focused on the subject matter, according to attorneys.

“Virtual trials are not as fair to physicians as in-person trials,” said Andrew DeSimone, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in Lexington, Ky. “It’s too easy not to pay attention in a virtual setting. And when you are dealing with complex medical topics, juror attention is a paramount issue.”
 

Casual settings, constant interruptions during jury selections

Understanding and reaching the jury have been the greatest challenges with virtual and hybrid trials, said Laura Eschleman, a medical liability defense attorney based in Atlanta. Hybrid trials are part virtual and part in person.

Ms. Eschleman has participated in jury selections via Zoom in which jurors lounge in bed during the process and spouses and children waltz into the room as they please, she said.

“With over 36 Zoom boxes of potential jurors, assessing each potential juror was difficult to say the least,” she said. “[Jury selection] has always been an opportunity to introduce the defendant physicians to the jurors as humans; doing it virtually took that away. It is difficult to humanize a box on a screen.”

Regarding one virtual jury selection, Ms. Eschleman said the court had narrowed the pool to a final 12 jurors when one juror’s wife burst into his room and started yelling in front of his computer.

The judge allowed her to speak, and the crying woman begged the judge not to select her husband for the trial because it would disrupt the couple’s child care. After a lengthy exchange, they learned that the child was 16 years old and had his own car. The husband disagreed with his wife and wanted to remain a juror.

“This would have never happened had the twelfth juror been called to an in-person jury selection,” Ms. Eschleman said.

Keeping juries focused while the trial is underway can also be a problem, DeSimone said. He describes the courtroom during malpractice trials as a theater of sorts. Jurors watch intently as witnesses testify, evidence is presented, and the judge gives instructions. During virtual trials, however, watching through a screen doesn’t always yield the same captive audiences, he said.

“During Zoom, it’s much harder to connect with the jury because they won’t be as tuned into it,” he said. “If the jury believes the physician is empathetic, conscientious, caring, and compassionate, they will give the physician the benefit of the doubt, even if something went wrong or a bad outcome occurred. Developing that connection through good eye contact, being a teacher, and showing compassion is the most important thing a physician can do when testifying.”

A related challenge is that medical experts can’t connect as well with jurors, and some may have trouble conveying their message from a screen, said Evan Lyman, a medical malpractice defense attorney based in White Plains, N.Y.

“Some experts like to get out of the witness box and kind of take over the courtroom with a laser pointer or a white board,” he said. “For some, that’s what makes them effective experts. Some experts lose their touch when they can’t do that.”

Technical difficulties during virtual trials can cause further woes, said Kari Adams, vice president of claims for Physicians Insurance – A Mutual Company. She recalled a recent case in which technical problems arose during the defense attorney’s closing arguments.

“It’s hard to see our defense attorneys who are used to using all of their advocacy skills, all of their charisma trying to convey it in a virtual format,” she said. “When it’s disrupted, it can really throw things. A lot of their advocacy and personality can play through, but it’s just a little less in that forum.”
 

Doc fights against virtual trial

When Texas cardiologist Amin Al-Ahmad’s malpractice trial was changed to a virtual format because of COVID-19 concerns, Dr. Al-Ahmad and his attorneys fought the move.

They argued that the malpractice case was too complex for a virtual format and that a video trial would deprive Dr. Al-Ahmad of his rights to due process, including the right to trial by jury.

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s case involved allegations that he had failed to promptly diagnose and treat an atrial esophageal fistula, resulting in a patient’s stroke and ongoing neurologic problems. The trial was expected to last up to 10 days. Nine witnesses were expected to testify, and $1 million in damages were at stake, according to court documents.

“The length of trial anticipated, complexity of the medical issues, the confidential medical information at issue, and the number of anticipated medical records exhibits lead to a real risk of juror ‘Zoom fatigue,’ even if the trial is not interrupted with technology glitches, such as jurors dropping off the link or sound loss,” Dr. Al-Ahmad’s attorneys wrote in a petition to the Texas Supreme Court. “The risks of forcing [the defendants] to trial through the procedure of a remote or virtual jury trial are numerous. Not least of these is the risk that [defendants’] relators will be prevented from presenting an adequate defense or being able to fully preserve error during a virtual trial.”

Another concern regards the lack of uniformity from county to county in conducting a virtual trial, said David A. Wright, an attorney for Dr. Al-Ahmad. Some counties don’t permit them, while others permit parties to opt out of virtual trials, he noted.

“Even those that hold virtual trials seem to have different procedures and rules,” he said. “Travis County, where I have tried my virtual cases, has iPads that they provide to each juror so that they are limited to using just the county iPad for the trial. Others, I have heard, permit jurors to use their own devices. There are simply no uniform rules.”

Despite requests to the trial court and petitions to the appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Al-Ahmad lost his bid to have his trial delayed until in-person trials resumed. The Texas Supreme Court in late 2021 refused to halt the virtual trial.

Dr. Al-Ahmad, based in Austin, declined to comment through his attorney. Mr. Wright said the court’s denial “was not unexpected.”

Dr. Al-Ahmad’s virtual trial went forward in October 2021, and the jury ruled in his favor.

“We were very pleased with the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Wright said.
 

Are virtual trials ending in higher awards?

In addition to jurors’ not taking their roles as seriously, the casual vibe of virtual trials may also be diminishing how jurors view the verdict’s magnitude.

“Virtual trials don’t have the gravity or the seriousness of a real trial,” Ms. Leedom said. “I don’t think the importance of the jury’s decision weighs on them as much during a Zoom trial as it does an in-person trial.”

Alarmingly, Ms. Leedom said that, in her experience, damages in virtual trials have been higher in comparison with damages awarded during in-person trials.

Ms. Adams agreed with this observation.

“We’ll still win cases, but we’re concerned that, in the cases we lose, the damages can be slightly higher because there hasn’t been that interpersonal connection with the defendant,” she said. “It almost becomes like monopoly money to jurors.”
 

Remember these tips during virtual trials

Physicians undergoing virtual trials may have better experiences if they keep a few tips in mind.

Mr. DeSimone emphasized the importance of eye contact with jurors, which can be tricky during virtual settings. It helps if physicians look at the camera, rather than the screen, while talking.

Physicians should be cognizant of their facial expressions as they watch others speak.

“Don’t roll your eyes like: ‘Oh my gosh, he’s an idiot,’ ” Mr. DeSimone said. “Keep a poker face. Be respectful of what’s going on. Don’t be lulled into letting your guard down.”

Before the virtual trial, practice the cross examination and direct examination with your attorney and record it, Ms. Leedom said. That way, doctors can watch how they present on video and make necessary changes before the real trial. Lighting is also important, she noted. Her firm provides special lamps to clients and witnesses for virtual trials and proceedings.

“The lighting makes a huge difference,” she said.

Its also a good idea for physicians to have a paper copy of the records or exhibits that are going to be used so it’s easy for them to flip through them while on the screen. Physicians should also be mindful of how they come across during video depositions, which are sometimes played during virtual trials, Ms. Adams said.

“If you’re not looking professional during the video deposition – you’re eating, you’re not dressed well – the plaintiff’s attorney will take the most inopportune segment of the deposition and portray the physician as: ‘Look, here’s someone who was careless in the medical care, and look, they don’t even look professional when they’re testifying about this horrifying experience,’ ” she said. “They’ll use the clips to make a very careful provider appear distracted.”
 

Are virtual trials and hearings here to stay?

Whether virtual malpractice trials continue will largely depend on the location in which physicians practice. Some insurance carriers are opting to continue virtual trials, but in some areas, trials are being delayed until in-person proceedings can resume, Ms. Adams said. Some areas never adopted video trials and never ceased in-person trials.

“I think it’s going to be very regionally based,” she said. “Some of the smaller, rural counties just don’t have the capacity or the resources to continue, so they’ll probably just go back to in person.”

Not all virtual proceedings are problematic for physicians, say legal experts. Virtual depositions can be beneficial for doctors because they are less intimidating and confrontational than in-person depositions, Mr. Lyman said.

Additionally, virtual mediations can take much less time than in-person mediations, Ms. Adams said. Video depositions and mediations also save travel costs and reduce time missed from work for physicians.

“But I hope we all go back to in-person trials,” Ms. Leedom said. “Even here in King County, [Washington,] where we’ve done federal and state court trials by Zoom, I’m hopeful that it will go back to in-person trials.”

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

Cancer survivors who spend more than 8 hours of the day sitting are five times more likely to die over the ensuing years than their peers who spend less time sitting. Being physically active, on the other hand, lowers the risk of early death, new research shows.

What’s “alarming” is that so many cancer survivors have a sedentary lifestyle, Chao Cao and Lin Yang, PhD, with Alberta Health Services in Calgary, who worked on the study, said in an interview.

The American Cancer Society recommends that cancer survivors follow the same physical activity guidance as the general population. The target is 150-300 minutes of moderate activity or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity each week (or a combination of these).

“Getting to or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is ideal,” Mr. Cao and Dr. Yang say.

Yet in their study of more than 1,500 cancer survivors, more than half (57%) were inactive, reporting no weekly leisure-time physical activity in the past week.

About 16% were “insufficiently” active, or getting less than 150 minutes per week. Meanwhile, 28% were active, achieving more than 150 minutes of weekly physical activity.

Digging deeper, the researchers found that more than one-third of cancer survivors reported sitting for 6-8 hours each day, and one-quarter reported sitting for more than 8 hours per day.

Over the course of up to 9 years, 293 of the cancer survivors died – 114 from cancer, 41 from heart diseases, and 138 from other causes.

After accounting for things that might influence the results, the risk of dying from any cause or cancer was about 65% lower in cancer survivors who were physically active, relative to their inactive peers.

Sitting for long periods was especially risky, according to the study in JAMA Oncology.

Compared with cancer survivors who sat for less than 4 hours each day, cancer survivors who reported sitting for more than 8 hours a day had nearly twice the risk of dying from any cause and more than twice the risk of dying from cancer.

Cancer survivors who sat for more than 8 hours a day, and were inactive or not active enough, had as much as five times the risk of death from any cause or cancer.

“Be active and sit less, move more, and move frequently,” advise Mr. Cao and Dr. Yang. “Avoiding prolonged sitting is essential for most cancer survivors to reduce excess mortality risks.”

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

Cancer survivors who spend more than 8 hours of the day sitting are five times more likely to die over the ensuing years than their peers who spend less time sitting. Being physically active, on the other hand, lowers the risk of early death, new research shows.

What’s “alarming” is that so many cancer survivors have a sedentary lifestyle, Chao Cao and Lin Yang, PhD, with Alberta Health Services in Calgary, who worked on the study, said in an interview.

The American Cancer Society recommends that cancer survivors follow the same physical activity guidance as the general population. The target is 150-300 minutes of moderate activity or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity each week (or a combination of these).

“Getting to or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is ideal,” Mr. Cao and Dr. Yang say.

Yet in their study of more than 1,500 cancer survivors, more than half (57%) were inactive, reporting no weekly leisure-time physical activity in the past week.

About 16% were “insufficiently” active, or getting less than 150 minutes per week. Meanwhile, 28% were active, achieving more than 150 minutes of weekly physical activity.

Digging deeper, the researchers found that more than one-third of cancer survivors reported sitting for 6-8 hours each day, and one-quarter reported sitting for more than 8 hours per day.

Over the course of up to 9 years, 293 of the cancer survivors died – 114 from cancer, 41 from heart diseases, and 138 from other causes.

After accounting for things that might influence the results, the risk of dying from any cause or cancer was about 65% lower in cancer survivors who were physically active, relative to their inactive peers.

Sitting for long periods was especially risky, according to the study in JAMA Oncology.

Compared with cancer survivors who sat for less than 4 hours each day, cancer survivors who reported sitting for more than 8 hours a day had nearly twice the risk of dying from any cause and more than twice the risk of dying from cancer.

Cancer survivors who sat for more than 8 hours a day, and were inactive or not active enough, had as much as five times the risk of death from any cause or cancer.

“Be active and sit less, move more, and move frequently,” advise Mr. Cao and Dr. Yang. “Avoiding prolonged sitting is essential for most cancer survivors to reduce excess mortality risks.”

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

Cancer survivors who spend more than 8 hours of the day sitting are five times more likely to die over the ensuing years than their peers who spend less time sitting. Being physically active, on the other hand, lowers the risk of early death, new research shows.

What’s “alarming” is that so many cancer survivors have a sedentary lifestyle, Chao Cao and Lin Yang, PhD, with Alberta Health Services in Calgary, who worked on the study, said in an interview.

The American Cancer Society recommends that cancer survivors follow the same physical activity guidance as the general population. The target is 150-300 minutes of moderate activity or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity each week (or a combination of these).

“Getting to or exceeding the upper limit of 300 minutes is ideal,” Mr. Cao and Dr. Yang say.

Yet in their study of more than 1,500 cancer survivors, more than half (57%) were inactive, reporting no weekly leisure-time physical activity in the past week.

About 16% were “insufficiently” active, or getting less than 150 minutes per week. Meanwhile, 28% were active, achieving more than 150 minutes of weekly physical activity.

Digging deeper, the researchers found that more than one-third of cancer survivors reported sitting for 6-8 hours each day, and one-quarter reported sitting for more than 8 hours per day.

Over the course of up to 9 years, 293 of the cancer survivors died – 114 from cancer, 41 from heart diseases, and 138 from other causes.

After accounting for things that might influence the results, the risk of dying from any cause or cancer was about 65% lower in cancer survivors who were physically active, relative to their inactive peers.

Sitting for long periods was especially risky, according to the study in JAMA Oncology.

Compared with cancer survivors who sat for less than 4 hours each day, cancer survivors who reported sitting for more than 8 hours a day had nearly twice the risk of dying from any cause and more than twice the risk of dying from cancer.

Cancer survivors who sat for more than 8 hours a day, and were inactive or not active enough, had as much as five times the risk of death from any cause or cancer.

“Be active and sit less, move more, and move frequently,” advise Mr. Cao and Dr. Yang. “Avoiding prolonged sitting is essential for most cancer survivors to reduce excess mortality risks.”

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

The College of American Pathologists (CAP) guidance outperforms the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) guidance in predicting recurrence and survival following resection of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC), according to a retrospective study.

Treatment of OCSCC involves resection of the primary tumor, followed by neck dissection or postoperative radiotherapy when needed, but choice of treatment requires an accurate assessment of resection margins. Previous studies have failed to consistently show a correlation between margin status and clinical outcomes. Tumor size, depth of invasion, and other factors may explain inconsistent findings, but another possibility is the variability in how margin status is defined.

RCPath and CAP are among the most commonly used definitions. RCPath defines a positive margin as invasive tumor within 1 mm of the surgical margin, while CAP defines a positive margin as the presence of primary tumor or high-grade dysplasia at the margin itself. CAP recommends determination of a “final margin status” that also considers separately submitted extra tumor bed margins. Nevertheless, multiple studies have shown that reliance on the main tumor specimen outperformed the combined approach in predicting recurrence and survival.

In a study published online March 7 in Oral Oncology, researchers examined records from 300 patients (33.7% of whom were female) at South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital in Ireland between 2007 and 2020. The researchers found that 28.7% had margins determined by the RCPath definition and 16.7% according to the CAP definition. Forty-nine percent underwent extra tumor bed resections.

The mean follow-up period was 49 months, 64 months for surviving patients. Multivariate analyses accounting for other established prognosticators found that local recurrence was associated with CAP margins (odds ratio [OR], 1.86; 955 confidence interval [CI], 1.02-3.48) and T3/T4 classification (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.53-5.13). CAP margins predicted disease-specific survival (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.53-5.13) and narrowly missed significance in predicting overall survival (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.99-2.75). RCPath margins were not predictive.

The researchers found a significant association between RCPath definition and metastatic nodal disease and extranodal extension, but there was no such relationship between these negative predictors and CAP and final margin status. “This finding may explain the superior independent prognostic ability of CAP margin status over RCPath in our cohort and is consistent with that of previous studies, which concluded that other histological risk factors are more important than margin status in predicting outcome,” the authors wrote.

Studies suggest that margins fewer than 1 mm remain a high-risk group, with worse survival outcomes than those of patients with 1- to 5-mm margins, even if the risk is lower than tumor at margins. “The optimum cut-off between low-risk and high-risk margins in OCSCC remains unresolved,” the authors wrote.

The study was retrospective and relied on data from a single center, and the patients included in the study may not be directly comparable to other OCSCC patients. The study was funded by the Head and Neck Oncology Fund, South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital.

The College of American Pathologists (CAP) guidance outperforms the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) guidance in predicting recurrence and survival following resection of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC), according to a retrospective study.

Treatment of OCSCC involves resection of the primary tumor, followed by neck dissection or postoperative radiotherapy when needed, but choice of treatment requires an accurate assessment of resection margins. Previous studies have failed to consistently show a correlation between margin status and clinical outcomes. Tumor size, depth of invasion, and other factors may explain inconsistent findings, but another possibility is the variability in how margin status is defined.

RCPath and CAP are among the most commonly used definitions. RCPath defines a positive margin as invasive tumor within 1 mm of the surgical margin, while CAP defines a positive margin as the presence of primary tumor or high-grade dysplasia at the margin itself. CAP recommends determination of a “final margin status” that also considers separately submitted extra tumor bed margins. Nevertheless, multiple studies have shown that reliance on the main tumor specimen outperformed the combined approach in predicting recurrence and survival.

In a study published online March 7 in Oral Oncology, researchers examined records from 300 patients (33.7% of whom were female) at South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital in Ireland between 2007 and 2020. The researchers found that 28.7% had margins determined by the RCPath definition and 16.7% according to the CAP definition. Forty-nine percent underwent extra tumor bed resections.

The mean follow-up period was 49 months, 64 months for surviving patients. Multivariate analyses accounting for other established prognosticators found that local recurrence was associated with CAP margins (odds ratio [OR], 1.86; 955 confidence interval [CI], 1.02-3.48) and T3/T4 classification (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.53-5.13). CAP margins predicted disease-specific survival (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.53-5.13) and narrowly missed significance in predicting overall survival (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.99-2.75). RCPath margins were not predictive.

The researchers found a significant association between RCPath definition and metastatic nodal disease and extranodal extension, but there was no such relationship between these negative predictors and CAP and final margin status. “This finding may explain the superior independent prognostic ability of CAP margin status over RCPath in our cohort and is consistent with that of previous studies, which concluded that other histological risk factors are more important than margin status in predicting outcome,” the authors wrote.

Studies suggest that margins fewer than 1 mm remain a high-risk group, with worse survival outcomes than those of patients with 1- to 5-mm margins, even if the risk is lower than tumor at margins. “The optimum cut-off between low-risk and high-risk margins in OCSCC remains unresolved,” the authors wrote.

The study was retrospective and relied on data from a single center, and the patients included in the study may not be directly comparable to other OCSCC patients. The study was funded by the Head and Neck Oncology Fund, South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital.

The College of American Pathologists (CAP) guidance outperforms the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) guidance in predicting recurrence and survival following resection of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC), according to a retrospective study.

Treatment of OCSCC involves resection of the primary tumor, followed by neck dissection or postoperative radiotherapy when needed, but choice of treatment requires an accurate assessment of resection margins. Previous studies have failed to consistently show a correlation between margin status and clinical outcomes. Tumor size, depth of invasion, and other factors may explain inconsistent findings, but another possibility is the variability in how margin status is defined.

RCPath and CAP are among the most commonly used definitions. RCPath defines a positive margin as invasive tumor within 1 mm of the surgical margin, while CAP defines a positive margin as the presence of primary tumor or high-grade dysplasia at the margin itself. CAP recommends determination of a “final margin status” that also considers separately submitted extra tumor bed margins. Nevertheless, multiple studies have shown that reliance on the main tumor specimen outperformed the combined approach in predicting recurrence and survival.

In a study published online March 7 in Oral Oncology, researchers examined records from 300 patients (33.7% of whom were female) at South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital in Ireland between 2007 and 2020. The researchers found that 28.7% had margins determined by the RCPath definition and 16.7% according to the CAP definition. Forty-nine percent underwent extra tumor bed resections.

The mean follow-up period was 49 months, 64 months for surviving patients. Multivariate analyses accounting for other established prognosticators found that local recurrence was associated with CAP margins (odds ratio [OR], 1.86; 955 confidence interval [CI], 1.02-3.48) and T3/T4 classification (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.53-5.13). CAP margins predicted disease-specific survival (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.53-5.13) and narrowly missed significance in predicting overall survival (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.99-2.75). RCPath margins were not predictive.

The researchers found a significant association between RCPath definition and metastatic nodal disease and extranodal extension, but there was no such relationship between these negative predictors and CAP and final margin status. “This finding may explain the superior independent prognostic ability of CAP margin status over RCPath in our cohort and is consistent with that of previous studies, which concluded that other histological risk factors are more important than margin status in predicting outcome,” the authors wrote.

Studies suggest that margins fewer than 1 mm remain a high-risk group, with worse survival outcomes than those of patients with 1- to 5-mm margins, even if the risk is lower than tumor at margins. “The optimum cut-off between low-risk and high-risk margins in OCSCC remains unresolved,” the authors wrote.

The study was retrospective and relied on data from a single center, and the patients included in the study may not be directly comparable to other OCSCC patients. The study was funded by the Head and Neck Oncology Fund, South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital.

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

Perioperative immunotherapy appears to be safe in the setting of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), according to findings from an open-label phase 2 clinical trial published in The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatolgy.

The study compared the anti-PD1 antibody nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) alone and nivolumab plus the anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb) among patients with resectable disease at a single center in Sweden. The treatments were found to be “safe and feasible in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma,” wrote researchers who were led by Ahmed O. Kaseb, MD, a medical oncologist with MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The rate of 5-year tumor recurrence following HCC resection can be as high as 70%, and there are no approved neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapies.

Immune checkpoint therapy has not been well studied in early-stage HCC, but it is used in advanced HCC.

The combination of PDL1 blockade with atezolizumab and VEGF blockade with bevacizumab, is currently a first-line treatment for advanced HCC. “Checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD1 and PDL1 and CTLA4 are active, tolerable, and clinically beneficial against advanced HCC,” according to researchers writing in a Nature Reviews article published in April 2021.

There are other promising immunotherapies under study for HCC, such as additional checkpoint inhibitors, adoptive cell transfer, vaccination, and virotherapy.
 

Small study of 27 patients

The Lancet study included 27 patients (64 years mean age, 19 patients were male). Twenty-three percent of patients on nivolumab alone had a partial pathological response at week 6, while none in the combination group had a response. Among 20 patients who underwent surgery, 3 of 9 (33%) and 3 of 11 (27%) in the combination group experienced a major pathological response. Two patients in the nivolumab and three patients in the combination group achieved a complete pathological response.

Disease progression occurred in 7 of 12 patients who were evaluated in the nivolumab group, and 4 of 13 patients in the combination group. Estimated median time to disease progression in the nivolumab group was 9.4 months (95% confidence interval, 1.47 to not estimable) and 19.53 months (95% CI, 2.33 to not estimable) in the combination group. Two-year progression-free survival was estimated to be 42% (95% CI, 21%-81%) in the nivolumab group and 26% (95% CI, 8%-78%, no significant difference) in the combination group.

Among 20 patients who underwent surgery, 6 patients had experienced a major pathological response. None of the 6 patients had a recurrence after a median follow-up of 26.8 months, versus 7 recurrences among 14 patients without a pathological response (log-rank P = .049).

Seventy-seven percent of patients in the nivolumab group experienced at least one adverse event (23% grade 3-4), as did 86% in the combination group (43% grade 3-4, difference nonsignificant). No patients delayed or canceled surgery because of adverse events.

Patients who had a major pathological response on the combination treatment had higher levels of immune infiltration versus baseline values. Those who had complete pathological responses in the nivolumab group had high infiltration at baseline. Those results imply some optimism for further study. “These data suggest that, with the immune-priming ability of anti–CTLA-4 treatment, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was able to generate a major pathological response even in tumours that had low immune infiltration at baseline,” the authors wrote.

The study was limited by its open-label nature and small sample size, and it was conducted at a single center.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kaseb reports consulting, advisory roles or stock ownership, or both with Bristol-Myers Squibb.
 

Perioperative immunotherapy appears to be safe in the setting of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), according to findings from an open-label phase 2 clinical trial published in The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatolgy.

The study compared the anti-PD1 antibody nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) alone and nivolumab plus the anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb) among patients with resectable disease at a single center in Sweden. The treatments were found to be “safe and feasible in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma,” wrote researchers who were led by Ahmed O. Kaseb, MD, a medical oncologist with MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The rate of 5-year tumor recurrence following HCC resection can be as high as 70%, and there are no approved neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapies.

Immune checkpoint therapy has not been well studied in early-stage HCC, but it is used in advanced HCC.

The combination of PDL1 blockade with atezolizumab and VEGF blockade with bevacizumab, is currently a first-line treatment for advanced HCC. “Checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD1 and PDL1 and CTLA4 are active, tolerable, and clinically beneficial against advanced HCC,” according to researchers writing in a Nature Reviews article published in April 2021.

There are other promising immunotherapies under study for HCC, such as additional checkpoint inhibitors, adoptive cell transfer, vaccination, and virotherapy.
 

Small study of 27 patients

The Lancet study included 27 patients (64 years mean age, 19 patients were male). Twenty-three percent of patients on nivolumab alone had a partial pathological response at week 6, while none in the combination group had a response. Among 20 patients who underwent surgery, 3 of 9 (33%) and 3 of 11 (27%) in the combination group experienced a major pathological response. Two patients in the nivolumab and three patients in the combination group achieved a complete pathological response.

Disease progression occurred in 7 of 12 patients who were evaluated in the nivolumab group, and 4 of 13 patients in the combination group. Estimated median time to disease progression in the nivolumab group was 9.4 months (95% confidence interval, 1.47 to not estimable) and 19.53 months (95% CI, 2.33 to not estimable) in the combination group. Two-year progression-free survival was estimated to be 42% (95% CI, 21%-81%) in the nivolumab group and 26% (95% CI, 8%-78%, no significant difference) in the combination group.

Among 20 patients who underwent surgery, 6 patients had experienced a major pathological response. None of the 6 patients had a recurrence after a median follow-up of 26.8 months, versus 7 recurrences among 14 patients without a pathological response (log-rank P = .049).

Seventy-seven percent of patients in the nivolumab group experienced at least one adverse event (23% grade 3-4), as did 86% in the combination group (43% grade 3-4, difference nonsignificant). No patients delayed or canceled surgery because of adverse events.

Patients who had a major pathological response on the combination treatment had higher levels of immune infiltration versus baseline values. Those who had complete pathological responses in the nivolumab group had high infiltration at baseline. Those results imply some optimism for further study. “These data suggest that, with the immune-priming ability of anti–CTLA-4 treatment, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was able to generate a major pathological response even in tumours that had low immune infiltration at baseline,” the authors wrote.

The study was limited by its open-label nature and small sample size, and it was conducted at a single center.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kaseb reports consulting, advisory roles or stock ownership, or both with Bristol-Myers Squibb.
 

Perioperative immunotherapy appears to be safe in the setting of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), according to findings from an open-label phase 2 clinical trial published in The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatolgy.

The study compared the anti-PD1 antibody nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol Myers Squibb) alone and nivolumab plus the anti-CTLA-4 antibody ipilimumab (Yervoy, Bristol Myers Squibb) among patients with resectable disease at a single center in Sweden. The treatments were found to be “safe and feasible in patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma,” wrote researchers who were led by Ahmed O. Kaseb, MD, a medical oncologist with MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The rate of 5-year tumor recurrence following HCC resection can be as high as 70%, and there are no approved neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapies.

Immune checkpoint therapy has not been well studied in early-stage HCC, but it is used in advanced HCC.

The combination of PDL1 blockade with atezolizumab and VEGF blockade with bevacizumab, is currently a first-line treatment for advanced HCC. “Checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD1 and PDL1 and CTLA4 are active, tolerable, and clinically beneficial against advanced HCC,” according to researchers writing in a Nature Reviews article published in April 2021.

There are other promising immunotherapies under study for HCC, such as additional checkpoint inhibitors, adoptive cell transfer, vaccination, and virotherapy.
 

Small study of 27 patients

The Lancet study included 27 patients (64 years mean age, 19 patients were male). Twenty-three percent of patients on nivolumab alone had a partial pathological response at week 6, while none in the combination group had a response. Among 20 patients who underwent surgery, 3 of 9 (33%) and 3 of 11 (27%) in the combination group experienced a major pathological response. Two patients in the nivolumab and three patients in the combination group achieved a complete pathological response.

Disease progression occurred in 7 of 12 patients who were evaluated in the nivolumab group, and 4 of 13 patients in the combination group. Estimated median time to disease progression in the nivolumab group was 9.4 months (95% confidence interval, 1.47 to not estimable) and 19.53 months (95% CI, 2.33 to not estimable) in the combination group. Two-year progression-free survival was estimated to be 42% (95% CI, 21%-81%) in the nivolumab group and 26% (95% CI, 8%-78%, no significant difference) in the combination group.

Among 20 patients who underwent surgery, 6 patients had experienced a major pathological response. None of the 6 patients had a recurrence after a median follow-up of 26.8 months, versus 7 recurrences among 14 patients without a pathological response (log-rank P = .049).

Seventy-seven percent of patients in the nivolumab group experienced at least one adverse event (23% grade 3-4), as did 86% in the combination group (43% grade 3-4, difference nonsignificant). No patients delayed or canceled surgery because of adverse events.

Patients who had a major pathological response on the combination treatment had higher levels of immune infiltration versus baseline values. Those who had complete pathological responses in the nivolumab group had high infiltration at baseline. Those results imply some optimism for further study. “These data suggest that, with the immune-priming ability of anti–CTLA-4 treatment, nivolumab plus ipilimumab was able to generate a major pathological response even in tumours that had low immune infiltration at baseline,” the authors wrote.

The study was limited by its open-label nature and small sample size, and it was conducted at a single center.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kaseb reports consulting, advisory roles or stock ownership, or both with Bristol-Myers Squibb.
 

Younger, nonsmoking oral cancer patients have a higher risk of death than that of young smokers, and the outcomes may be related to immune deficiencies. The finding comes from a database of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) patients treated between 1985 and 2015.

“Recent studies have shown an association between high neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio as a marker for poor outcome in several different cancers. This ratio is a surrogate marker for a patient’s immune function. A high ratio indicates an impaired immune function. This means that the ability for the immune system to identify and eradicate abnormal cells which have the potential to form cancer cells is impaired. We don’t know why this is occurring,” said Ian Ganly, MD, PhD, a head and neck surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Ganly is lead author of the new study, published online March 5 in Oral Oncology.

“Physicians should be aware these patients may have impaired immunity and may have a more aggressive presentation and clinical behavior. Such patients may require more comprehensive staging investigations for cancer and may require more comprehensive treatment. Following treatment these patients should also have a detailed and regular follow-up examination with appropriate imaging to detect early recurrence,” he said in an interview.

The research also suggests that immunotherapy may be effective in this group. “However, our findings are only preliminary and further research into this area is required before such therapy can be justified,” Dr. Ganly said.

The study comprised 2,073 patients overall (median age, 62; 43.5% female) and 100 younger nonsmoking patients (median age, 34; 56.0% female). After multivariate analysis, compared to young smokers, nonsmokers with OSCC had a greater risk of mortality (P = .0229), although they had a lower mortality risk than both smokers and nonsmokers over 40. After adjustments, young nonsmokers had a mortality resembling that of older patients, while mortality among young smokers was distinctly lower than that of older patients.

In a subset of 88 young nonsmoking patients, there was a higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (median, 2.456) than that of similarly aged patients with thyroid cancer (median, 2.000; P = .0093) or salivary gland benign pathologies (median, 2.158; P = .0343).

The researchers are now studying the genomics of tumors found in smokers and nonsmokers and comparing them to tumors in older smokers and nonsmokers with OSCCs. They are performing a similar comparison of the immune environment of the tumors and patients’ immune system function. “For the genomics aspect I am looking to see if there are any unique alterations in the young nonsmokers that may explain the biology of these cancers. If so, there may be some alterations that can be targeted with new drugs. For the immune aspect, our goal is to see if there are any specific alterations in immune function unique to this population. Then it may be possible to deliver specific types of immunotherapy that focus in on these deficiencies,” said Dr. Ganly.

The study was funded by Fundación Alfonso Martín Escudero and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ganly has no relevant financial disclosures.

Younger, nonsmoking oral cancer patients have a higher risk of death than that of young smokers, and the outcomes may be related to immune deficiencies. The finding comes from a database of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) patients treated between 1985 and 2015.

“Recent studies have shown an association between high neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio as a marker for poor outcome in several different cancers. This ratio is a surrogate marker for a patient’s immune function. A high ratio indicates an impaired immune function. This means that the ability for the immune system to identify and eradicate abnormal cells which have the potential to form cancer cells is impaired. We don’t know why this is occurring,” said Ian Ganly, MD, PhD, a head and neck surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Ganly is lead author of the new study, published online March 5 in Oral Oncology.

“Physicians should be aware these patients may have impaired immunity and may have a more aggressive presentation and clinical behavior. Such patients may require more comprehensive staging investigations for cancer and may require more comprehensive treatment. Following treatment these patients should also have a detailed and regular follow-up examination with appropriate imaging to detect early recurrence,” he said in an interview.

The research also suggests that immunotherapy may be effective in this group. “However, our findings are only preliminary and further research into this area is required before such therapy can be justified,” Dr. Ganly said.

The study comprised 2,073 patients overall (median age, 62; 43.5% female) and 100 younger nonsmoking patients (median age, 34; 56.0% female). After multivariate analysis, compared to young smokers, nonsmokers with OSCC had a greater risk of mortality (P = .0229), although they had a lower mortality risk than both smokers and nonsmokers over 40. After adjustments, young nonsmokers had a mortality resembling that of older patients, while mortality among young smokers was distinctly lower than that of older patients.

In a subset of 88 young nonsmoking patients, there was a higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (median, 2.456) than that of similarly aged patients with thyroid cancer (median, 2.000; P = .0093) or salivary gland benign pathologies (median, 2.158; P = .0343).

The researchers are now studying the genomics of tumors found in smokers and nonsmokers and comparing them to tumors in older smokers and nonsmokers with OSCCs. They are performing a similar comparison of the immune environment of the tumors and patients’ immune system function. “For the genomics aspect I am looking to see if there are any unique alterations in the young nonsmokers that may explain the biology of these cancers. If so, there may be some alterations that can be targeted with new drugs. For the immune aspect, our goal is to see if there are any specific alterations in immune function unique to this population. Then it may be possible to deliver specific types of immunotherapy that focus in on these deficiencies,” said Dr. Ganly.

The study was funded by Fundación Alfonso Martín Escudero and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ganly has no relevant financial disclosures.

Younger, nonsmoking oral cancer patients have a higher risk of death than that of young smokers, and the outcomes may be related to immune deficiencies. The finding comes from a database of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) patients treated between 1985 and 2015.

“Recent studies have shown an association between high neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio as a marker for poor outcome in several different cancers. This ratio is a surrogate marker for a patient’s immune function. A high ratio indicates an impaired immune function. This means that the ability for the immune system to identify and eradicate abnormal cells which have the potential to form cancer cells is impaired. We don’t know why this is occurring,” said Ian Ganly, MD, PhD, a head and neck surgeon with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Ganly is lead author of the new study, published online March 5 in Oral Oncology.

“Physicians should be aware these patients may have impaired immunity and may have a more aggressive presentation and clinical behavior. Such patients may require more comprehensive staging investigations for cancer and may require more comprehensive treatment. Following treatment these patients should also have a detailed and regular follow-up examination with appropriate imaging to detect early recurrence,” he said in an interview.

The research also suggests that immunotherapy may be effective in this group. “However, our findings are only preliminary and further research into this area is required before such therapy can be justified,” Dr. Ganly said.

The study comprised 2,073 patients overall (median age, 62; 43.5% female) and 100 younger nonsmoking patients (median age, 34; 56.0% female). After multivariate analysis, compared to young smokers, nonsmokers with OSCC had a greater risk of mortality (P = .0229), although they had a lower mortality risk than both smokers and nonsmokers over 40. After adjustments, young nonsmokers had a mortality resembling that of older patients, while mortality among young smokers was distinctly lower than that of older patients.

In a subset of 88 young nonsmoking patients, there was a higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (median, 2.456) than that of similarly aged patients with thyroid cancer (median, 2.000; P = .0093) or salivary gland benign pathologies (median, 2.158; P = .0343).

The researchers are now studying the genomics of tumors found in smokers and nonsmokers and comparing them to tumors in older smokers and nonsmokers with OSCCs. They are performing a similar comparison of the immune environment of the tumors and patients’ immune system function. “For the genomics aspect I am looking to see if there are any unique alterations in the young nonsmokers that may explain the biology of these cancers. If so, there may be some alterations that can be targeted with new drugs. For the immune aspect, our goal is to see if there are any specific alterations in immune function unique to this population. Then it may be possible to deliver specific types of immunotherapy that focus in on these deficiencies,” said Dr. Ganly.

The study was funded by Fundación Alfonso Martín Escudero and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ganly has no relevant financial disclosures.

Premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer have a greater volume of breast density observed during mammography, according to a new study of two retrospective cohorts published online Feb. 17 in JAMA Network Open. The findings suggest that breast density measured during mammography may have a genetic component, and suggest the importance of initiating early mammography in premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer.

“We know that mammographic breast density is a very strong risk factor for breast cancer, probably one of the strongest risk factors, and it’s also a surrogate marker for breast cancer development, especially in premenopausal women. We also know that family history of breast cancer is a strong risk factor for breast cancer as well. Surprisingly, we have very limited information on how these risk factors are related to each other. There have been only two studies that have been done in this field in premenopausal women, and the studies are conflicting. So, we felt that we need to really understand how these two factors are related to each other and whether that would have an impact on modifying or refining mammographic screening in high-risk women,” Adetunji T. Toriola, MD, PhD, MPH, said in an interview. Dr. Toriola is professor of surgery at Washington University, St. Louis.

Previous research identified risk factors for dense breast tissue. A genome-wide association study found 31 genetic loci associated with dense breast tissue, and 17 had a known association with breast cancer risk.

In the JAMA Network Open study, the researchers included data from women who were treated at Washington University’s Joanne Knight Breast Health Center and Siteman Cancer Center. The discovery group included 375 premenopausal women who received annual mammography screening in 2016 and had dense volume and non-dense volume measured during each screen. The validation set drew from 14,040 premenopausal women seen at the centers between 2010 and 2015.

In the discovery group, women with a family history of breast cancer had greater volumetric percent density (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; P < .001). The validation set produced a similar result (OR, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.45). Subanalyses revealed similar associations in non-Hispanic White and Black or African American women.

The current study included a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than previous studies, and also controlled for more variables. This may have removed confounding variables that could have affected previous studies.

“It reinforces the need to start mammogram screening early in women who have a family history of breast cancer,” Dr. Toriola said.

The study had some limitations, including a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than the National Health Interview Survey (23.2% and 15.3%, versus 8.4%), explained by the fact that women with a family history of breast cancer are more likely to seek out screening. The average age of women was on average 47 years, making them closer to perimenopausal than premenopausal.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer have a greater volume of breast density observed during mammography, according to a new study of two retrospective cohorts published online Feb. 17 in JAMA Network Open. The findings suggest that breast density measured during mammography may have a genetic component, and suggest the importance of initiating early mammography in premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer.

“We know that mammographic breast density is a very strong risk factor for breast cancer, probably one of the strongest risk factors, and it’s also a surrogate marker for breast cancer development, especially in premenopausal women. We also know that family history of breast cancer is a strong risk factor for breast cancer as well. Surprisingly, we have very limited information on how these risk factors are related to each other. There have been only two studies that have been done in this field in premenopausal women, and the studies are conflicting. So, we felt that we need to really understand how these two factors are related to each other and whether that would have an impact on modifying or refining mammographic screening in high-risk women,” Adetunji T. Toriola, MD, PhD, MPH, said in an interview. Dr. Toriola is professor of surgery at Washington University, St. Louis.

Previous research identified risk factors for dense breast tissue. A genome-wide association study found 31 genetic loci associated with dense breast tissue, and 17 had a known association with breast cancer risk.

In the JAMA Network Open study, the researchers included data from women who were treated at Washington University’s Joanne Knight Breast Health Center and Siteman Cancer Center. The discovery group included 375 premenopausal women who received annual mammography screening in 2016 and had dense volume and non-dense volume measured during each screen. The validation set drew from 14,040 premenopausal women seen at the centers between 2010 and 2015.

In the discovery group, women with a family history of breast cancer had greater volumetric percent density (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; P < .001). The validation set produced a similar result (OR, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.45). Subanalyses revealed similar associations in non-Hispanic White and Black or African American women.

The current study included a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than previous studies, and also controlled for more variables. This may have removed confounding variables that could have affected previous studies.

“It reinforces the need to start mammogram screening early in women who have a family history of breast cancer,” Dr. Toriola said.

The study had some limitations, including a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than the National Health Interview Survey (23.2% and 15.3%, versus 8.4%), explained by the fact that women with a family history of breast cancer are more likely to seek out screening. The average age of women was on average 47 years, making them closer to perimenopausal than premenopausal.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer have a greater volume of breast density observed during mammography, according to a new study of two retrospective cohorts published online Feb. 17 in JAMA Network Open. The findings suggest that breast density measured during mammography may have a genetic component, and suggest the importance of initiating early mammography in premenopausal women with a family history of breast cancer.

“We know that mammographic breast density is a very strong risk factor for breast cancer, probably one of the strongest risk factors, and it’s also a surrogate marker for breast cancer development, especially in premenopausal women. We also know that family history of breast cancer is a strong risk factor for breast cancer as well. Surprisingly, we have very limited information on how these risk factors are related to each other. There have been only two studies that have been done in this field in premenopausal women, and the studies are conflicting. So, we felt that we need to really understand how these two factors are related to each other and whether that would have an impact on modifying or refining mammographic screening in high-risk women,” Adetunji T. Toriola, MD, PhD, MPH, said in an interview. Dr. Toriola is professor of surgery at Washington University, St. Louis.

Previous research identified risk factors for dense breast tissue. A genome-wide association study found 31 genetic loci associated with dense breast tissue, and 17 had a known association with breast cancer risk.

In the JAMA Network Open study, the researchers included data from women who were treated at Washington University’s Joanne Knight Breast Health Center and Siteman Cancer Center. The discovery group included 375 premenopausal women who received annual mammography screening in 2016 and had dense volume and non-dense volume measured during each screen. The validation set drew from 14,040 premenopausal women seen at the centers between 2010 and 2015.

In the discovery group, women with a family history of breast cancer had greater volumetric percent density (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; P < .001). The validation set produced a similar result (OR, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.45). Subanalyses revealed similar associations in non-Hispanic White and Black or African American women.

The current study included a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than previous studies, and also controlled for more variables. This may have removed confounding variables that could have affected previous studies.

“It reinforces the need to start mammogram screening early in women who have a family history of breast cancer,” Dr. Toriola said.

The study had some limitations, including a higher percentage of women with a family history of breast cancer than the National Health Interview Survey (23.2% and 15.3%, versus 8.4%), explained by the fact that women with a family history of breast cancer are more likely to seek out screening. The average age of women was on average 47 years, making them closer to perimenopausal than premenopausal.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only 8.5% of endometrial cancer recurrences were caught by routine pelvic exams in asymptomatic women in a review of 234 cases at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

It was a much lower rate than previously reported. Asymptomatic exams picked up just 4% of recurrences among high-risk women and 14% in low-risk women.

The findings are important as cancer care shifts away from in-person follow-up – including pelvic exams – to telemedicine in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, said investigators who were led by University of Wisconsin medical student Hailey Milakovich.

Physicians should reassure patients and providers anxious about skipping routine pelvic exams, she said. There’s a “relatively low risk of missing an endometrial cancer recurrence when forgoing pelvic examination. This information ... is especially relevant in the era of increased use of telemedicine.”

Patient symptoms, such a pain and vaginal bleeding, were by far how most recurrences were caught, accounting for almost 80% of detections among low-risk women and 60% among high-risk patients. It highlights the importance of telling women what to report to their providers, Ms. Milakovich said when she recently presented her study at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

“Our hope is that this information will help us better counsel our patients regarding the risk of” missing an exam, she said.

The findings speak to an ongoing question in gynecologic oncology: how intensely do endometrial cancer patients need to be followed after curative-intent treatment?
 

COVID-19 brought the issue to a head

Women who typically would have had several pelvic exams a year were channeled to virtual office visits and not pelvic exams. The move caused “some level of anxiety” for both patients and providers, Ms. Milakovich said.

The study discussant, University of California, Los Angeles, gynecologic oncologist Ritu Salani, MD, said the Wisconsin team found something “really important.”

The “investigators suggest there’s a really low utility for pelvic examinations. I think this is very timely” as health care shifts to telemedicine. It reduces the burden on women when “they don’t have to come in and pay for parking, take time off from work, or find childcare,” she said. The findings are also in line with a larger study on the issue, the TOTEM trial with almost 2,000 women, which found no overall survival benefit with intensive monitoring.

The dogma is that routine pelvic exams pick up almost 70% of endometrial cancer recurrences. The Wisconsin team wanted to test that in their 234 recurrence patients from 2010-2019, all of whom had clear documentation about how their recurrences were detected.

Ninety-nine women had low-risk disease, defined as stage 1 or 2, grade 1 or 2 endometrioid histology; 135 women had high-risk cancer, which was defined as stage 3 or 4 endometrioid disease or any other histology.

Recurrence was detected by symptoms in 78.8% of the low-risk group. Asymptomatic pelvic exams detected 14.1% of recurrences; imaging found 2%; biomarkers found 2%; and recurrences were detected by incidental findings in the rest.

Recurrence was found in the high-risk group by symptoms in 60%, imaging in 17.8%, biomarkers in 14.1%, asymptomatic pelvic exams in 4.4%, and incidental findings in 3.7%.

Patients were an average of 68.5 years old, 95.3% were White, and they lived an average of 50.2 miles from the university.

There was no commercial funding for the study. Ms. Milakovich didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Salani is an adviser for GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Genentech, and other companies.

Only 8.5% of endometrial cancer recurrences were caught by routine pelvic exams in asymptomatic women in a review of 234 cases at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

It was a much lower rate than previously reported. Asymptomatic exams picked up just 4% of recurrences among high-risk women and 14% in low-risk women.

The findings are important as cancer care shifts away from in-person follow-up – including pelvic exams – to telemedicine in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, said investigators who were led by University of Wisconsin medical student Hailey Milakovich.

Physicians should reassure patients and providers anxious about skipping routine pelvic exams, she said. There’s a “relatively low risk of missing an endometrial cancer recurrence when forgoing pelvic examination. This information ... is especially relevant in the era of increased use of telemedicine.”

Patient symptoms, such a pain and vaginal bleeding, were by far how most recurrences were caught, accounting for almost 80% of detections among low-risk women and 60% among high-risk patients. It highlights the importance of telling women what to report to their providers, Ms. Milakovich said when she recently presented her study at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

“Our hope is that this information will help us better counsel our patients regarding the risk of” missing an exam, she said.

The findings speak to an ongoing question in gynecologic oncology: how intensely do endometrial cancer patients need to be followed after curative-intent treatment?
 

COVID-19 brought the issue to a head

Women who typically would have had several pelvic exams a year were channeled to virtual office visits and not pelvic exams. The move caused “some level of anxiety” for both patients and providers, Ms. Milakovich said.

The study discussant, University of California, Los Angeles, gynecologic oncologist Ritu Salani, MD, said the Wisconsin team found something “really important.”

The “investigators suggest there’s a really low utility for pelvic examinations. I think this is very timely” as health care shifts to telemedicine. It reduces the burden on women when “they don’t have to come in and pay for parking, take time off from work, or find childcare,” she said. The findings are also in line with a larger study on the issue, the TOTEM trial with almost 2,000 women, which found no overall survival benefit with intensive monitoring.

The dogma is that routine pelvic exams pick up almost 70% of endometrial cancer recurrences. The Wisconsin team wanted to test that in their 234 recurrence patients from 2010-2019, all of whom had clear documentation about how their recurrences were detected.

Ninety-nine women had low-risk disease, defined as stage 1 or 2, grade 1 or 2 endometrioid histology; 135 women had high-risk cancer, which was defined as stage 3 or 4 endometrioid disease or any other histology.

Recurrence was detected by symptoms in 78.8% of the low-risk group. Asymptomatic pelvic exams detected 14.1% of recurrences; imaging found 2%; biomarkers found 2%; and recurrences were detected by incidental findings in the rest.

Recurrence was found in the high-risk group by symptoms in 60%, imaging in 17.8%, biomarkers in 14.1%, asymptomatic pelvic exams in 4.4%, and incidental findings in 3.7%.

Patients were an average of 68.5 years old, 95.3% were White, and they lived an average of 50.2 miles from the university.

There was no commercial funding for the study. Ms. Milakovich didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Salani is an adviser for GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Genentech, and other companies.

Only 8.5% of endometrial cancer recurrences were caught by routine pelvic exams in asymptomatic women in a review of 234 cases at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

It was a much lower rate than previously reported. Asymptomatic exams picked up just 4% of recurrences among high-risk women and 14% in low-risk women.

The findings are important as cancer care shifts away from in-person follow-up – including pelvic exams – to telemedicine in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, said investigators who were led by University of Wisconsin medical student Hailey Milakovich.

Physicians should reassure patients and providers anxious about skipping routine pelvic exams, she said. There’s a “relatively low risk of missing an endometrial cancer recurrence when forgoing pelvic examination. This information ... is especially relevant in the era of increased use of telemedicine.”

Patient symptoms, such a pain and vaginal bleeding, were by far how most recurrences were caught, accounting for almost 80% of detections among low-risk women and 60% among high-risk patients. It highlights the importance of telling women what to report to their providers, Ms. Milakovich said when she recently presented her study at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer.

“Our hope is that this information will help us better counsel our patients regarding the risk of” missing an exam, she said.

The findings speak to an ongoing question in gynecologic oncology: how intensely do endometrial cancer patients need to be followed after curative-intent treatment?
 

COVID-19 brought the issue to a head

Women who typically would have had several pelvic exams a year were channeled to virtual office visits and not pelvic exams. The move caused “some level of anxiety” for both patients and providers, Ms. Milakovich said.

The study discussant, University of California, Los Angeles, gynecologic oncologist Ritu Salani, MD, said the Wisconsin team found something “really important.”

The “investigators suggest there’s a really low utility for pelvic examinations. I think this is very timely” as health care shifts to telemedicine. It reduces the burden on women when “they don’t have to come in and pay for parking, take time off from work, or find childcare,” she said. The findings are also in line with a larger study on the issue, the TOTEM trial with almost 2,000 women, which found no overall survival benefit with intensive monitoring.

The dogma is that routine pelvic exams pick up almost 70% of endometrial cancer recurrences. The Wisconsin team wanted to test that in their 234 recurrence patients from 2010-2019, all of whom had clear documentation about how their recurrences were detected.

Ninety-nine women had low-risk disease, defined as stage 1 or 2, grade 1 or 2 endometrioid histology; 135 women had high-risk cancer, which was defined as stage 3 or 4 endometrioid disease or any other histology.

Recurrence was detected by symptoms in 78.8% of the low-risk group. Asymptomatic pelvic exams detected 14.1% of recurrences; imaging found 2%; biomarkers found 2%; and recurrences were detected by incidental findings in the rest.

Recurrence was found in the high-risk group by symptoms in 60%, imaging in 17.8%, biomarkers in 14.1%, asymptomatic pelvic exams in 4.4%, and incidental findings in 3.7%.

Patients were an average of 68.5 years old, 95.3% were White, and they lived an average of 50.2 miles from the university.

There was no commercial funding for the study. Ms. Milakovich didn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Salani is an adviser for GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Genentech, and other companies.