AVAHO

Cancer significantly raises a patient’s risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, particularly within the first year after diagnosis and irrespective of cancer type, according to a population-based study.

The retrospective analysis, which included data from more than 200,000 patients with cancer, found that a new cancer diagnosis significantly increased the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33) as well as other CV events, including stroke (HR, 1.44), heart failure (HR, 1.62) and pulmonary embolism (HR, 3.43).

From the results, the researchers concluded that a “new cancer diagnosis is independently associated with a significantly increased risk for cardiovascular death and nonfatal morbidity regardless of cancer site.”

The findings were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: CardioOncology (2022 Mar;4[1]:85-94).

Patients with cancer and cancer survivors are known to have an increased risk for heart failure, but evidence on the risk for other CV outcomes remains less clear. In addition, the authors noted, many cancer therapies – including chest irradiation and chemotherapy – can increase a person’s risk of incident CV disease during treatment and after, but data on the long-term CV risk among cancer survivors conflict.

D. Ian Paterson, MD, of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and coauthors wanted to clarify how a new cancer diagnosis at various sites and stages might affect a person’s risk for fatal and nonfatal CV events over the long term.

The current analysis included data from 224,016 patients with a new cancer diagnosis identified from an administrative database of more than 4.5 million adults residing in Alberta. The researcher identified 73,360 CV deaths and 470,481 nonfatal CV events between April 2007 and December 2018.

Comparing CV events in those with and in those without cancer, the authors found that patients with cancer had a 33% increased risk for CV mortality over the 12-year study follow-up, after adjusting for sociodemographic data and comorbidities (HR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-1.37). Patients with cancer also had an increased risk for stroke (HR, 1.44), heart failure (HR, 1.62) and pulmonary embolism (HR, 3.43), though not myocardial infarction (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 – 1.05), compared to those without cancer.

The extent of the risk varied somewhat by cancer stage, time from diagnosis, and cancer type.

A new cancer diagnosis put patients at a significantly higher risk of CV mortality, heart failure, stroke, or pulmonary embolism, regardless of the cancer site, but the risk of CV events was highest for patients with genitourinary, gastrointestinal, thoracic, nervous system, and hematologic malignancies. These patients accounted for more than half of the cancer cohort and more than 70% of the incident CV burden.

Patients with more advanced cancer were at the highest risk for poor CV outcomes, but even those with very early-stage disease faced an elevated risk.

The risk for CV events was greatest in the first year following a cancer diagnosis for all outcomes (HRs, 1.24-8.36) but remained significantly elevated for CV death, heart failure, and pulmonary embolism a decade later.

Overall, the authors concluded that “patients with cancer constitute a high-risk population for CV disease” over the long term and suggested that those with cancer “may benefit from comanagement that includes cardiologists as well as stroke and thrombosis specialists.”

In an accompanying editorial, Hiroshi Ohtsu of Juntendo University in Tokyo, and colleagues concluded that the work “has remarkable strengths” and important clinical implications. However, they said that additional steps may be warranted before translating these findings to clinical practice.

For example, the study is limited by its retrospective population-based design and the lack of data on cancer therapy as well as on several patient factors, including ethnicity, smoking, and physical activity.

The study authors agreed, noting that future work should evaluate how cancer therapies and other potential contributors to poor CV outcomes influence patients’ risk.

“Such work would potentially lead to better prediction of CV risk for patients with cancer and survivors and improved prevention and treatment strategies,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a foundation grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The editorial was supported in part by funding to individual authors from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science/Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and the Agency for Medical Research and Development.

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

Cancer significantly raises a patient’s risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, particularly within the first year after diagnosis and irrespective of cancer type, according to a population-based study.

The retrospective analysis, which included data from more than 200,000 patients with cancer, found that a new cancer diagnosis significantly increased the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33) as well as other CV events, including stroke (HR, 1.44), heart failure (HR, 1.62) and pulmonary embolism (HR, 3.43).

From the results, the researchers concluded that a “new cancer diagnosis is independently associated with a significantly increased risk for cardiovascular death and nonfatal morbidity regardless of cancer site.”

The findings were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: CardioOncology (2022 Mar;4[1]:85-94).

Patients with cancer and cancer survivors are known to have an increased risk for heart failure, but evidence on the risk for other CV outcomes remains less clear. In addition, the authors noted, many cancer therapies – including chest irradiation and chemotherapy – can increase a person’s risk of incident CV disease during treatment and after, but data on the long-term CV risk among cancer survivors conflict.

D. Ian Paterson, MD, of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and coauthors wanted to clarify how a new cancer diagnosis at various sites and stages might affect a person’s risk for fatal and nonfatal CV events over the long term.

The current analysis included data from 224,016 patients with a new cancer diagnosis identified from an administrative database of more than 4.5 million adults residing in Alberta. The researcher identified 73,360 CV deaths and 470,481 nonfatal CV events between April 2007 and December 2018.

Comparing CV events in those with and in those without cancer, the authors found that patients with cancer had a 33% increased risk for CV mortality over the 12-year study follow-up, after adjusting for sociodemographic data and comorbidities (HR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-1.37). Patients with cancer also had an increased risk for stroke (HR, 1.44), heart failure (HR, 1.62) and pulmonary embolism (HR, 3.43), though not myocardial infarction (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 – 1.05), compared to those without cancer.

The extent of the risk varied somewhat by cancer stage, time from diagnosis, and cancer type.

A new cancer diagnosis put patients at a significantly higher risk of CV mortality, heart failure, stroke, or pulmonary embolism, regardless of the cancer site, but the risk of CV events was highest for patients with genitourinary, gastrointestinal, thoracic, nervous system, and hematologic malignancies. These patients accounted for more than half of the cancer cohort and more than 70% of the incident CV burden.

Patients with more advanced cancer were at the highest risk for poor CV outcomes, but even those with very early-stage disease faced an elevated risk.

The risk for CV events was greatest in the first year following a cancer diagnosis for all outcomes (HRs, 1.24-8.36) but remained significantly elevated for CV death, heart failure, and pulmonary embolism a decade later.

Overall, the authors concluded that “patients with cancer constitute a high-risk population for CV disease” over the long term and suggested that those with cancer “may benefit from comanagement that includes cardiologists as well as stroke and thrombosis specialists.”

In an accompanying editorial, Hiroshi Ohtsu of Juntendo University in Tokyo, and colleagues concluded that the work “has remarkable strengths” and important clinical implications. However, they said that additional steps may be warranted before translating these findings to clinical practice.

For example, the study is limited by its retrospective population-based design and the lack of data on cancer therapy as well as on several patient factors, including ethnicity, smoking, and physical activity.

The study authors agreed, noting that future work should evaluate how cancer therapies and other potential contributors to poor CV outcomes influence patients’ risk.

“Such work would potentially lead to better prediction of CV risk for patients with cancer and survivors and improved prevention and treatment strategies,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a foundation grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The editorial was supported in part by funding to individual authors from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science/Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and the Agency for Medical Research and Development.

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

Cancer significantly raises a patient’s risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, particularly within the first year after diagnosis and irrespective of cancer type, according to a population-based study.

The retrospective analysis, which included data from more than 200,000 patients with cancer, found that a new cancer diagnosis significantly increased the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33) as well as other CV events, including stroke (HR, 1.44), heart failure (HR, 1.62) and pulmonary embolism (HR, 3.43).

From the results, the researchers concluded that a “new cancer diagnosis is independently associated with a significantly increased risk for cardiovascular death and nonfatal morbidity regardless of cancer site.”

The findings were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: CardioOncology (2022 Mar;4[1]:85-94).

Patients with cancer and cancer survivors are known to have an increased risk for heart failure, but evidence on the risk for other CV outcomes remains less clear. In addition, the authors noted, many cancer therapies – including chest irradiation and chemotherapy – can increase a person’s risk of incident CV disease during treatment and after, but data on the long-term CV risk among cancer survivors conflict.

D. Ian Paterson, MD, of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and coauthors wanted to clarify how a new cancer diagnosis at various sites and stages might affect a person’s risk for fatal and nonfatal CV events over the long term.

The current analysis included data from 224,016 patients with a new cancer diagnosis identified from an administrative database of more than 4.5 million adults residing in Alberta. The researcher identified 73,360 CV deaths and 470,481 nonfatal CV events between April 2007 and December 2018.

Comparing CV events in those with and in those without cancer, the authors found that patients with cancer had a 33% increased risk for CV mortality over the 12-year study follow-up, after adjusting for sociodemographic data and comorbidities (HR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-1.37). Patients with cancer also had an increased risk for stroke (HR, 1.44), heart failure (HR, 1.62) and pulmonary embolism (HR, 3.43), though not myocardial infarction (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 – 1.05), compared to those without cancer.

The extent of the risk varied somewhat by cancer stage, time from diagnosis, and cancer type.

A new cancer diagnosis put patients at a significantly higher risk of CV mortality, heart failure, stroke, or pulmonary embolism, regardless of the cancer site, but the risk of CV events was highest for patients with genitourinary, gastrointestinal, thoracic, nervous system, and hematologic malignancies. These patients accounted for more than half of the cancer cohort and more than 70% of the incident CV burden.

Patients with more advanced cancer were at the highest risk for poor CV outcomes, but even those with very early-stage disease faced an elevated risk.

The risk for CV events was greatest in the first year following a cancer diagnosis for all outcomes (HRs, 1.24-8.36) but remained significantly elevated for CV death, heart failure, and pulmonary embolism a decade later.

Overall, the authors concluded that “patients with cancer constitute a high-risk population for CV disease” over the long term and suggested that those with cancer “may benefit from comanagement that includes cardiologists as well as stroke and thrombosis specialists.”

In an accompanying editorial, Hiroshi Ohtsu of Juntendo University in Tokyo, and colleagues concluded that the work “has remarkable strengths” and important clinical implications. However, they said that additional steps may be warranted before translating these findings to clinical practice.

For example, the study is limited by its retrospective population-based design and the lack of data on cancer therapy as well as on several patient factors, including ethnicity, smoking, and physical activity.

The study authors agreed, noting that future work should evaluate how cancer therapies and other potential contributors to poor CV outcomes influence patients’ risk.

“Such work would potentially lead to better prediction of CV risk for patients with cancer and survivors and improved prevention and treatment strategies,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a foundation grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The editorial was supported in part by funding to individual authors from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science/Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and the Agency for Medical Research and Development.

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

The PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) is now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in early-stage breast cancer and later-stage disease. Specifically, the new approval is for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with high-risk early-stage HER2-negative, BRCA-mutated breast cancer who have completed chemotherapy and local treatment.

The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx (Myriad Genetics), a companion diagnostic test to identify patients who may benefit from olaparib.

The latest approval was based on phase 3 OlympiA trial results, which showed a 42% improvement in invasive and distant disease-free survival with olaparib in comparison with placebo. Data from OlympiaA and other clinical studies also confirm BRACAnalysis CDx as “an effective test for patients deciding on their best treatment options,” Myriad Genetics noted in a press release.

The OlympiA results, as reported by this news organization, were presented during the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 annual meeting and were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those findings prompted an ASCO “rapid recommendation” updating of ASCO’s 2020 guidelines for the management of hereditary breast cancer.

The latest results from OlympiA show that olaparib reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68) in comparison with placebo, according to a company press release announcing the approval. Overall survival data are slated for presentation at a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session on March 16, 2022.

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

The PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) is now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in early-stage breast cancer and later-stage disease. Specifically, the new approval is for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with high-risk early-stage HER2-negative, BRCA-mutated breast cancer who have completed chemotherapy and local treatment.

The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx (Myriad Genetics), a companion diagnostic test to identify patients who may benefit from olaparib.

The latest approval was based on phase 3 OlympiA trial results, which showed a 42% improvement in invasive and distant disease-free survival with olaparib in comparison with placebo. Data from OlympiaA and other clinical studies also confirm BRACAnalysis CDx as “an effective test for patients deciding on their best treatment options,” Myriad Genetics noted in a press release.

The OlympiA results, as reported by this news organization, were presented during the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 annual meeting and were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those findings prompted an ASCO “rapid recommendation” updating of ASCO’s 2020 guidelines for the management of hereditary breast cancer.

The latest results from OlympiA show that olaparib reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68) in comparison with placebo, according to a company press release announcing the approval. Overall survival data are slated for presentation at a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session on March 16, 2022.

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

The PARP inhibitor olaparib (Lynparza) is now approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in early-stage breast cancer and later-stage disease. Specifically, the new approval is for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with high-risk early-stage HER2-negative, BRCA-mutated breast cancer who have completed chemotherapy and local treatment.

The FDA also approved BRACAnalysis CDx (Myriad Genetics), a companion diagnostic test to identify patients who may benefit from olaparib.

The latest approval was based on phase 3 OlympiA trial results, which showed a 42% improvement in invasive and distant disease-free survival with olaparib in comparison with placebo. Data from OlympiaA and other clinical studies also confirm BRACAnalysis CDx as “an effective test for patients deciding on their best treatment options,” Myriad Genetics noted in a press release.

The OlympiA results, as reported by this news organization, were presented during the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 annual meeting and were published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those findings prompted an ASCO “rapid recommendation” updating of ASCO’s 2020 guidelines for the management of hereditary breast cancer.

The latest results from OlympiA show that olaparib reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68) in comparison with placebo, according to a company press release announcing the approval. Overall survival data are slated for presentation at a European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Plenary session on March 16, 2022.

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

Approximately one-third of people between 45 and 49 years of age who undergo colonoscopies have neoplastic colorectal pathology, according to a retrospective analysis.

According to the researchers, led by Parth Trivedi, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, there has progressively been a “disturbing” rise in early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States, which has prompted guidelines from the American Cancer Society to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to recommend lowering the CRC screening starting age to 45 years old for average-risk individuals. Despite these recommendations, little research to date has fully characterized the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia in individuals younger than the currently recommended CRC onset screening age of 50 years.

Dr. Trivedi and colleagues, who published their study findings in Gastroenterology, retrospectively reviewed colonoscopy data recorded in the Gastrointestinal Quality Improvement Consortium Registry to address the current knowledge gaps on early-onset CRC. Collected data were for procedures conducted at 123 AMSURG ambulatory endoscopy centers across 29 states between January 2014 and February 2021. In total, 2,921,816 colonoscopies during the study period among patients aged 18-54 years were recorded by AMSURG-associated endoscopists; of these, 562,559 met inclusion criteria for high-quality screening or diagnostic colonoscopy procedures.

The researchers pooled a young-onset age group, including patients between the ages of 18 and 49 years old, in whom 145,998 procedures were performed, including 79,934 procedures in patients aged 45-49 years. A comparator group with 336,627 procedures in patients aged 50-54 years was also included in the study. The findings were categorized into CRC, advanced premalignant lesions (APL), and “any neoplasia,” the latter of which included all adenomas, sessile serrated polyps, and CRC.

Among patients aged 18-44 years, the most frequent indications were “diagnostic-other” (45.6%) as well as “diagnostic-bleeding” (39.4%). Among patients between 45 and 49 years of age, the most frequent indications were “screening” (41.4%) and “diagnostic-other” (30.7%). Nearly all (90%) procedures among those aged 50-54 years were for screening.

A multivariable logistic regression identified 5 variables predictive of either APL or CRC in patients between 18 and 49 years of age: increasing age (odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.08; P <0.01), male sex (OR = 1.67; 95% CI, 1.63-1.70; P <0.01), White race (vs. African American: OR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.73-0.79, P <0.01; vs. Asian: OR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.94, P <0.01), family history of CRC (OR = 1.21; 95% CI, 1.16-1.26; P <0.01) and polyps (OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.24-1.43; P <0.01), and examinations for bleeding (OR = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.12-1.18; P <0.01) or screening (OR = 1.20; 95% CI, 1.16-1.24; P <0.01).

The prevalence of neoplastic findings in the young-onset age-group increased with increasing age for the categories of any neoplasia, APLs, and CRC. Among patients aged 40-44, 26.59% had any neoplasia, 5.76% had APL, and 0.53% had CRC. In those aged 45-49 years, around 32% had any neoplasia, approximately 7.5% had APLs, and nearly 0.58% had CRC. In the 50- to 54-year-old group, the prevalences of any neoplasia, APL, and CRC were 37.72%, 9.48%, and 0.32%, respectively.

Across all age groups, a family history of CRC was associated with a higher prevalence of any neoplasia and APL. In addition, the rates of any APL and neoplasia in patients with a family history of CRC were comparable to patients who were 5 years older but had no family history of the disease. Across most young-onset age group, individuals with a positive family history had a lower CRC prevalence versus patients with no family history.

The researchers noted that their population data are derived from ambulatory endoscopy centers, which may introduce bias associated with insurance coverage or patient preference to attend specific endoscopic centers. Additionally, the investigators stated that many records on race and ethnicity were missing, further limiting the findings.

“The present analysis of neoplastic colorectal pathology among individuals younger than age 50 suggests that lowering the screening age to 45 for men and women of all races and ethnicities will likely detect important pathology rather frequently,” they concluded. In addition, the researchers noted that the study results “underscore the importance of early messaging to patients and providers in the years leading up to age 45.” Ultimately, improved “awareness of pathology prevalence in individuals younger than age 45 can help guide clinicians in the clinical management of CRC risk,” the researchers wrote.

Several of the researchers reported conflicts of interest with Exact Sciences Corp and Freenome. The study received no industry funding.

Approximately one-third of people between 45 and 49 years of age who undergo colonoscopies have neoplastic colorectal pathology, according to a retrospective analysis.

According to the researchers, led by Parth Trivedi, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, there has progressively been a “disturbing” rise in early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States, which has prompted guidelines from the American Cancer Society to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to recommend lowering the CRC screening starting age to 45 years old for average-risk individuals. Despite these recommendations, little research to date has fully characterized the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia in individuals younger than the currently recommended CRC onset screening age of 50 years.

Dr. Trivedi and colleagues, who published their study findings in Gastroenterology, retrospectively reviewed colonoscopy data recorded in the Gastrointestinal Quality Improvement Consortium Registry to address the current knowledge gaps on early-onset CRC. Collected data were for procedures conducted at 123 AMSURG ambulatory endoscopy centers across 29 states between January 2014 and February 2021. In total, 2,921,816 colonoscopies during the study period among patients aged 18-54 years were recorded by AMSURG-associated endoscopists; of these, 562,559 met inclusion criteria for high-quality screening or diagnostic colonoscopy procedures.

The researchers pooled a young-onset age group, including patients between the ages of 18 and 49 years old, in whom 145,998 procedures were performed, including 79,934 procedures in patients aged 45-49 years. A comparator group with 336,627 procedures in patients aged 50-54 years was also included in the study. The findings were categorized into CRC, advanced premalignant lesions (APL), and “any neoplasia,” the latter of which included all adenomas, sessile serrated polyps, and CRC.

Among patients aged 18-44 years, the most frequent indications were “diagnostic-other” (45.6%) as well as “diagnostic-bleeding” (39.4%). Among patients between 45 and 49 years of age, the most frequent indications were “screening” (41.4%) and “diagnostic-other” (30.7%). Nearly all (90%) procedures among those aged 50-54 years were for screening.

A multivariable logistic regression identified 5 variables predictive of either APL or CRC in patients between 18 and 49 years of age: increasing age (odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.08; P <0.01), male sex (OR = 1.67; 95% CI, 1.63-1.70; P <0.01), White race (vs. African American: OR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.73-0.79, P <0.01; vs. Asian: OR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.94, P <0.01), family history of CRC (OR = 1.21; 95% CI, 1.16-1.26; P <0.01) and polyps (OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.24-1.43; P <0.01), and examinations for bleeding (OR = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.12-1.18; P <0.01) or screening (OR = 1.20; 95% CI, 1.16-1.24; P <0.01).

The prevalence of neoplastic findings in the young-onset age-group increased with increasing age for the categories of any neoplasia, APLs, and CRC. Among patients aged 40-44, 26.59% had any neoplasia, 5.76% had APL, and 0.53% had CRC. In those aged 45-49 years, around 32% had any neoplasia, approximately 7.5% had APLs, and nearly 0.58% had CRC. In the 50- to 54-year-old group, the prevalences of any neoplasia, APL, and CRC were 37.72%, 9.48%, and 0.32%, respectively.

Across all age groups, a family history of CRC was associated with a higher prevalence of any neoplasia and APL. In addition, the rates of any APL and neoplasia in patients with a family history of CRC were comparable to patients who were 5 years older but had no family history of the disease. Across most young-onset age group, individuals with a positive family history had a lower CRC prevalence versus patients with no family history.

The researchers noted that their population data are derived from ambulatory endoscopy centers, which may introduce bias associated with insurance coverage or patient preference to attend specific endoscopic centers. Additionally, the investigators stated that many records on race and ethnicity were missing, further limiting the findings.

“The present analysis of neoplastic colorectal pathology among individuals younger than age 50 suggests that lowering the screening age to 45 for men and women of all races and ethnicities will likely detect important pathology rather frequently,” they concluded. In addition, the researchers noted that the study results “underscore the importance of early messaging to patients and providers in the years leading up to age 45.” Ultimately, improved “awareness of pathology prevalence in individuals younger than age 45 can help guide clinicians in the clinical management of CRC risk,” the researchers wrote.

Several of the researchers reported conflicts of interest with Exact Sciences Corp and Freenome. The study received no industry funding.

Approximately one-third of people between 45 and 49 years of age who undergo colonoscopies have neoplastic colorectal pathology, according to a retrospective analysis.

According to the researchers, led by Parth Trivedi, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, there has progressively been a “disturbing” rise in early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States, which has prompted guidelines from the American Cancer Society to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to recommend lowering the CRC screening starting age to 45 years old for average-risk individuals. Despite these recommendations, little research to date has fully characterized the prevalence of colorectal neoplasia in individuals younger than the currently recommended CRC onset screening age of 50 years.

Dr. Trivedi and colleagues, who published their study findings in Gastroenterology, retrospectively reviewed colonoscopy data recorded in the Gastrointestinal Quality Improvement Consortium Registry to address the current knowledge gaps on early-onset CRC. Collected data were for procedures conducted at 123 AMSURG ambulatory endoscopy centers across 29 states between January 2014 and February 2021. In total, 2,921,816 colonoscopies during the study period among patients aged 18-54 years were recorded by AMSURG-associated endoscopists; of these, 562,559 met inclusion criteria for high-quality screening or diagnostic colonoscopy procedures.

The researchers pooled a young-onset age group, including patients between the ages of 18 and 49 years old, in whom 145,998 procedures were performed, including 79,934 procedures in patients aged 45-49 years. A comparator group with 336,627 procedures in patients aged 50-54 years was also included in the study. The findings were categorized into CRC, advanced premalignant lesions (APL), and “any neoplasia,” the latter of which included all adenomas, sessile serrated polyps, and CRC.

Among patients aged 18-44 years, the most frequent indications were “diagnostic-other” (45.6%) as well as “diagnostic-bleeding” (39.4%). Among patients between 45 and 49 years of age, the most frequent indications were “screening” (41.4%) and “diagnostic-other” (30.7%). Nearly all (90%) procedures among those aged 50-54 years were for screening.

A multivariable logistic regression identified 5 variables predictive of either APL or CRC in patients between 18 and 49 years of age: increasing age (odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.08; P <0.01), male sex (OR = 1.67; 95% CI, 1.63-1.70; P <0.01), White race (vs. African American: OR = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.73-0.79, P <0.01; vs. Asian: OR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.94, P <0.01), family history of CRC (OR = 1.21; 95% CI, 1.16-1.26; P <0.01) and polyps (OR = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.24-1.43; P <0.01), and examinations for bleeding (OR = 1.15; 95% CI, 1.12-1.18; P <0.01) or screening (OR = 1.20; 95% CI, 1.16-1.24; P <0.01).

The prevalence of neoplastic findings in the young-onset age-group increased with increasing age for the categories of any neoplasia, APLs, and CRC. Among patients aged 40-44, 26.59% had any neoplasia, 5.76% had APL, and 0.53% had CRC. In those aged 45-49 years, around 32% had any neoplasia, approximately 7.5% had APLs, and nearly 0.58% had CRC. In the 50- to 54-year-old group, the prevalences of any neoplasia, APL, and CRC were 37.72%, 9.48%, and 0.32%, respectively.

Across all age groups, a family history of CRC was associated with a higher prevalence of any neoplasia and APL. In addition, the rates of any APL and neoplasia in patients with a family history of CRC were comparable to patients who were 5 years older but had no family history of the disease. Across most young-onset age group, individuals with a positive family history had a lower CRC prevalence versus patients with no family history.

The researchers noted that their population data are derived from ambulatory endoscopy centers, which may introduce bias associated with insurance coverage or patient preference to attend specific endoscopic centers. Additionally, the investigators stated that many records on race and ethnicity were missing, further limiting the findings.

“The present analysis of neoplastic colorectal pathology among individuals younger than age 50 suggests that lowering the screening age to 45 for men and women of all races and ethnicities will likely detect important pathology rather frequently,” they concluded. In addition, the researchers noted that the study results “underscore the importance of early messaging to patients and providers in the years leading up to age 45.” Ultimately, improved “awareness of pathology prevalence in individuals younger than age 45 can help guide clinicians in the clinical management of CRC risk,” the researchers wrote.

Several of the researchers reported conflicts of interest with Exact Sciences Corp and Freenome. The study received no industry funding.

Green tea extract (GTE) does not appear to protect against colorectal adenoma recurrence, according to a study from Germany.

Preclinical, epidemiologic, and small clinical studies have suggested that GTE and its major active component, epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), have antineoplastic effects in the colon and rectum.

But the new study found no statistically significant difference in adenoma recurrence in people who took GTE, standardized to 150 mg EGCG, twice daily for 3 years, relative to those who took matching placebo.

However, there was a suggestion of possible benefit in men but not women, which requires further study, Thomas Seufferlein, MD, with Ulm University Hospital, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, and colleagues write.

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

Largest trial to date

The MIRACLE trial (Minimizing the Risk of Metachronous Adenomas of the Colorectum With Green Tea Extract) included 879 adults aged 50-80 years. Participants had undergone removal of one or more histologically confirmed colorectal adenomas within 6 months prior to recruitment during colonoscopy, and there were no remaining colorectal adenomas.

There were 432 patients in the GTE group and 447 in the placebo group. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups, and overall adherence to the study protocol was good.

After 3 years, adenomas were detected in 55.7% of participants in the placebo group and in 51.1% of those in the GTE group in the modified intention-to-treat population. This absolute difference of 4.6% in favor of GTE was not statistically significant.

The per protocol analysis also did not show a significant effect of GTE on new adenoma formation in the whole study population.

However, a preplanned subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference in the adenoma recurrence rate in favor of GTE in men but not women.

In men, GTE intake was associated with a significant 12.4% relative and 7.5% absolute reduction of metachronous adenomas, they report.

This potential gender-specific difference in chemoprevention “warrants further investigations,” the study team writes.

The safety profile of GTE as taken in this trial was good, with only grade 1/2 elevations in liver enzymes in the GTE group, compared with the placebo group. However, because the follow-up period was limited to 3 years, the long-term safety of GTE cannot be determined.

The researchers write that, to their knowledge, this study is the largest randomized trial to date of the effect of GTE on adenoma recurrence in a colorectal cancer screening population consisting of White patients.
 

Caveats and cautionary notes

Reached for comment, David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, noted that “although the study showed no significant differences, the time horizon to show benefit may be longer than the 3-year duration of the study.”

“There are also methodologic issues with the readjustment of the target sample size, which may have led to a type II error, related to underpowering of the sample size,” said Dr. Johnson, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The researchers write that the study initially generated “great interest” and that many centers applied to participate. However, “quite a few” centers did not meet their promised recruitment targets and had to be replaced. Therefore, the statistical analysis plan had to be modified, and the number of participants had to be reduced over the course of the trial, they note.

Dr. Johnson also cautioned that while green tea is a popular drink, “there is strong evidence that green tea extract, found in many herbal and dietary supplements, is among the leading causes listed for drug-induced liver injury, including acute liver failure, urgent liver transplantation, and death.”

The study was fully funded by a grant from German Cancer Aid. The investigators and Dr. Johnson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Green tea extract (GTE) does not appear to protect against colorectal adenoma recurrence, according to a study from Germany.

Preclinical, epidemiologic, and small clinical studies have suggested that GTE and its major active component, epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), have antineoplastic effects in the colon and rectum.

But the new study found no statistically significant difference in adenoma recurrence in people who took GTE, standardized to 150 mg EGCG, twice daily for 3 years, relative to those who took matching placebo.

However, there was a suggestion of possible benefit in men but not women, which requires further study, Thomas Seufferlein, MD, with Ulm University Hospital, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, and colleagues write.

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

Largest trial to date

The MIRACLE trial (Minimizing the Risk of Metachronous Adenomas of the Colorectum With Green Tea Extract) included 879 adults aged 50-80 years. Participants had undergone removal of one or more histologically confirmed colorectal adenomas within 6 months prior to recruitment during colonoscopy, and there were no remaining colorectal adenomas.

There were 432 patients in the GTE group and 447 in the placebo group. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups, and overall adherence to the study protocol was good.

After 3 years, adenomas were detected in 55.7% of participants in the placebo group and in 51.1% of those in the GTE group in the modified intention-to-treat population. This absolute difference of 4.6% in favor of GTE was not statistically significant.

The per protocol analysis also did not show a significant effect of GTE on new adenoma formation in the whole study population.

However, a preplanned subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference in the adenoma recurrence rate in favor of GTE in men but not women.

In men, GTE intake was associated with a significant 12.4% relative and 7.5% absolute reduction of metachronous adenomas, they report.

This potential gender-specific difference in chemoprevention “warrants further investigations,” the study team writes.

The safety profile of GTE as taken in this trial was good, with only grade 1/2 elevations in liver enzymes in the GTE group, compared with the placebo group. However, because the follow-up period was limited to 3 years, the long-term safety of GTE cannot be determined.

The researchers write that, to their knowledge, this study is the largest randomized trial to date of the effect of GTE on adenoma recurrence in a colorectal cancer screening population consisting of White patients.
 

Caveats and cautionary notes

Reached for comment, David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, noted that “although the study showed no significant differences, the time horizon to show benefit may be longer than the 3-year duration of the study.”

“There are also methodologic issues with the readjustment of the target sample size, which may have led to a type II error, related to underpowering of the sample size,” said Dr. Johnson, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The researchers write that the study initially generated “great interest” and that many centers applied to participate. However, “quite a few” centers did not meet their promised recruitment targets and had to be replaced. Therefore, the statistical analysis plan had to be modified, and the number of participants had to be reduced over the course of the trial, they note.

Dr. Johnson also cautioned that while green tea is a popular drink, “there is strong evidence that green tea extract, found in many herbal and dietary supplements, is among the leading causes listed for drug-induced liver injury, including acute liver failure, urgent liver transplantation, and death.”

The study was fully funded by a grant from German Cancer Aid. The investigators and Dr. Johnson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Green tea extract (GTE) does not appear to protect against colorectal adenoma recurrence, according to a study from Germany.

Preclinical, epidemiologic, and small clinical studies have suggested that GTE and its major active component, epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), have antineoplastic effects in the colon and rectum.

But the new study found no statistically significant difference in adenoma recurrence in people who took GTE, standardized to 150 mg EGCG, twice daily for 3 years, relative to those who took matching placebo.

However, there was a suggestion of possible benefit in men but not women, which requires further study, Thomas Seufferlein, MD, with Ulm University Hospital, Baden-Württemberg, Germany, and colleagues write.

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

Largest trial to date

The MIRACLE trial (Minimizing the Risk of Metachronous Adenomas of the Colorectum With Green Tea Extract) included 879 adults aged 50-80 years. Participants had undergone removal of one or more histologically confirmed colorectal adenomas within 6 months prior to recruitment during colonoscopy, and there were no remaining colorectal adenomas.

There were 432 patients in the GTE group and 447 in the placebo group. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups, and overall adherence to the study protocol was good.

After 3 years, adenomas were detected in 55.7% of participants in the placebo group and in 51.1% of those in the GTE group in the modified intention-to-treat population. This absolute difference of 4.6% in favor of GTE was not statistically significant.

The per protocol analysis also did not show a significant effect of GTE on new adenoma formation in the whole study population.

However, a preplanned subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference in the adenoma recurrence rate in favor of GTE in men but not women.

In men, GTE intake was associated with a significant 12.4% relative and 7.5% absolute reduction of metachronous adenomas, they report.

This potential gender-specific difference in chemoprevention “warrants further investigations,” the study team writes.

The safety profile of GTE as taken in this trial was good, with only grade 1/2 elevations in liver enzymes in the GTE group, compared with the placebo group. However, because the follow-up period was limited to 3 years, the long-term safety of GTE cannot be determined.

The researchers write that, to their knowledge, this study is the largest randomized trial to date of the effect of GTE on adenoma recurrence in a colorectal cancer screening population consisting of White patients.
 

Caveats and cautionary notes

Reached for comment, David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, noted that “although the study showed no significant differences, the time horizon to show benefit may be longer than the 3-year duration of the study.”

“There are also methodologic issues with the readjustment of the target sample size, which may have led to a type II error, related to underpowering of the sample size,” said Dr. Johnson, who wasn’t involved in the study.

The researchers write that the study initially generated “great interest” and that many centers applied to participate. However, “quite a few” centers did not meet their promised recruitment targets and had to be replaced. Therefore, the statistical analysis plan had to be modified, and the number of participants had to be reduced over the course of the trial, they note.

Dr. Johnson also cautioned that while green tea is a popular drink, “there is strong evidence that green tea extract, found in many herbal and dietary supplements, is among the leading causes listed for drug-induced liver injury, including acute liver failure, urgent liver transplantation, and death.”

The study was fully funded by a grant from German Cancer Aid. The investigators and Dr. Johnson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is effective and long lasting in preventing esophageal adenocarcinoma, new data suggest.

Researchers, led by Paul Wolfson, MBBS, from the Wellcome/EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) Centre for Interventional & Surgical Sciences, University College London also found that most treatment relapses happen early and can be re-treated successfully.

Findings were published in a final 10-year report from the United Kingdom National Halo Radiofrequency Ablation Registry and in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Because RFA has been used in mainstream clinical practice only since 2005, long-term data of more than 5 years has been lacking.

Multiple studies have shown that RFA is effective in preventing esophageal cancer, but data have been lacking on how long RFA is effective in preventing esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (BE). A significant number of patients with dysplastic BE do not initially have visible lesions. For instance, the U.S. RFA Patient Registry reported an average 2.7-year follow up of 4,982 patients, but only 1,305 had dysplasia, the authors of the U.K. report note.

“It is well-established that endoscopic treatment of dysplastic BE is initially successful in up to 90% of patients,” the authors wrote. “What is less well understood is how long that benefit lasts and if this contributes to a substantial reduction in progression to cancer.”

Researchers prospectively gathered data from 2,535 patients from 28 U.K. specialist centers who underwent RFA therapy for BE (average length 5.2cm, range 1-20 cm). Among the group, 20% had low-grade dysplasia, 54% had high-grade dysplasia, and 26% had intramucosal carcinoma.

They looked at rates of invasive cancer and analyzed data for 1,175 patients to assess clearance rates of dysplasia (CR-D) and intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM) within 2 years of starting RFA, then looked at relapses and rates of return to CR-D and CR-IM after more therapy.

One year after RFA therapy, the Kaplan Meier (KM) rate of invasive cancer in the 2,535 patients was 0.5%. Ten years after starting treatment, the KM cancer rate was 4.1%, with a crude incidence rate of 0.52 per 100 patient-years. After 2 years of RFA, CR-D was 88% and CR-IM was 62.6%.

At 8 years, the KM relapse rates were 5.9% from CR-D and 18.7% from CR-IM. Most relapses happened in the first 2 years.

“Our study confirms durable reversal of dysplasia and BE with RFA, which reduces cancer risk by more than 90% compared to historical control data of 6-19% per annum,” the authors wrote.

Despite advances in diagnosis and treatment for esophageal adenocarcinoma, there has been only small improvement in 5-year survival over the past 40 years, the authors note. Meanwhile, the incidence of continues to rise in the Western world.
 

Researchers look for minimally invasive solutions

Surgery removing the esophagus and lymph node clearance had been the standard for high-grade dysplasia, the authors wrote. It is still the intervention of choice for patients with locoregional disease, but it comes with high morbidity and mortality rates.

This has spurred researchers to look for a minimally invasive solution focused on organ preservation to treat early disease and avoid surgical side effects but also to deliver a cure, according to the authors.

Shria Kumar, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases at University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, told this publication, “Endoscopic ablation of dysplasia or intramucosal cancer is a mainstay of Barrett’s treatment.”

She noted the importance of the 10-year time period as the initial studies that established ablation evaluated outcomes within 1-3 years, and more recent data shows 5-year favorable outcomes.

Citing a study from the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Kumar said, “The present study’s cohort developed cancer at rates similar to one of the earlier U.S.-based cohorts of Barrett’s patients, suggesting that we can draw some parallels.”

She pointed out notable characteristics in the U.K. cohort: “The majority of participants were male and Caucasian; 80% of had high-grade dysplasia or early cancer upon enrollment and long-segment Barrett’s.”

That difference is important when thinking about how this applies to a more diverse U.S. population, she said, or even patients who don’t have high-grade dysplasia or early cancer when they enroll.

“It’s also important to point out are that individuals with low-grade dysplasia were included in this U.K.-based study. There has been evidence that persons in Europe with low-grade dysplasia have higher rates of progression than persons in the U.S. with low-grade dysplasia.”

Dr. Kumar said this may be attributable to differences in the way pathologists practice in the two countries or in endoscopists’ treatment patterns. U.S. guidelines agree that ablation can be used in select persons with low-grade dysplasia, she said, but it’s an area that needs further study.

“Overall, though, this is a really important study of real-time data showing that ablation is impacting cancer rates in a positive way and that in select patients, we can really decrease the risk of invasive cancer by endoscopic eradication therapies,” Dr. Kumar said.

Two coauthors have received grants from Medtronic and Pentax Medical. The other authors have declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kumar reports no relevant financial relationships.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is effective and long lasting in preventing esophageal adenocarcinoma, new data suggest.

Researchers, led by Paul Wolfson, MBBS, from the Wellcome/EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) Centre for Interventional & Surgical Sciences, University College London also found that most treatment relapses happen early and can be re-treated successfully.

Findings were published in a final 10-year report from the United Kingdom National Halo Radiofrequency Ablation Registry and in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Because RFA has been used in mainstream clinical practice only since 2005, long-term data of more than 5 years has been lacking.

Multiple studies have shown that RFA is effective in preventing esophageal cancer, but data have been lacking on how long RFA is effective in preventing esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (BE). A significant number of patients with dysplastic BE do not initially have visible lesions. For instance, the U.S. RFA Patient Registry reported an average 2.7-year follow up of 4,982 patients, but only 1,305 had dysplasia, the authors of the U.K. report note.

“It is well-established that endoscopic treatment of dysplastic BE is initially successful in up to 90% of patients,” the authors wrote. “What is less well understood is how long that benefit lasts and if this contributes to a substantial reduction in progression to cancer.”

Researchers prospectively gathered data from 2,535 patients from 28 U.K. specialist centers who underwent RFA therapy for BE (average length 5.2cm, range 1-20 cm). Among the group, 20% had low-grade dysplasia, 54% had high-grade dysplasia, and 26% had intramucosal carcinoma.

They looked at rates of invasive cancer and analyzed data for 1,175 patients to assess clearance rates of dysplasia (CR-D) and intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM) within 2 years of starting RFA, then looked at relapses and rates of return to CR-D and CR-IM after more therapy.

One year after RFA therapy, the Kaplan Meier (KM) rate of invasive cancer in the 2,535 patients was 0.5%. Ten years after starting treatment, the KM cancer rate was 4.1%, with a crude incidence rate of 0.52 per 100 patient-years. After 2 years of RFA, CR-D was 88% and CR-IM was 62.6%.

At 8 years, the KM relapse rates were 5.9% from CR-D and 18.7% from CR-IM. Most relapses happened in the first 2 years.

“Our study confirms durable reversal of dysplasia and BE with RFA, which reduces cancer risk by more than 90% compared to historical control data of 6-19% per annum,” the authors wrote.

Despite advances in diagnosis and treatment for esophageal adenocarcinoma, there has been only small improvement in 5-year survival over the past 40 years, the authors note. Meanwhile, the incidence of continues to rise in the Western world.
 

Researchers look for minimally invasive solutions

Surgery removing the esophagus and lymph node clearance had been the standard for high-grade dysplasia, the authors wrote. It is still the intervention of choice for patients with locoregional disease, but it comes with high morbidity and mortality rates.

This has spurred researchers to look for a minimally invasive solution focused on organ preservation to treat early disease and avoid surgical side effects but also to deliver a cure, according to the authors.

Shria Kumar, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases at University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, told this publication, “Endoscopic ablation of dysplasia or intramucosal cancer is a mainstay of Barrett’s treatment.”

She noted the importance of the 10-year time period as the initial studies that established ablation evaluated outcomes within 1-3 years, and more recent data shows 5-year favorable outcomes.

Citing a study from the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Kumar said, “The present study’s cohort developed cancer at rates similar to one of the earlier U.S.-based cohorts of Barrett’s patients, suggesting that we can draw some parallels.”

She pointed out notable characteristics in the U.K. cohort: “The majority of participants were male and Caucasian; 80% of had high-grade dysplasia or early cancer upon enrollment and long-segment Barrett’s.”

That difference is important when thinking about how this applies to a more diverse U.S. population, she said, or even patients who don’t have high-grade dysplasia or early cancer when they enroll.

“It’s also important to point out are that individuals with low-grade dysplasia were included in this U.K.-based study. There has been evidence that persons in Europe with low-grade dysplasia have higher rates of progression than persons in the U.S. with low-grade dysplasia.”

Dr. Kumar said this may be attributable to differences in the way pathologists practice in the two countries or in endoscopists’ treatment patterns. U.S. guidelines agree that ablation can be used in select persons with low-grade dysplasia, she said, but it’s an area that needs further study.

“Overall, though, this is a really important study of real-time data showing that ablation is impacting cancer rates in a positive way and that in select patients, we can really decrease the risk of invasive cancer by endoscopic eradication therapies,” Dr. Kumar said.

Two coauthors have received grants from Medtronic and Pentax Medical. The other authors have declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kumar reports no relevant financial relationships.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is effective and long lasting in preventing esophageal adenocarcinoma, new data suggest.

Researchers, led by Paul Wolfson, MBBS, from the Wellcome/EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) Centre for Interventional & Surgical Sciences, University College London also found that most treatment relapses happen early and can be re-treated successfully.

Findings were published in a final 10-year report from the United Kingdom National Halo Radiofrequency Ablation Registry and in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Because RFA has been used in mainstream clinical practice only since 2005, long-term data of more than 5 years has been lacking.

Multiple studies have shown that RFA is effective in preventing esophageal cancer, but data have been lacking on how long RFA is effective in preventing esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (BE). A significant number of patients with dysplastic BE do not initially have visible lesions. For instance, the U.S. RFA Patient Registry reported an average 2.7-year follow up of 4,982 patients, but only 1,305 had dysplasia, the authors of the U.K. report note.

“It is well-established that endoscopic treatment of dysplastic BE is initially successful in up to 90% of patients,” the authors wrote. “What is less well understood is how long that benefit lasts and if this contributes to a substantial reduction in progression to cancer.”

Researchers prospectively gathered data from 2,535 patients from 28 U.K. specialist centers who underwent RFA therapy for BE (average length 5.2cm, range 1-20 cm). Among the group, 20% had low-grade dysplasia, 54% had high-grade dysplasia, and 26% had intramucosal carcinoma.

They looked at rates of invasive cancer and analyzed data for 1,175 patients to assess clearance rates of dysplasia (CR-D) and intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM) within 2 years of starting RFA, then looked at relapses and rates of return to CR-D and CR-IM after more therapy.

One year after RFA therapy, the Kaplan Meier (KM) rate of invasive cancer in the 2,535 patients was 0.5%. Ten years after starting treatment, the KM cancer rate was 4.1%, with a crude incidence rate of 0.52 per 100 patient-years. After 2 years of RFA, CR-D was 88% and CR-IM was 62.6%.

At 8 years, the KM relapse rates were 5.9% from CR-D and 18.7% from CR-IM. Most relapses happened in the first 2 years.

“Our study confirms durable reversal of dysplasia and BE with RFA, which reduces cancer risk by more than 90% compared to historical control data of 6-19% per annum,” the authors wrote.

Despite advances in diagnosis and treatment for esophageal adenocarcinoma, there has been only small improvement in 5-year survival over the past 40 years, the authors note. Meanwhile, the incidence of continues to rise in the Western world.
 

Researchers look for minimally invasive solutions

Surgery removing the esophagus and lymph node clearance had been the standard for high-grade dysplasia, the authors wrote. It is still the intervention of choice for patients with locoregional disease, but it comes with high morbidity and mortality rates.

This has spurred researchers to look for a minimally invasive solution focused on organ preservation to treat early disease and avoid surgical side effects but also to deliver a cure, according to the authors.

Shria Kumar, MD, assistant professor in the Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases at University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, told this publication, “Endoscopic ablation of dysplasia or intramucosal cancer is a mainstay of Barrett’s treatment.”

She noted the importance of the 10-year time period as the initial studies that established ablation evaluated outcomes within 1-3 years, and more recent data shows 5-year favorable outcomes.

Citing a study from the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Kumar said, “The present study’s cohort developed cancer at rates similar to one of the earlier U.S.-based cohorts of Barrett’s patients, suggesting that we can draw some parallels.”

She pointed out notable characteristics in the U.K. cohort: “The majority of participants were male and Caucasian; 80% of had high-grade dysplasia or early cancer upon enrollment and long-segment Barrett’s.”

That difference is important when thinking about how this applies to a more diverse U.S. population, she said, or even patients who don’t have high-grade dysplasia or early cancer when they enroll.

“It’s also important to point out are that individuals with low-grade dysplasia were included in this U.K.-based study. There has been evidence that persons in Europe with low-grade dysplasia have higher rates of progression than persons in the U.S. with low-grade dysplasia.”

Dr. Kumar said this may be attributable to differences in the way pathologists practice in the two countries or in endoscopists’ treatment patterns. U.S. guidelines agree that ablation can be used in select persons with low-grade dysplasia, she said, but it’s an area that needs further study.

“Overall, though, this is a really important study of real-time data showing that ablation is impacting cancer rates in a positive way and that in select patients, we can really decrease the risk of invasive cancer by endoscopic eradication therapies,” Dr. Kumar said.

Two coauthors have received grants from Medtronic and Pentax Medical. The other authors have declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kumar reports no relevant financial relationships.

Last year, nine oncologists filed a lawsuit against the Anne Arundel Medical Center (AAMC), in Annapolis, Md., alleging that the hospital had fired them and had refused to allow them privileges to see their patients.

The oncologists said that the hospital chose profit over the needs of cancer patients, as it slashed oncology care services to cut costs.

The hospital denied any wrongdoing and alleged that the oncologists were not fired but that they had quit because they had been offered a more profitable opportunity.

At that time, the oncologists were not free to respond because of the ongoing litigation. But now that the lawsuit is over and the dust has settled, they are free to speak, and they contacted this news organization to tell their side of the story.

AAMC is a private, not-for-profit corporation that operates a large acute care hospital in Annapolis. It is affiliated with Luminis Health, the parent company of the medical center. Until October 23, 2020, the nine oncologists were employed by the AA Physician Group.

The doctors are Jason Taksey, MD, Benjamin Bridges, MD, Ravin Garg, MD, Adam Goldrich, MD, Carol Tweed, MD, Peter Graze, MD, Stuart Selonick, MD, David Weng, MD, and Jeanine Werner, MD.

They are all “highly respected, board certified oncologists and hematologists, with regional and, for some, national reputations in their medical specialty. The oncologists have had privileges at AAMC for many years and their capability as physicians is unquestioned,” according to the court filing made on behalf of the oncologists.

“Most of us have been in this town for decades,” said Dr. Tweed, who served as the unofficial spokesperson for the group. “Some of us are faculty members at Johns Hopkins, and this hospital’s oncology service was historically defined by our group.”

AAMC has a good reputation for providing high-quality medicine, “which is what brought many of us there in the first place,” Dr. Tweed said in an interview.
 

Triggered by cost cutting

The situation began when the hospital began cutting services to curtail costs, which directly affected the delivery of oncology care, Dr. Tweed explained. “They were also creating a very toxic and difficult interpersonal work environment, and that made it difficult to do patient care,” she said. “We would go to them and let them know that we were having difficulty delivering optimal patient care because we didn’t have enough staff or the resources we needed for safety — and it got to the point where we were being ignored and our input was no longer welcome.”

Dr. Tweed explained that the administrators announced which patient-care services would be cut without asking for their input as to the safety of those decisions. “Perhaps the most notorious was when they shut down the oncology lab,” she said. “That lab to an oncologist/hematologist is like a scalpel to a surgeon. I need lab results immediately — I need to know if I can give chemotherapy right now, or do I need to hold a dose. The lab is intrinsic to oncology care anywhere.”

There was a continuing cascade of events, and the oncology group mulled over some ideas as to how to provide optimal patient care in this increasingly difficult environment. The decision they reached was to discuss running their own practice with the hospital administrators as a means of making up for the gaps that they were now having to contend with. “As physicians, we do a lot of non-billable work, such as patient education, nighttime rounds for our cancer patients, and so on, and we told them that we would continue doing that,” said Dr. Tweed. “They said that they would talk to us, but they didn’t.”

Within a week of sending their proposal for setting up their own practice, all nine physicians were fired. “Instead of arranging a discussion, we received termination letters,” she explained. “We were terminated without cause.”

As physicians, Dr. Tweed explained that they were by contract obligated to arbitrate. It dragged on for weeks and months, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

“The only thing we wanted was to be able to practice in this town,” said Dr. Tweed. “And what is important to know is that it was never for money, and that was never our motivation for wanting to form our own practice.”

Dr. Tweed was referring to the hospital’s allegations that the oncologists had left their employment for monetary gain. A statement given to this news organization by the Luminis Health Anne Arundel Medical Center at the time stated that “this dispute started after nine oncologists left their employment to join a for-profit organization. We tried repeatedly to remain aligned with them.”

The oncologists had resigned during the height of the coronavirus pandemic to “pursue lucrative contracts” with a “major pharmaceutical distribution,” according to Todd M. Reinecker, attorney for Luminis Health, as reported by the Capital Gazette (this news organization reached out to Mr. Reinecker at that time but did not receive a response).

This was not the case, Dr. Tweed emphasized. “We took a great financial risk in doing this for patient care. It was pretty disgusting that was in print from the hospital’s lawyer.”

“The doctors anticipated Luminis Health would be unable to recruit new physicians and be forced to continue to use their services,” Mr. Reinecker maintained.

In fact, the medical center hired seven new oncologists to replace them.
 

Noncompete covenant

In filing their lawsuit, the nine oncologists put before the arbitrator the issue of the enforceability of the noncompete provision in their employment agreement, which prohibited the oncologists from working in the geographic area that includes the hospital. Their position was that the agreement was overly broad and thus unenforceable.

“We sign noncompete restrictive covenant contracts and we’re told that they are nonenforceable, and that’s the general discourse,” said Dr. Tweed. “Some states don’t even allow them. Well, we found out that they are very enforceable.”

The arbitrator eventually determined that three of the oncologists, including Dr. Tweed, had enforceable noncompete contracts.

“During the year or so while this was all going on, I would say that 90% of my patients wanted to stay with me,” said Dr. Tweed. “Patients were looking all over the place for us because, in many cases, the hospital did not tell them where to find us. In fact, they told us that we couldn’t contact the patients — they said it was ‘solicitation of a patient.’ “

In addition, the hospital continued to put more restrictions on the doctors. Six of the nine oncologists were able to continue practicing in Annapolis, and the remaining three will be able to join them in October 2022 when their noncompete contracts expire.

Now that the hospital has seen that there was a new oncology practice in town, Dr. Tweed noted, they changed their bylaws, and they now forbid hospital privileges to every physician in that group.

“The new bylaws do not restrict all private oncologists, just specifically our group, which prevents us from being able to do rounds in the hospital,” said Dr. Tweed. “If I want to see any of my patients, I have to get a visitor badge.”

Dr. Tweed contends that this move was purely for financial and business reasons to keep the oncologists from their patients. This is the primary hospital where their patients would be admitted if they need hospital care. AAMC is the only hospital within a 15-mile radius, and it serves as the regional hospital for the greater Annapolis area and for many Eastern Shore communities, whose hospitals do not offer various specialty services, such as oncology care.

“This was done purely because they were finance focused and not patient care focused,” Dr. Tweed emphasized. “We basically had to bargain with the hospital to let us even transfuse our patients.”
 

Telemedicine added to the mix

Yet another restriction that surfaced during the arbitration involved telemedicine. Dr. Tweed explained that as soon as the hospital realized that the three oncologists planned to stay in town and that their patients wanted to continue receiving care with them, they put telemedicine on the chopping block.

As if the restrictions and removal of hospital privileges wasn’t enough, the hospital decided to go after telemedicine during arbitration, Dr. Tweed said. If patients lived in any of the restricted ZIP codes, they were forbidden to conduct virtual visits with them.

“This isn’t ethical, but they tried to do everything to keep us from seeing our patients,” she said. “This is patient choice, but they were telling patients that if you live in any of these ZIP codes, you cannot do telemedicine if you choose Carol Tweed as your doctor,” Dr. Tweed said.

Of course, a patient isn’t bound by the arbitration and can see any doctor, but Dr. Tweed explained that the hospital threatened to come after her with a lawsuit.

One of the other physicians, Stuart Selonick, MD, said in an interview that he wasn’t quite sure how the idea of prohibiting telemedicine even came up. “There is little precedence for telemedicine in the U.S.,” he said. “They’ve extended the restrictions to telemedicine, and this is a new legal boundary, and it was new to the judge. But they made it part of the definition of the restrictive covenant. But to fight it would mean another lawsuit,” he added.

A separate lawsuit had previously been filed in an effort to regain hospital privileges, but the decision was made not to continue, owing to the amount of litigation it would involve.

“We can’t spend a lifetime and millions on another legal battle,” said Dr. Tweed. “We don’t have the corporate legal pool that the hospital has, and they know it.”

Patients have written endless letters supporting the doctors, Dr. Tweed said, but to no avail, as the hospital did not change course.

Litigation is now completed, and in about 9 months, the remaining three physicians will be able to rejoin their colleagues and put this behind them as best they can.

“The hospital knows that they harmed patient care for financial gain -- that’s the tagline,” said Tweed.

Approached for a response, Justin McLeod, spokesperson for Luminis Health, said that they are “pleased with the outcome of the case and the resolution agreed to by both sides. This agreement ensures patient access and continuity of care for patients with cancer. These providers have access to their patients’ electronic medical records, can order outpatient services, and attend quarterly cancer committee meetings with other providers.

“Our focus is the future of cancer care for our community. Luminis Health Anne Arundel Medical Center is committed to providing patients with high quality, comprehensive cancer care that is accessible to all,” he added.

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

Last year, nine oncologists filed a lawsuit against the Anne Arundel Medical Center (AAMC), in Annapolis, Md., alleging that the hospital had fired them and had refused to allow them privileges to see their patients.

The oncologists said that the hospital chose profit over the needs of cancer patients, as it slashed oncology care services to cut costs.

The hospital denied any wrongdoing and alleged that the oncologists were not fired but that they had quit because they had been offered a more profitable opportunity.

At that time, the oncologists were not free to respond because of the ongoing litigation. But now that the lawsuit is over and the dust has settled, they are free to speak, and they contacted this news organization to tell their side of the story.

AAMC is a private, not-for-profit corporation that operates a large acute care hospital in Annapolis. It is affiliated with Luminis Health, the parent company of the medical center. Until October 23, 2020, the nine oncologists were employed by the AA Physician Group.

The doctors are Jason Taksey, MD, Benjamin Bridges, MD, Ravin Garg, MD, Adam Goldrich, MD, Carol Tweed, MD, Peter Graze, MD, Stuart Selonick, MD, David Weng, MD, and Jeanine Werner, MD.

They are all “highly respected, board certified oncologists and hematologists, with regional and, for some, national reputations in their medical specialty. The oncologists have had privileges at AAMC for many years and their capability as physicians is unquestioned,” according to the court filing made on behalf of the oncologists.

“Most of us have been in this town for decades,” said Dr. Tweed, who served as the unofficial spokesperson for the group. “Some of us are faculty members at Johns Hopkins, and this hospital’s oncology service was historically defined by our group.”

AAMC has a good reputation for providing high-quality medicine, “which is what brought many of us there in the first place,” Dr. Tweed said in an interview.
 

Triggered by cost cutting

The situation began when the hospital began cutting services to curtail costs, which directly affected the delivery of oncology care, Dr. Tweed explained. “They were also creating a very toxic and difficult interpersonal work environment, and that made it difficult to do patient care,” she said. “We would go to them and let them know that we were having difficulty delivering optimal patient care because we didn’t have enough staff or the resources we needed for safety — and it got to the point where we were being ignored and our input was no longer welcome.”

Dr. Tweed explained that the administrators announced which patient-care services would be cut without asking for their input as to the safety of those decisions. “Perhaps the most notorious was when they shut down the oncology lab,” she said. “That lab to an oncologist/hematologist is like a scalpel to a surgeon. I need lab results immediately — I need to know if I can give chemotherapy right now, or do I need to hold a dose. The lab is intrinsic to oncology care anywhere.”

There was a continuing cascade of events, and the oncology group mulled over some ideas as to how to provide optimal patient care in this increasingly difficult environment. The decision they reached was to discuss running their own practice with the hospital administrators as a means of making up for the gaps that they were now having to contend with. “As physicians, we do a lot of non-billable work, such as patient education, nighttime rounds for our cancer patients, and so on, and we told them that we would continue doing that,” said Dr. Tweed. “They said that they would talk to us, but they didn’t.”

Within a week of sending their proposal for setting up their own practice, all nine physicians were fired. “Instead of arranging a discussion, we received termination letters,” she explained. “We were terminated without cause.”

As physicians, Dr. Tweed explained that they were by contract obligated to arbitrate. It dragged on for weeks and months, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

“The only thing we wanted was to be able to practice in this town,” said Dr. Tweed. “And what is important to know is that it was never for money, and that was never our motivation for wanting to form our own practice.”

Dr. Tweed was referring to the hospital’s allegations that the oncologists had left their employment for monetary gain. A statement given to this news organization by the Luminis Health Anne Arundel Medical Center at the time stated that “this dispute started after nine oncologists left their employment to join a for-profit organization. We tried repeatedly to remain aligned with them.”

The oncologists had resigned during the height of the coronavirus pandemic to “pursue lucrative contracts” with a “major pharmaceutical distribution,” according to Todd M. Reinecker, attorney for Luminis Health, as reported by the Capital Gazette (this news organization reached out to Mr. Reinecker at that time but did not receive a response).

This was not the case, Dr. Tweed emphasized. “We took a great financial risk in doing this for patient care. It was pretty disgusting that was in print from the hospital’s lawyer.”

“The doctors anticipated Luminis Health would be unable to recruit new physicians and be forced to continue to use their services,” Mr. Reinecker maintained.

In fact, the medical center hired seven new oncologists to replace them.
 

Noncompete covenant

In filing their lawsuit, the nine oncologists put before the arbitrator the issue of the enforceability of the noncompete provision in their employment agreement, which prohibited the oncologists from working in the geographic area that includes the hospital. Their position was that the agreement was overly broad and thus unenforceable.

“We sign noncompete restrictive covenant contracts and we’re told that they are nonenforceable, and that’s the general discourse,” said Dr. Tweed. “Some states don’t even allow them. Well, we found out that they are very enforceable.”

The arbitrator eventually determined that three of the oncologists, including Dr. Tweed, had enforceable noncompete contracts.

“During the year or so while this was all going on, I would say that 90% of my patients wanted to stay with me,” said Dr. Tweed. “Patients were looking all over the place for us because, in many cases, the hospital did not tell them where to find us. In fact, they told us that we couldn’t contact the patients — they said it was ‘solicitation of a patient.’ “

In addition, the hospital continued to put more restrictions on the doctors. Six of the nine oncologists were able to continue practicing in Annapolis, and the remaining three will be able to join them in October 2022 when their noncompete contracts expire.

Now that the hospital has seen that there was a new oncology practice in town, Dr. Tweed noted, they changed their bylaws, and they now forbid hospital privileges to every physician in that group.

“The new bylaws do not restrict all private oncologists, just specifically our group, which prevents us from being able to do rounds in the hospital,” said Dr. Tweed. “If I want to see any of my patients, I have to get a visitor badge.”

Dr. Tweed contends that this move was purely for financial and business reasons to keep the oncologists from their patients. This is the primary hospital where their patients would be admitted if they need hospital care. AAMC is the only hospital within a 15-mile radius, and it serves as the regional hospital for the greater Annapolis area and for many Eastern Shore communities, whose hospitals do not offer various specialty services, such as oncology care.

“This was done purely because they were finance focused and not patient care focused,” Dr. Tweed emphasized. “We basically had to bargain with the hospital to let us even transfuse our patients.”
 

Telemedicine added to the mix

Yet another restriction that surfaced during the arbitration involved telemedicine. Dr. Tweed explained that as soon as the hospital realized that the three oncologists planned to stay in town and that their patients wanted to continue receiving care with them, they put telemedicine on the chopping block.

As if the restrictions and removal of hospital privileges wasn’t enough, the hospital decided to go after telemedicine during arbitration, Dr. Tweed said. If patients lived in any of the restricted ZIP codes, they were forbidden to conduct virtual visits with them.

“This isn’t ethical, but they tried to do everything to keep us from seeing our patients,” she said. “This is patient choice, but they were telling patients that if you live in any of these ZIP codes, you cannot do telemedicine if you choose Carol Tweed as your doctor,” Dr. Tweed said.

Of course, a patient isn’t bound by the arbitration and can see any doctor, but Dr. Tweed explained that the hospital threatened to come after her with a lawsuit.

One of the other physicians, Stuart Selonick, MD, said in an interview that he wasn’t quite sure how the idea of prohibiting telemedicine even came up. “There is little precedence for telemedicine in the U.S.,” he said. “They’ve extended the restrictions to telemedicine, and this is a new legal boundary, and it was new to the judge. But they made it part of the definition of the restrictive covenant. But to fight it would mean another lawsuit,” he added.

A separate lawsuit had previously been filed in an effort to regain hospital privileges, but the decision was made not to continue, owing to the amount of litigation it would involve.

“We can’t spend a lifetime and millions on another legal battle,” said Dr. Tweed. “We don’t have the corporate legal pool that the hospital has, and they know it.”

Patients have written endless letters supporting the doctors, Dr. Tweed said, but to no avail, as the hospital did not change course.

Litigation is now completed, and in about 9 months, the remaining three physicians will be able to rejoin their colleagues and put this behind them as best they can.

“The hospital knows that they harmed patient care for financial gain -- that’s the tagline,” said Tweed.

Approached for a response, Justin McLeod, spokesperson for Luminis Health, said that they are “pleased with the outcome of the case and the resolution agreed to by both sides. This agreement ensures patient access and continuity of care for patients with cancer. These providers have access to their patients’ electronic medical records, can order outpatient services, and attend quarterly cancer committee meetings with other providers.

“Our focus is the future of cancer care for our community. Luminis Health Anne Arundel Medical Center is committed to providing patients with high quality, comprehensive cancer care that is accessible to all,” he added.

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

Last year, nine oncologists filed a lawsuit against the Anne Arundel Medical Center (AAMC), in Annapolis, Md., alleging that the hospital had fired them and had refused to allow them privileges to see their patients.

The oncologists said that the hospital chose profit over the needs of cancer patients, as it slashed oncology care services to cut costs.

The hospital denied any wrongdoing and alleged that the oncologists were not fired but that they had quit because they had been offered a more profitable opportunity.

At that time, the oncologists were not free to respond because of the ongoing litigation. But now that the lawsuit is over and the dust has settled, they are free to speak, and they contacted this news organization to tell their side of the story.

AAMC is a private, not-for-profit corporation that operates a large acute care hospital in Annapolis. It is affiliated with Luminis Health, the parent company of the medical center. Until October 23, 2020, the nine oncologists were employed by the AA Physician Group.

The doctors are Jason Taksey, MD, Benjamin Bridges, MD, Ravin Garg, MD, Adam Goldrich, MD, Carol Tweed, MD, Peter Graze, MD, Stuart Selonick, MD, David Weng, MD, and Jeanine Werner, MD.

They are all “highly respected, board certified oncologists and hematologists, with regional and, for some, national reputations in their medical specialty. The oncologists have had privileges at AAMC for many years and their capability as physicians is unquestioned,” according to the court filing made on behalf of the oncologists.

“Most of us have been in this town for decades,” said Dr. Tweed, who served as the unofficial spokesperson for the group. “Some of us are faculty members at Johns Hopkins, and this hospital’s oncology service was historically defined by our group.”

AAMC has a good reputation for providing high-quality medicine, “which is what brought many of us there in the first place,” Dr. Tweed said in an interview.
 

Triggered by cost cutting

The situation began when the hospital began cutting services to curtail costs, which directly affected the delivery of oncology care, Dr. Tweed explained. “They were also creating a very toxic and difficult interpersonal work environment, and that made it difficult to do patient care,” she said. “We would go to them and let them know that we were having difficulty delivering optimal patient care because we didn’t have enough staff or the resources we needed for safety — and it got to the point where we were being ignored and our input was no longer welcome.”

Dr. Tweed explained that the administrators announced which patient-care services would be cut without asking for their input as to the safety of those decisions. “Perhaps the most notorious was when they shut down the oncology lab,” she said. “That lab to an oncologist/hematologist is like a scalpel to a surgeon. I need lab results immediately — I need to know if I can give chemotherapy right now, or do I need to hold a dose. The lab is intrinsic to oncology care anywhere.”

There was a continuing cascade of events, and the oncology group mulled over some ideas as to how to provide optimal patient care in this increasingly difficult environment. The decision they reached was to discuss running their own practice with the hospital administrators as a means of making up for the gaps that they were now having to contend with. “As physicians, we do a lot of non-billable work, such as patient education, nighttime rounds for our cancer patients, and so on, and we told them that we would continue doing that,” said Dr. Tweed. “They said that they would talk to us, but they didn’t.”

Within a week of sending their proposal for setting up their own practice, all nine physicians were fired. “Instead of arranging a discussion, we received termination letters,” she explained. “We were terminated without cause.”

As physicians, Dr. Tweed explained that they were by contract obligated to arbitrate. It dragged on for weeks and months, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

“The only thing we wanted was to be able to practice in this town,” said Dr. Tweed. “And what is important to know is that it was never for money, and that was never our motivation for wanting to form our own practice.”

Dr. Tweed was referring to the hospital’s allegations that the oncologists had left their employment for monetary gain. A statement given to this news organization by the Luminis Health Anne Arundel Medical Center at the time stated that “this dispute started after nine oncologists left their employment to join a for-profit organization. We tried repeatedly to remain aligned with them.”

The oncologists had resigned during the height of the coronavirus pandemic to “pursue lucrative contracts” with a “major pharmaceutical distribution,” according to Todd M. Reinecker, attorney for Luminis Health, as reported by the Capital Gazette (this news organization reached out to Mr. Reinecker at that time but did not receive a response).

This was not the case, Dr. Tweed emphasized. “We took a great financial risk in doing this for patient care. It was pretty disgusting that was in print from the hospital’s lawyer.”

“The doctors anticipated Luminis Health would be unable to recruit new physicians and be forced to continue to use their services,” Mr. Reinecker maintained.

In fact, the medical center hired seven new oncologists to replace them.
 

Noncompete covenant

In filing their lawsuit, the nine oncologists put before the arbitrator the issue of the enforceability of the noncompete provision in their employment agreement, which prohibited the oncologists from working in the geographic area that includes the hospital. Their position was that the agreement was overly broad and thus unenforceable.

“We sign noncompete restrictive covenant contracts and we’re told that they are nonenforceable, and that’s the general discourse,” said Dr. Tweed. “Some states don’t even allow them. Well, we found out that they are very enforceable.”

The arbitrator eventually determined that three of the oncologists, including Dr. Tweed, had enforceable noncompete contracts.

“During the year or so while this was all going on, I would say that 90% of my patients wanted to stay with me,” said Dr. Tweed. “Patients were looking all over the place for us because, in many cases, the hospital did not tell them where to find us. In fact, they told us that we couldn’t contact the patients — they said it was ‘solicitation of a patient.’ “

In addition, the hospital continued to put more restrictions on the doctors. Six of the nine oncologists were able to continue practicing in Annapolis, and the remaining three will be able to join them in October 2022 when their noncompete contracts expire.

Now that the hospital has seen that there was a new oncology practice in town, Dr. Tweed noted, they changed their bylaws, and they now forbid hospital privileges to every physician in that group.

“The new bylaws do not restrict all private oncologists, just specifically our group, which prevents us from being able to do rounds in the hospital,” said Dr. Tweed. “If I want to see any of my patients, I have to get a visitor badge.”

Dr. Tweed contends that this move was purely for financial and business reasons to keep the oncologists from their patients. This is the primary hospital where their patients would be admitted if they need hospital care. AAMC is the only hospital within a 15-mile radius, and it serves as the regional hospital for the greater Annapolis area and for many Eastern Shore communities, whose hospitals do not offer various specialty services, such as oncology care.

“This was done purely because they were finance focused and not patient care focused,” Dr. Tweed emphasized. “We basically had to bargain with the hospital to let us even transfuse our patients.”
 

Telemedicine added to the mix

Yet another restriction that surfaced during the arbitration involved telemedicine. Dr. Tweed explained that as soon as the hospital realized that the three oncologists planned to stay in town and that their patients wanted to continue receiving care with them, they put telemedicine on the chopping block.

As if the restrictions and removal of hospital privileges wasn’t enough, the hospital decided to go after telemedicine during arbitration, Dr. Tweed said. If patients lived in any of the restricted ZIP codes, they were forbidden to conduct virtual visits with them.

“This isn’t ethical, but they tried to do everything to keep us from seeing our patients,” she said. “This is patient choice, but they were telling patients that if you live in any of these ZIP codes, you cannot do telemedicine if you choose Carol Tweed as your doctor,” Dr. Tweed said.

Of course, a patient isn’t bound by the arbitration and can see any doctor, but Dr. Tweed explained that the hospital threatened to come after her with a lawsuit.

One of the other physicians, Stuart Selonick, MD, said in an interview that he wasn’t quite sure how the idea of prohibiting telemedicine even came up. “There is little precedence for telemedicine in the U.S.,” he said. “They’ve extended the restrictions to telemedicine, and this is a new legal boundary, and it was new to the judge. But they made it part of the definition of the restrictive covenant. But to fight it would mean another lawsuit,” he added.

A separate lawsuit had previously been filed in an effort to regain hospital privileges, but the decision was made not to continue, owing to the amount of litigation it would involve.

“We can’t spend a lifetime and millions on another legal battle,” said Dr. Tweed. “We don’t have the corporate legal pool that the hospital has, and they know it.”

Patients have written endless letters supporting the doctors, Dr. Tweed said, but to no avail, as the hospital did not change course.

Litigation is now completed, and in about 9 months, the remaining three physicians will be able to rejoin their colleagues and put this behind them as best they can.

“The hospital knows that they harmed patient care for financial gain -- that’s the tagline,” said Tweed.

Approached for a response, Justin McLeod, spokesperson for Luminis Health, said that they are “pleased with the outcome of the case and the resolution agreed to by both sides. This agreement ensures patient access and continuity of care for patients with cancer. These providers have access to their patients’ electronic medical records, can order outpatient services, and attend quarterly cancer committee meetings with other providers.

“Our focus is the future of cancer care for our community. Luminis Health Anne Arundel Medical Center is committed to providing patients with high quality, comprehensive cancer care that is accessible to all,” he added.

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

Heavy drinking during early adulthood may raise the risk for alcohol-related cancers, even after drinking stops or decreases in middle age, according to a new study from Australia.

Although alcohol is a known risk factor for cancer, people generally do not expect their heavy drinking in early adulthood to affect their cancer risk many years later, lead author Harindra Jayasekara, MBBS, MD, PhD, with Cancer Council Victoria and University of Melbourne, said in an interview. But in this analysis, “we found evidence consistent with early initiation and chronic progression of carcinogenesis linked to alcohol and its toxic metabolites.”

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Impact on cancer risk

For men, relative to lifetime abstention, heavy drinking trajectories were associated with an increased risk for alcohol-related cancer overall.

The strongest associations were for the early decreasing heavy trajectory (hazard ratio, 1.75) and the late decreasing heavy trajectory (HR, 1.94), with the increasing heavy trajectory not far behind (HR, 1.45).

The strength of these associations did not change appreciably in analyses excluding current smokers at baseline.

Among men, the early decreasing heavy and late decreasing heavy intake trajectories were similarly associated with an increased risk for colorectal cancer (HR, 1.56 for early, and HR, 1.74 for late). The corresponding HR for the increasing heavy trajectory was 1.36.

For women, compared with lifetime abstention, the alcohol intake trajectory classified as increasing moderate (30-59 g/day) was associated with a greater risk for alcohol-related cancer overall (HR, 1.25). The strength of this association weakened slightly when current smokers were excluded.

Compared with lifetime abstention, the increasing moderate trajectory in women was similarly associated with an increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.30) and colorectal cancer (HR, 1.23).

The 2018 World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research global cancer prevention recommendation on alcohol is to “avoid any alcohol,” study investigator Julie Bassett, PhD, MSc, with Cancer Council Victoria, said in an interview. “As much as it is important to limit alcohol intake during middle age to prevent cancer, we have shown that limiting intake during early adulthood is also important.”
 

‘Striking’ findings

Reached for comment, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services at the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai in New York, said it is “striking” that heavy drinking in early adulthood led to an increased risk for alcohol-related cancers, even among people who drank much less in middle age.

“We’ve known for decades that alcohol is not harmless, but this data adds to the growing body of literature regarding the significant dangers of heavy drinking during early adulthood,” said Dr. Brennan, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Dr. Brennan cautioned, however, that the authors studied alcohol-related cancers, and “there are likely many other [cancer] risk factors that were not analyzed in this dataset.”

Nevertheless, this evidence helps counter the “troubling narrative” that “it is somehow normal and safe to drink excessively in young adulthood.”

“It is most certainly not safe,” Dr. Brennan told this news organization . “We see in this study that drinking excessively in young adulthood can raise the risk of cancer much later in life.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Bassett, Dr. Jayasekara, and Dr. Brennan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Heavy drinking during early adulthood may raise the risk for alcohol-related cancers, even after drinking stops or decreases in middle age, according to a new study from Australia.

Although alcohol is a known risk factor for cancer, people generally do not expect their heavy drinking in early adulthood to affect their cancer risk many years later, lead author Harindra Jayasekara, MBBS, MD, PhD, with Cancer Council Victoria and University of Melbourne, said in an interview. But in this analysis, “we found evidence consistent with early initiation and chronic progression of carcinogenesis linked to alcohol and its toxic metabolites.”

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Impact on cancer risk

For men, relative to lifetime abstention, heavy drinking trajectories were associated with an increased risk for alcohol-related cancer overall.

The strongest associations were for the early decreasing heavy trajectory (hazard ratio, 1.75) and the late decreasing heavy trajectory (HR, 1.94), with the increasing heavy trajectory not far behind (HR, 1.45).

The strength of these associations did not change appreciably in analyses excluding current smokers at baseline.

Among men, the early decreasing heavy and late decreasing heavy intake trajectories were similarly associated with an increased risk for colorectal cancer (HR, 1.56 for early, and HR, 1.74 for late). The corresponding HR for the increasing heavy trajectory was 1.36.

For women, compared with lifetime abstention, the alcohol intake trajectory classified as increasing moderate (30-59 g/day) was associated with a greater risk for alcohol-related cancer overall (HR, 1.25). The strength of this association weakened slightly when current smokers were excluded.

Compared with lifetime abstention, the increasing moderate trajectory in women was similarly associated with an increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.30) and colorectal cancer (HR, 1.23).

The 2018 World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research global cancer prevention recommendation on alcohol is to “avoid any alcohol,” study investigator Julie Bassett, PhD, MSc, with Cancer Council Victoria, said in an interview. “As much as it is important to limit alcohol intake during middle age to prevent cancer, we have shown that limiting intake during early adulthood is also important.”
 

‘Striking’ findings

Reached for comment, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services at the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai in New York, said it is “striking” that heavy drinking in early adulthood led to an increased risk for alcohol-related cancers, even among people who drank much less in middle age.

“We’ve known for decades that alcohol is not harmless, but this data adds to the growing body of literature regarding the significant dangers of heavy drinking during early adulthood,” said Dr. Brennan, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Dr. Brennan cautioned, however, that the authors studied alcohol-related cancers, and “there are likely many other [cancer] risk factors that were not analyzed in this dataset.”

Nevertheless, this evidence helps counter the “troubling narrative” that “it is somehow normal and safe to drink excessively in young adulthood.”

“It is most certainly not safe,” Dr. Brennan told this news organization . “We see in this study that drinking excessively in young adulthood can raise the risk of cancer much later in life.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Bassett, Dr. Jayasekara, and Dr. Brennan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Heavy drinking during early adulthood may raise the risk for alcohol-related cancers, even after drinking stops or decreases in middle age, according to a new study from Australia.

Although alcohol is a known risk factor for cancer, people generally do not expect their heavy drinking in early adulthood to affect their cancer risk many years later, lead author Harindra Jayasekara, MBBS, MD, PhD, with Cancer Council Victoria and University of Melbourne, said in an interview. But in this analysis, “we found evidence consistent with early initiation and chronic progression of carcinogenesis linked to alcohol and its toxic metabolites.”

Courtesy Debora Cartagena, USCDCP

Impact on cancer risk

For men, relative to lifetime abstention, heavy drinking trajectories were associated with an increased risk for alcohol-related cancer overall.

The strongest associations were for the early decreasing heavy trajectory (hazard ratio, 1.75) and the late decreasing heavy trajectory (HR, 1.94), with the increasing heavy trajectory not far behind (HR, 1.45).

The strength of these associations did not change appreciably in analyses excluding current smokers at baseline.

Among men, the early decreasing heavy and late decreasing heavy intake trajectories were similarly associated with an increased risk for colorectal cancer (HR, 1.56 for early, and HR, 1.74 for late). The corresponding HR for the increasing heavy trajectory was 1.36.

For women, compared with lifetime abstention, the alcohol intake trajectory classified as increasing moderate (30-59 g/day) was associated with a greater risk for alcohol-related cancer overall (HR, 1.25). The strength of this association weakened slightly when current smokers were excluded.

Compared with lifetime abstention, the increasing moderate trajectory in women was similarly associated with an increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.30) and colorectal cancer (HR, 1.23).

The 2018 World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research global cancer prevention recommendation on alcohol is to “avoid any alcohol,” study investigator Julie Bassett, PhD, MSc, with Cancer Council Victoria, said in an interview. “As much as it is important to limit alcohol intake during middle age to prevent cancer, we have shown that limiting intake during early adulthood is also important.”
 

‘Striking’ findings

Reached for comment, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services at the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai in New York, said it is “striking” that heavy drinking in early adulthood led to an increased risk for alcohol-related cancers, even among people who drank much less in middle age.

“We’ve known for decades that alcohol is not harmless, but this data adds to the growing body of literature regarding the significant dangers of heavy drinking during early adulthood,” said Dr. Brennan, who wasn’t involved in the study.

Dr. Brennan cautioned, however, that the authors studied alcohol-related cancers, and “there are likely many other [cancer] risk factors that were not analyzed in this dataset.”

Nevertheless, this evidence helps counter the “troubling narrative” that “it is somehow normal and safe to drink excessively in young adulthood.”

“It is most certainly not safe,” Dr. Brennan told this news organization . “We see in this study that drinking excessively in young adulthood can raise the risk of cancer much later in life.”

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Bassett, Dr. Jayasekara, and Dr. Brennan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) undergoing thyroidectomy show no improvements in outcomes with the use of postoperative radioiodine ablation compared to those who do not receive this therapy, suggesting these patients can be spared the previously common treatment.

The study’s take-home message for clinicians should be to “stop systematic radioiodine ablation administration in low-risk thyroid cancer patients,” lead author Sophie Leboulleux, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The results were first reported at ENDO 2021 and have now been published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Leboulleux, of the department of nuclear medicine and endocrine oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Institute, Villejuif, France, and colleagues.

While American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines already indicate that radioiodine ablation is not routinely recommended after thyroidectomy for patients with low-risk thyroid cancer, the guidance is only a “weak recommendation,” supported by “low-quality evidence.”  

However, the new findings should give that level of evidence a much-needed boost, said one expert. “I think the main contribution of this paper is to change the evidence level to ‘high quality,’ therefore making the recommendation ‘strong,’ rather than ‘weak,’ ” David S. Cooper, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Cooper, professor of medicine and radiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote an editorial that accompanies Dr. Leboulleux’s study.

The ability to safely spare patients the radioiodine ablation step after thyroidectomy has important benefits in terms of cost and convenience, Dr. Cooper stressed.
 

ESTIMABL2 trial

The new findings are from the prospective, randomized, phase 3 Essai Stimulation Ablation 2 (ESTIMABL2) trial, in which 730 patients at 35 centers in France with low-risk DTC scheduled to undergo thyroidectomy were enrolled between May 2013 and March 2017.

Patients were randomized to receive either postoperative radioiodine ablation (1.1 GBq) after injections of recombinant human thyrotropin (n = 363) or no postoperative radioiodine (n = 367).

Patients were a mean age of 52 years and 83% were women. About 96% had papillary tumors, and pathological tumor node (pTN) stages were mostly pT1b thyroid with a nodal status of N0 or Nx (81.1%). It is these patients in particular in whom retrospective studies of the use of radioiodine ablation have yielded inconsistent results, Dr. Leboulleux and colleagues noted. Hence, their decision to look at this prospectively.

Outcomes were based on the groups’ rates of events, defined as the presence of abnormal foci of radioiodine uptake on whole-body scanning that required treatment (in the radioiodine group only), abnormal findings on neck ultrasonography, or increased levels of thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies.

After a 3-year follow-up, the rates of having no events in both groups were very high – and nearly identical – at 95.6% among those receiving no radioiodine ablation and 95.9% in the radioiodine group, for a between-group difference of –0.3 percentage points, which met the criteria for noninferiority for the no-radioiodine group.

Likewise, the events that did occur were nearly equally split between the no-radioiodine group (16 events, 4.4%) and the radioiodine group (15 events, 4.1%).

Among patients who had events, subsequent treatments, including surgery, radioiodine administration, or both, were necessary for four patients in the no-radioiodine group and 10 in the radioiodine group, and additional treatments were not necessary for the other patients who experienced events.

There were no differences between those who did and did not experience events in terms of molecular alterations, and 50 of the tumors had BRAF mutations, with no significant differences between groups.

Of the adverse events that occurred in 30 patients, none were determined to be related to treatment, and there were no thyroid-related deaths.

The recurrence rates align with the rates observed overall with low-risk thyroid cancer, the authors noted. 

“We observed that less than 5% of the patients in the two groups had events that included abnormal findings on whole-body scanning or neck ultrasonography or elevated levels of thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies during the first 3 years of follow-up,” they reported.

“This rate is concordant with the definition of low-risk thyroid cancer, and our trial showed that the risk of events was not higher in the absence of postoperative administration of radioiodine.”
 

Patients spared costs, work losses

Dr. Cooper elaborated on the advantages, for patients, of avoiding radioiodine ablation.

For one thing, the recombinant human TSH that is necessary to prepare for radioiodine therapy is very expensive, ranging from $2,000 to $3,000, with patients often having a copay, he explained.

“Patients usually have to take time off work, which is also an expense to society and to them if they don’t get paid for days that they don’t work,” Dr. Cooper added.

A possible study limitation is the question of whether 3 years is an ample follow-up period to detect events. However, Dr. Cooper said he considers the period to be sufficient.

“As the authors point out, most recurrences of thyroid cancer are detected within the first 3-5 years of initial treatment, so ... the 3-year window is still clinically relevant,” he said.

Regarding the study’s inclusion of centers only in France, Dr. Cooper added, “I do not think that this is a study limitation. There is nothing specific about the French population that would lead me to conclude that the results were not generalizable to all populations with low-risk papillary thyroid cancer.”
 

Some continue radioiodine use, but lobectomies add to decline

Despite the mounting evidence of the lack of benefit of radioiodine ablation in low-risk patients, some centers, particularly in Europe, continue the practice, which was standard in the treatment of DTC until relatively recently.

“[While] U.S. guidelines changed in 2015 in favor of no radioiodine in low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer patients, this study should help to change European guidelines,” Dr. Leboulleux said. “The results will help to change practice both in the U.S. and in Europe.”

In addition to awareness of guidelines and new evidence, another reason for the decline in radioiodine ablation for low-risk DTC is the increasing use of thyroid lobectomy, which does not involve the use of radioiodine ablation, rather than total thyroidectomy, Dr. Cooper noted.

“The [new] NEJM paper will hopefully decrease the inappropriate use of radioiodine in low-risk patients even further,” he concluded.

The study received support from the French Ministry of Health through a grant from the National Cancer Institute. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) undergoing thyroidectomy show no improvements in outcomes with the use of postoperative radioiodine ablation compared to those who do not receive this therapy, suggesting these patients can be spared the previously common treatment.

The study’s take-home message for clinicians should be to “stop systematic radioiodine ablation administration in low-risk thyroid cancer patients,” lead author Sophie Leboulleux, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The results were first reported at ENDO 2021 and have now been published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Leboulleux, of the department of nuclear medicine and endocrine oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Institute, Villejuif, France, and colleagues.

While American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines already indicate that radioiodine ablation is not routinely recommended after thyroidectomy for patients with low-risk thyroid cancer, the guidance is only a “weak recommendation,” supported by “low-quality evidence.”  

However, the new findings should give that level of evidence a much-needed boost, said one expert. “I think the main contribution of this paper is to change the evidence level to ‘high quality,’ therefore making the recommendation ‘strong,’ rather than ‘weak,’ ” David S. Cooper, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Cooper, professor of medicine and radiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote an editorial that accompanies Dr. Leboulleux’s study.

The ability to safely spare patients the radioiodine ablation step after thyroidectomy has important benefits in terms of cost and convenience, Dr. Cooper stressed.
 

ESTIMABL2 trial

The new findings are from the prospective, randomized, phase 3 Essai Stimulation Ablation 2 (ESTIMABL2) trial, in which 730 patients at 35 centers in France with low-risk DTC scheduled to undergo thyroidectomy were enrolled between May 2013 and March 2017.

Patients were randomized to receive either postoperative radioiodine ablation (1.1 GBq) after injections of recombinant human thyrotropin (n = 363) or no postoperative radioiodine (n = 367).

Patients were a mean age of 52 years and 83% were women. About 96% had papillary tumors, and pathological tumor node (pTN) stages were mostly pT1b thyroid with a nodal status of N0 or Nx (81.1%). It is these patients in particular in whom retrospective studies of the use of radioiodine ablation have yielded inconsistent results, Dr. Leboulleux and colleagues noted. Hence, their decision to look at this prospectively.

Outcomes were based on the groups’ rates of events, defined as the presence of abnormal foci of radioiodine uptake on whole-body scanning that required treatment (in the radioiodine group only), abnormal findings on neck ultrasonography, or increased levels of thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies.

After a 3-year follow-up, the rates of having no events in both groups were very high – and nearly identical – at 95.6% among those receiving no radioiodine ablation and 95.9% in the radioiodine group, for a between-group difference of –0.3 percentage points, which met the criteria for noninferiority for the no-radioiodine group.

Likewise, the events that did occur were nearly equally split between the no-radioiodine group (16 events, 4.4%) and the radioiodine group (15 events, 4.1%).

Among patients who had events, subsequent treatments, including surgery, radioiodine administration, or both, were necessary for four patients in the no-radioiodine group and 10 in the radioiodine group, and additional treatments were not necessary for the other patients who experienced events.

There were no differences between those who did and did not experience events in terms of molecular alterations, and 50 of the tumors had BRAF mutations, with no significant differences between groups.

Of the adverse events that occurred in 30 patients, none were determined to be related to treatment, and there were no thyroid-related deaths.

The recurrence rates align with the rates observed overall with low-risk thyroid cancer, the authors noted. 

“We observed that less than 5% of the patients in the two groups had events that included abnormal findings on whole-body scanning or neck ultrasonography or elevated levels of thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies during the first 3 years of follow-up,” they reported.

“This rate is concordant with the definition of low-risk thyroid cancer, and our trial showed that the risk of events was not higher in the absence of postoperative administration of radioiodine.”
 

Patients spared costs, work losses

Dr. Cooper elaborated on the advantages, for patients, of avoiding radioiodine ablation.

For one thing, the recombinant human TSH that is necessary to prepare for radioiodine therapy is very expensive, ranging from $2,000 to $3,000, with patients often having a copay, he explained.

“Patients usually have to take time off work, which is also an expense to society and to them if they don’t get paid for days that they don’t work,” Dr. Cooper added.

A possible study limitation is the question of whether 3 years is an ample follow-up period to detect events. However, Dr. Cooper said he considers the period to be sufficient.

“As the authors point out, most recurrences of thyroid cancer are detected within the first 3-5 years of initial treatment, so ... the 3-year window is still clinically relevant,” he said.

Regarding the study’s inclusion of centers only in France, Dr. Cooper added, “I do not think that this is a study limitation. There is nothing specific about the French population that would lead me to conclude that the results were not generalizable to all populations with low-risk papillary thyroid cancer.”
 

Some continue radioiodine use, but lobectomies add to decline

Despite the mounting evidence of the lack of benefit of radioiodine ablation in low-risk patients, some centers, particularly in Europe, continue the practice, which was standard in the treatment of DTC until relatively recently.

“[While] U.S. guidelines changed in 2015 in favor of no radioiodine in low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer patients, this study should help to change European guidelines,” Dr. Leboulleux said. “The results will help to change practice both in the U.S. and in Europe.”

In addition to awareness of guidelines and new evidence, another reason for the decline in radioiodine ablation for low-risk DTC is the increasing use of thyroid lobectomy, which does not involve the use of radioiodine ablation, rather than total thyroidectomy, Dr. Cooper noted.

“The [new] NEJM paper will hopefully decrease the inappropriate use of radioiodine in low-risk patients even further,” he concluded.

The study received support from the French Ministry of Health through a grant from the National Cancer Institute. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) undergoing thyroidectomy show no improvements in outcomes with the use of postoperative radioiodine ablation compared to those who do not receive this therapy, suggesting these patients can be spared the previously common treatment.

The study’s take-home message for clinicians should be to “stop systematic radioiodine ablation administration in low-risk thyroid cancer patients,” lead author Sophie Leboulleux, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

The results were first reported at ENDO 2021 and have now been published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Leboulleux, of the department of nuclear medicine and endocrine oncology, Gustave Roussy Cancer Institute, Villejuif, France, and colleagues.

While American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines already indicate that radioiodine ablation is not routinely recommended after thyroidectomy for patients with low-risk thyroid cancer, the guidance is only a “weak recommendation,” supported by “low-quality evidence.”  

However, the new findings should give that level of evidence a much-needed boost, said one expert. “I think the main contribution of this paper is to change the evidence level to ‘high quality,’ therefore making the recommendation ‘strong,’ rather than ‘weak,’ ” David S. Cooper, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Cooper, professor of medicine and radiology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, wrote an editorial that accompanies Dr. Leboulleux’s study.

The ability to safely spare patients the radioiodine ablation step after thyroidectomy has important benefits in terms of cost and convenience, Dr. Cooper stressed.
 

ESTIMABL2 trial

The new findings are from the prospective, randomized, phase 3 Essai Stimulation Ablation 2 (ESTIMABL2) trial, in which 730 patients at 35 centers in France with low-risk DTC scheduled to undergo thyroidectomy were enrolled between May 2013 and March 2017.

Patients were randomized to receive either postoperative radioiodine ablation (1.1 GBq) after injections of recombinant human thyrotropin (n = 363) or no postoperative radioiodine (n = 367).

Patients were a mean age of 52 years and 83% were women. About 96% had papillary tumors, and pathological tumor node (pTN) stages were mostly pT1b thyroid with a nodal status of N0 or Nx (81.1%). It is these patients in particular in whom retrospective studies of the use of radioiodine ablation have yielded inconsistent results, Dr. Leboulleux and colleagues noted. Hence, their decision to look at this prospectively.

Outcomes were based on the groups’ rates of events, defined as the presence of abnormal foci of radioiodine uptake on whole-body scanning that required treatment (in the radioiodine group only), abnormal findings on neck ultrasonography, or increased levels of thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies.

After a 3-year follow-up, the rates of having no events in both groups were very high – and nearly identical – at 95.6% among those receiving no radioiodine ablation and 95.9% in the radioiodine group, for a between-group difference of –0.3 percentage points, which met the criteria for noninferiority for the no-radioiodine group.

Likewise, the events that did occur were nearly equally split between the no-radioiodine group (16 events, 4.4%) and the radioiodine group (15 events, 4.1%).

Among patients who had events, subsequent treatments, including surgery, radioiodine administration, or both, were necessary for four patients in the no-radioiodine group and 10 in the radioiodine group, and additional treatments were not necessary for the other patients who experienced events.

There were no differences between those who did and did not experience events in terms of molecular alterations, and 50 of the tumors had BRAF mutations, with no significant differences between groups.

Of the adverse events that occurred in 30 patients, none were determined to be related to treatment, and there were no thyroid-related deaths.

The recurrence rates align with the rates observed overall with low-risk thyroid cancer, the authors noted. 

“We observed that less than 5% of the patients in the two groups had events that included abnormal findings on whole-body scanning or neck ultrasonography or elevated levels of thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies during the first 3 years of follow-up,” they reported.

“This rate is concordant with the definition of low-risk thyroid cancer, and our trial showed that the risk of events was not higher in the absence of postoperative administration of radioiodine.”
 

Patients spared costs, work losses

Dr. Cooper elaborated on the advantages, for patients, of avoiding radioiodine ablation.

For one thing, the recombinant human TSH that is necessary to prepare for radioiodine therapy is very expensive, ranging from $2,000 to $3,000, with patients often having a copay, he explained.

“Patients usually have to take time off work, which is also an expense to society and to them if they don’t get paid for days that they don’t work,” Dr. Cooper added.

A possible study limitation is the question of whether 3 years is an ample follow-up period to detect events. However, Dr. Cooper said he considers the period to be sufficient.

“As the authors point out, most recurrences of thyroid cancer are detected within the first 3-5 years of initial treatment, so ... the 3-year window is still clinically relevant,” he said.

Regarding the study’s inclusion of centers only in France, Dr. Cooper added, “I do not think that this is a study limitation. There is nothing specific about the French population that would lead me to conclude that the results were not generalizable to all populations with low-risk papillary thyroid cancer.”
 

Some continue radioiodine use, but lobectomies add to decline

Despite the mounting evidence of the lack of benefit of radioiodine ablation in low-risk patients, some centers, particularly in Europe, continue the practice, which was standard in the treatment of DTC until relatively recently.

“[While] U.S. guidelines changed in 2015 in favor of no radioiodine in low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer patients, this study should help to change European guidelines,” Dr. Leboulleux said. “The results will help to change practice both in the U.S. and in Europe.”

In addition to awareness of guidelines and new evidence, another reason for the decline in radioiodine ablation for low-risk DTC is the increasing use of thyroid lobectomy, which does not involve the use of radioiodine ablation, rather than total thyroidectomy, Dr. Cooper noted.

“The [new] NEJM paper will hopefully decrease the inappropriate use of radioiodine in low-risk patients even further,” he concluded.

The study received support from the French Ministry of Health through a grant from the National Cancer Institute. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

LAS VEGAS – Is the relationship between major depressive disorder and the development of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other medical conditions a coincidence, or is there more at play?

According to Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD, a host of circumstances potentially underlies this association, including treatment of the medical disorder itself.

Courtesy University of Texas, Austin

“The best example of that is probably the use of interferon-alpha for the treatment of malignant melanoma,” Dr. Nemeroff, professor and chair of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Texas at Austin, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “Many patients treated with interferon-alpha ended up with very severe depression, including several documented suicides. Another possibility of the relationship between depression and medical disorders is that treating a patient for depression could result in a medical disorder. The best example of this is the use of 20 mg of olanzapine to augment the effects of an antidepressant, resulting in a 50-pound weight gain and the development of type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Both of those scenarios are well understood.”

Then there’s the behavioral aspects of the relationship, he continued, in which patients adopt the mindset that “I’m depressed. I don’t want to exercise. I’m a couch potato. I have been gaining a lot of weight. It’s bad for my heart.”

Converging biology is another possibility. “Is it possible that the biology of depression is linked to the biology of other disorders?” asked Dr. Nemeroff, who directs the university’s Institute for Early Life Adversity Research. “We can talk about this in relation to thyroid disease, a well known cause of depression, but we can also talk about the relationship to other disorders. There’s amazing epidemiologic evidence that patients with PTSD are much more likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease than patients without PTSD.”

Psychosocial issues also play a role. He recalled seeing patient in a clinic for the underserved who had underlying severe ulcerative colitis and anemia and couldn’t afford medical treatment. “The patient had a low hemoglobin, so it was impossible to distinguish between that and whether they had a primary depressive disorder or not,” he said.

In a study that explored the relationship between major depression and cancer, Dr. Nemeroff and colleagues found that the prevalence was highest in those with pancreatic cancer (50%), followed by oropharyngeal (40%), colon (13-25%), breast (18-25%), and gynecologic (23%), and Hodgkin’s lymphoma (17%) (Arch Gen Psychiatry 1995;52[2]:89-99). “Not all cancers have the same rate of depression,” he said. “One of the central questions is, not so much is the cancer patient depressed, but is depression a risk factor for developing cancer? The answer is a resounding yes. But what we don’t know is if you treat the depression aggressively, can you reduce that risk of either developing cancer or the progression of cancer?”

Dr. Nemeroff spotlighted several studies largely from the oncology literature, including a prospective survival analysis of 578 women with early-stage breast cancer (Lancet 1999;354:1331-6). After 5 years, 395 were alive and without relapse, 50 were alive with relapse, and 133 had died. The researchers found a significantly increased risk of death from all causes by 5 years in women with a high depression score (HR 3.59). There was a significantly increased risk of relapse or death at 5 years in women with high scores on helplessness and hopelessness measures.

In an analysis of the association between breast cancer and traumatic events, women who had severe stress or a traumatic event had lower rates of disease-free intervals (J Psychosomatic Res 2007;63:233-9). Another study by the same investigators found that a decrease in depression symptoms is associated with longer survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer (J Clin Oncol 2010;29:413-20). The median survival was 53.6 months for women with decreasing depression scores over 1 year and 25.1 months for women with increasing depression scores.

A more recent study of cervical cancer patients found that those exposed to psychological stress had an increased risk of cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.33) (Cancer Res 2019;79:3965-72). The association was mainly driven by distress experienced within 1 year before or after diagnosis (HR 1.30) but not afterward (HR 1.12). In addition, data from the large longitudinal Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with high PTSD symptoms had a twofold greater risk of ovarian cancer compared with women who had no trauma exposure (Cancer Res 2019;79:5113-20).

Authors of a separate study analyzed data from the Women’s Health Initiative to examine if depression precedes the development of a cancer diagnosis. They found that depression 3 years before a diagnosis of breast cancer was associated with all-cause mortality (HR 1.35) (Cancer 2017;123[16]:3107-15). Meanwhile, among women with late-stage breast cancer, newly developed depression at year 3 was significantly associated with all-cause mortality (HR 2.0) and breast cancer-specific mortality (HR 2.42). “That’s a pretty amazing finding,” Dr. Nemeroff said. “We have to think about depression as a systemic illness. What is depression doing that’s creating a fertile environment for cancer or worsening of cancer?”

He then discussed the risk of suicide in patients who are newly diagnosed with cancer. “No one ever talks about this, and I can’t get anybody to support research in this area,” he said. In one of the first studies on the topic, researchers conducted a case-control study of Medicare patients and determined risk of suicide among those with cancer was 2.3-fold higher compared with controls, even after adjustment for psychiatric illness and the risk of dying within a year (J Clin Oncol 2008;26[29]:4720-4). More recently, authors of a large population-based study in England found that the overall standardized mortality ratio for suicide was 1.20 (JAMA Psychiatry 2019;76[1]51-60). The risk was highest among patients with mesothelioma, with a 4.51-fold risk, followed by pancreatic (3.89-fold), esophageal (2.65-fold), lung (2.57-fold), and stomach cancer (2.20-fold). “They reported that the first 6 months after the diagnosis is associated with an increased risk of suicide – unrelated to prognosis,” Dr. Nemeroff said.

A separate analysis of SEER data from 1973-2014 and comprising more than 8.6 million cancer patients found that newly diagnosed cancer patients are 4.4 times more likely to die from suicide than patients in the same age group without cancer (Nat Commun 2019;10[1]:207). The highest risk was in lung cancer, followed by head and neck, testes, bladder, and Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

According to Dr. Nemeroff, the association between depression and the risk of certain forms of cancer or with a poor cancer prognosis “may have to do with immune function. Depression is associated with a change in inflammatory markers that very likely control the microenvironment of the tumor.” For example, he said, if the depressed environment is associated with a marked increase in tumor necrosis factor, interleukin 6, and other inflammatory markers, “that probably contributes to the body’s ability to fight disease. Ironically, depression is associated with an increase in inflammation but a decreased in T cell function. Remember, there are two fundamental types of immunity: the antibody response and the cellular response. What’s odd about depression is that there’s an increase in inflammatory markers but a decrease in the ability of T cells to function in terms of cellular immunity.”

Dr. Nemeroff disclosed that he has served as a consultant and/or scientific adviser for numerous pharmaceutical companies. He has received research and grant support from the National Institutes of Health.

LAS VEGAS – Is the relationship between major depressive disorder and the development of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other medical conditions a coincidence, or is there more at play?

According to Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD, a host of circumstances potentially underlies this association, including treatment of the medical disorder itself.

Courtesy University of Texas, Austin

“The best example of that is probably the use of interferon-alpha for the treatment of malignant melanoma,” Dr. Nemeroff, professor and chair of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Texas at Austin, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “Many patients treated with interferon-alpha ended up with very severe depression, including several documented suicides. Another possibility of the relationship between depression and medical disorders is that treating a patient for depression could result in a medical disorder. The best example of this is the use of 20 mg of olanzapine to augment the effects of an antidepressant, resulting in a 50-pound weight gain and the development of type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Both of those scenarios are well understood.”

Then there’s the behavioral aspects of the relationship, he continued, in which patients adopt the mindset that “I’m depressed. I don’t want to exercise. I’m a couch potato. I have been gaining a lot of weight. It’s bad for my heart.”

Converging biology is another possibility. “Is it possible that the biology of depression is linked to the biology of other disorders?” asked Dr. Nemeroff, who directs the university’s Institute for Early Life Adversity Research. “We can talk about this in relation to thyroid disease, a well known cause of depression, but we can also talk about the relationship to other disorders. There’s amazing epidemiologic evidence that patients with PTSD are much more likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease than patients without PTSD.”

Psychosocial issues also play a role. He recalled seeing patient in a clinic for the underserved who had underlying severe ulcerative colitis and anemia and couldn’t afford medical treatment. “The patient had a low hemoglobin, so it was impossible to distinguish between that and whether they had a primary depressive disorder or not,” he said.

In a study that explored the relationship between major depression and cancer, Dr. Nemeroff and colleagues found that the prevalence was highest in those with pancreatic cancer (50%), followed by oropharyngeal (40%), colon (13-25%), breast (18-25%), and gynecologic (23%), and Hodgkin’s lymphoma (17%) (Arch Gen Psychiatry 1995;52[2]:89-99). “Not all cancers have the same rate of depression,” he said. “One of the central questions is, not so much is the cancer patient depressed, but is depression a risk factor for developing cancer? The answer is a resounding yes. But what we don’t know is if you treat the depression aggressively, can you reduce that risk of either developing cancer or the progression of cancer?”

Dr. Nemeroff spotlighted several studies largely from the oncology literature, including a prospective survival analysis of 578 women with early-stage breast cancer (Lancet 1999;354:1331-6). After 5 years, 395 were alive and without relapse, 50 were alive with relapse, and 133 had died. The researchers found a significantly increased risk of death from all causes by 5 years in women with a high depression score (HR 3.59). There was a significantly increased risk of relapse or death at 5 years in women with high scores on helplessness and hopelessness measures.

In an analysis of the association between breast cancer and traumatic events, women who had severe stress or a traumatic event had lower rates of disease-free intervals (J Psychosomatic Res 2007;63:233-9). Another study by the same investigators found that a decrease in depression symptoms is associated with longer survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer (J Clin Oncol 2010;29:413-20). The median survival was 53.6 months for women with decreasing depression scores over 1 year and 25.1 months for women with increasing depression scores.

A more recent study of cervical cancer patients found that those exposed to psychological stress had an increased risk of cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.33) (Cancer Res 2019;79:3965-72). The association was mainly driven by distress experienced within 1 year before or after diagnosis (HR 1.30) but not afterward (HR 1.12). In addition, data from the large longitudinal Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with high PTSD symptoms had a twofold greater risk of ovarian cancer compared with women who had no trauma exposure (Cancer Res 2019;79:5113-20).

Authors of a separate study analyzed data from the Women’s Health Initiative to examine if depression precedes the development of a cancer diagnosis. They found that depression 3 years before a diagnosis of breast cancer was associated with all-cause mortality (HR 1.35) (Cancer 2017;123[16]:3107-15). Meanwhile, among women with late-stage breast cancer, newly developed depression at year 3 was significantly associated with all-cause mortality (HR 2.0) and breast cancer-specific mortality (HR 2.42). “That’s a pretty amazing finding,” Dr. Nemeroff said. “We have to think about depression as a systemic illness. What is depression doing that’s creating a fertile environment for cancer or worsening of cancer?”

He then discussed the risk of suicide in patients who are newly diagnosed with cancer. “No one ever talks about this, and I can’t get anybody to support research in this area,” he said. In one of the first studies on the topic, researchers conducted a case-control study of Medicare patients and determined risk of suicide among those with cancer was 2.3-fold higher compared with controls, even after adjustment for psychiatric illness and the risk of dying within a year (J Clin Oncol 2008;26[29]:4720-4). More recently, authors of a large population-based study in England found that the overall standardized mortality ratio for suicide was 1.20 (JAMA Psychiatry 2019;76[1]51-60). The risk was highest among patients with mesothelioma, with a 4.51-fold risk, followed by pancreatic (3.89-fold), esophageal (2.65-fold), lung (2.57-fold), and stomach cancer (2.20-fold). “They reported that the first 6 months after the diagnosis is associated with an increased risk of suicide – unrelated to prognosis,” Dr. Nemeroff said.

A separate analysis of SEER data from 1973-2014 and comprising more than 8.6 million cancer patients found that newly diagnosed cancer patients are 4.4 times more likely to die from suicide than patients in the same age group without cancer (Nat Commun 2019;10[1]:207). The highest risk was in lung cancer, followed by head and neck, testes, bladder, and Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

According to Dr. Nemeroff, the association between depression and the risk of certain forms of cancer or with a poor cancer prognosis “may have to do with immune function. Depression is associated with a change in inflammatory markers that very likely control the microenvironment of the tumor.” For example, he said, if the depressed environment is associated with a marked increase in tumor necrosis factor, interleukin 6, and other inflammatory markers, “that probably contributes to the body’s ability to fight disease. Ironically, depression is associated with an increase in inflammation but a decreased in T cell function. Remember, there are two fundamental types of immunity: the antibody response and the cellular response. What’s odd about depression is that there’s an increase in inflammatory markers but a decrease in the ability of T cells to function in terms of cellular immunity.”

Dr. Nemeroff disclosed that he has served as a consultant and/or scientific adviser for numerous pharmaceutical companies. He has received research and grant support from the National Institutes of Health.

LAS VEGAS – Is the relationship between major depressive disorder and the development of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and other medical conditions a coincidence, or is there more at play?

According to Charles B. Nemeroff, MD, PhD, a host of circumstances potentially underlies this association, including treatment of the medical disorder itself.

Courtesy University of Texas, Austin

“The best example of that is probably the use of interferon-alpha for the treatment of malignant melanoma,” Dr. Nemeroff, professor and chair of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Texas at Austin, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “Many patients treated with interferon-alpha ended up with very severe depression, including several documented suicides. Another possibility of the relationship between depression and medical disorders is that treating a patient for depression could result in a medical disorder. The best example of this is the use of 20 mg of olanzapine to augment the effects of an antidepressant, resulting in a 50-pound weight gain and the development of type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Both of those scenarios are well understood.”

Then there’s the behavioral aspects of the relationship, he continued, in which patients adopt the mindset that “I’m depressed. I don’t want to exercise. I’m a couch potato. I have been gaining a lot of weight. It’s bad for my heart.”

Converging biology is another possibility. “Is it possible that the biology of depression is linked to the biology of other disorders?” asked Dr. Nemeroff, who directs the university’s Institute for Early Life Adversity Research. “We can talk about this in relation to thyroid disease, a well known cause of depression, but we can also talk about the relationship to other disorders. There’s amazing epidemiologic evidence that patients with PTSD are much more likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease than patients without PTSD.”

Psychosocial issues also play a role. He recalled seeing patient in a clinic for the underserved who had underlying severe ulcerative colitis and anemia and couldn’t afford medical treatment. “The patient had a low hemoglobin, so it was impossible to distinguish between that and whether they had a primary depressive disorder or not,” he said.

In a study that explored the relationship between major depression and cancer, Dr. Nemeroff and colleagues found that the prevalence was highest in those with pancreatic cancer (50%), followed by oropharyngeal (40%), colon (13-25%), breast (18-25%), and gynecologic (23%), and Hodgkin’s lymphoma (17%) (Arch Gen Psychiatry 1995;52[2]:89-99). “Not all cancers have the same rate of depression,” he said. “One of the central questions is, not so much is the cancer patient depressed, but is depression a risk factor for developing cancer? The answer is a resounding yes. But what we don’t know is if you treat the depression aggressively, can you reduce that risk of either developing cancer or the progression of cancer?”

Dr. Nemeroff spotlighted several studies largely from the oncology literature, including a prospective survival analysis of 578 women with early-stage breast cancer (Lancet 1999;354:1331-6). After 5 years, 395 were alive and without relapse, 50 were alive with relapse, and 133 had died. The researchers found a significantly increased risk of death from all causes by 5 years in women with a high depression score (HR 3.59). There was a significantly increased risk of relapse or death at 5 years in women with high scores on helplessness and hopelessness measures.

In an analysis of the association between breast cancer and traumatic events, women who had severe stress or a traumatic event had lower rates of disease-free intervals (J Psychosomatic Res 2007;63:233-9). Another study by the same investigators found that a decrease in depression symptoms is associated with longer survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer (J Clin Oncol 2010;29:413-20). The median survival was 53.6 months for women with decreasing depression scores over 1 year and 25.1 months for women with increasing depression scores.

A more recent study of cervical cancer patients found that those exposed to psychological stress had an increased risk of cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.33) (Cancer Res 2019;79:3965-72). The association was mainly driven by distress experienced within 1 year before or after diagnosis (HR 1.30) but not afterward (HR 1.12). In addition, data from the large longitudinal Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with high PTSD symptoms had a twofold greater risk of ovarian cancer compared with women who had no trauma exposure (Cancer Res 2019;79:5113-20).

Authors of a separate study analyzed data from the Women’s Health Initiative to examine if depression precedes the development of a cancer diagnosis. They found that depression 3 years before a diagnosis of breast cancer was associated with all-cause mortality (HR 1.35) (Cancer 2017;123[16]:3107-15). Meanwhile, among women with late-stage breast cancer, newly developed depression at year 3 was significantly associated with all-cause mortality (HR 2.0) and breast cancer-specific mortality (HR 2.42). “That’s a pretty amazing finding,” Dr. Nemeroff said. “We have to think about depression as a systemic illness. What is depression doing that’s creating a fertile environment for cancer or worsening of cancer?”

He then discussed the risk of suicide in patients who are newly diagnosed with cancer. “No one ever talks about this, and I can’t get anybody to support research in this area,” he said. In one of the first studies on the topic, researchers conducted a case-control study of Medicare patients and determined risk of suicide among those with cancer was 2.3-fold higher compared with controls, even after adjustment for psychiatric illness and the risk of dying within a year (J Clin Oncol 2008;26[29]:4720-4). More recently, authors of a large population-based study in England found that the overall standardized mortality ratio for suicide was 1.20 (JAMA Psychiatry 2019;76[1]51-60). The risk was highest among patients with mesothelioma, with a 4.51-fold risk, followed by pancreatic (3.89-fold), esophageal (2.65-fold), lung (2.57-fold), and stomach cancer (2.20-fold). “They reported that the first 6 months after the diagnosis is associated with an increased risk of suicide – unrelated to prognosis,” Dr. Nemeroff said.

A separate analysis of SEER data from 1973-2014 and comprising more than 8.6 million cancer patients found that newly diagnosed cancer patients are 4.4 times more likely to die from suicide than patients in the same age group without cancer (Nat Commun 2019;10[1]:207). The highest risk was in lung cancer, followed by head and neck, testes, bladder, and Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

According to Dr. Nemeroff, the association between depression and the risk of certain forms of cancer or with a poor cancer prognosis “may have to do with immune function. Depression is associated with a change in inflammatory markers that very likely control the microenvironment of the tumor.” For example, he said, if the depressed environment is associated with a marked increase in tumor necrosis factor, interleukin 6, and other inflammatory markers, “that probably contributes to the body’s ability to fight disease. Ironically, depression is associated with an increase in inflammation but a decreased in T cell function. Remember, there are two fundamental types of immunity: the antibody response and the cellular response. What’s odd about depression is that there’s an increase in inflammatory markers but a decrease in the ability of T cells to function in terms of cellular immunity.”

Dr. Nemeroff disclosed that he has served as a consultant and/or scientific adviser for numerous pharmaceutical companies. He has received research and grant support from the National Institutes of Health.

A new meta-analysis provides more evidence that taller people may be more likely than their shorter peers to develop colorectal cancer (CRC) or colon polyps.

“There are well-known modifiable dietary associations for colorectal cancer, such as processed red meats and smoking, but guidelines currently are fixated on family history, and height is clinically neglected when it comes to risk screening,” study investigator Gerard Mullin, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release. This large study “builds on evidence that taller height is an overlooked risk factor and should be considered when evaluating and recommending patients for colorectal cancer screenings.”

The study was published online March 1 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
 

The evidence: Height and cancer risk

Height has been actively studied as a potential nonmodifiable risk factor for a range of cancers, including CRC.

In one large prospective study of postmenopausal women, researchers found a modest but statistically significant positive association between height and risk for any cancer and for melanoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the thyroid, ovary, colorectum, and endometrium. 

A separate study found that tall men, especially those who are long-legged, may be at increased risk for prostate cancer, including high-grade tumors, relative to men of more modest stature.

However, the study authors point out, past studies have also produced mixed results, used inconsistent measures of height, and failed to include the risk of adenomas.  

In the current meta-analysis, the investigators included 47 international, observational studies involving 280,644 adults with CRC and 14,139 cases of colorectal adenoma.

Because the definition of tallness differs around the world, the researchers compared the highest versus the lowest height percentile of various study groups. The findings were adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, and other known risk factors for CRC.

Overall, the investigators found that the tallest individuals within the highest percentile of height had a 24% higher risk of developing CRC compared to the shortest individuals within the lowest percentile (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; P < .001).

In addition, they found that every 10-cm increase (about 4 inches) in height was associated with a 14% increased risk of developing CRC (HR, 1.14; P < .001) and a 6% increased likelihood of adenomas (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; P = .03).

In the United States, the average height for men is 5 feet, 9 inches, and for women it is 5 feet, 4 inches, which means men who are 6 feet, 1 inch and women who are 5 feet, 8 inches or taller have a 14% increased risk of CRC and a 6% increased risk of adenomas, the researchers explained.

According to co–first author Elinor Zhou, MD, also with Johns Hopkins University, a potential explanation for this link “is that adult height correlates with body organ size. More active proliferation in organs of taller people could increase the possibility of mutations leading to malignant transformation.”

The study authors said more research is needed to identify particular subgroups of tall people at risk for CRC.

“For instance, tall athletes and individuals with inherited tallness, such as those with Marfan syndrome, could be screened earlier and the impact of height further explored,” Dr. Zhou said.

Plus, Dr. Zhou added, more studies are needed to “definitively say at what height you would need earlier colorectal cancer screening.”

The current study was supported by grants from Bloomberg Philanthropies, intramural funds, and the Johns Hopkins Cancer Center Support Grant. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

A new meta-analysis provides more evidence that taller people may be more likely than their shorter peers to develop colorectal cancer (CRC) or colon polyps.

“There are well-known modifiable dietary associations for colorectal cancer, such as processed red meats and smoking, but guidelines currently are fixated on family history, and height is clinically neglected when it comes to risk screening,” study investigator Gerard Mullin, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release. This large study “builds on evidence that taller height is an overlooked risk factor and should be considered when evaluating and recommending patients for colorectal cancer screenings.”

The study was published online March 1 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
 

The evidence: Height and cancer risk

Height has been actively studied as a potential nonmodifiable risk factor for a range of cancers, including CRC.

In one large prospective study of postmenopausal women, researchers found a modest but statistically significant positive association between height and risk for any cancer and for melanoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the thyroid, ovary, colorectum, and endometrium. 

A separate study found that tall men, especially those who are long-legged, may be at increased risk for prostate cancer, including high-grade tumors, relative to men of more modest stature.

However, the study authors point out, past studies have also produced mixed results, used inconsistent measures of height, and failed to include the risk of adenomas.  

In the current meta-analysis, the investigators included 47 international, observational studies involving 280,644 adults with CRC and 14,139 cases of colorectal adenoma.

Because the definition of tallness differs around the world, the researchers compared the highest versus the lowest height percentile of various study groups. The findings were adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, and other known risk factors for CRC.

Overall, the investigators found that the tallest individuals within the highest percentile of height had a 24% higher risk of developing CRC compared to the shortest individuals within the lowest percentile (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; P < .001).

In addition, they found that every 10-cm increase (about 4 inches) in height was associated with a 14% increased risk of developing CRC (HR, 1.14; P < .001) and a 6% increased likelihood of adenomas (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; P = .03).

In the United States, the average height for men is 5 feet, 9 inches, and for women it is 5 feet, 4 inches, which means men who are 6 feet, 1 inch and women who are 5 feet, 8 inches or taller have a 14% increased risk of CRC and a 6% increased risk of adenomas, the researchers explained.

According to co–first author Elinor Zhou, MD, also with Johns Hopkins University, a potential explanation for this link “is that adult height correlates with body organ size. More active proliferation in organs of taller people could increase the possibility of mutations leading to malignant transformation.”

The study authors said more research is needed to identify particular subgroups of tall people at risk for CRC.

“For instance, tall athletes and individuals with inherited tallness, such as those with Marfan syndrome, could be screened earlier and the impact of height further explored,” Dr. Zhou said.

Plus, Dr. Zhou added, more studies are needed to “definitively say at what height you would need earlier colorectal cancer screening.”

The current study was supported by grants from Bloomberg Philanthropies, intramural funds, and the Johns Hopkins Cancer Center Support Grant. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

A new meta-analysis provides more evidence that taller people may be more likely than their shorter peers to develop colorectal cancer (CRC) or colon polyps.

“There are well-known modifiable dietary associations for colorectal cancer, such as processed red meats and smoking, but guidelines currently are fixated on family history, and height is clinically neglected when it comes to risk screening,” study investigator Gerard Mullin, MD, with Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in a news release. This large study “builds on evidence that taller height is an overlooked risk factor and should be considered when evaluating and recommending patients for colorectal cancer screenings.”

The study was published online March 1 in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
 

The evidence: Height and cancer risk

Height has been actively studied as a potential nonmodifiable risk factor for a range of cancers, including CRC.

In one large prospective study of postmenopausal women, researchers found a modest but statistically significant positive association between height and risk for any cancer and for melanoma, multiple myeloma, and cancers of the thyroid, ovary, colorectum, and endometrium. 

A separate study found that tall men, especially those who are long-legged, may be at increased risk for prostate cancer, including high-grade tumors, relative to men of more modest stature.

However, the study authors point out, past studies have also produced mixed results, used inconsistent measures of height, and failed to include the risk of adenomas.  

In the current meta-analysis, the investigators included 47 international, observational studies involving 280,644 adults with CRC and 14,139 cases of colorectal adenoma.

Because the definition of tallness differs around the world, the researchers compared the highest versus the lowest height percentile of various study groups. The findings were adjusted for demographic, socioeconomic, behavioral, and other known risk factors for CRC.

Overall, the investigators found that the tallest individuals within the highest percentile of height had a 24% higher risk of developing CRC compared to the shortest individuals within the lowest percentile (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; P < .001).

In addition, they found that every 10-cm increase (about 4 inches) in height was associated with a 14% increased risk of developing CRC (HR, 1.14; P < .001) and a 6% increased likelihood of adenomas (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; P = .03).

In the United States, the average height for men is 5 feet, 9 inches, and for women it is 5 feet, 4 inches, which means men who are 6 feet, 1 inch and women who are 5 feet, 8 inches or taller have a 14% increased risk of CRC and a 6% increased risk of adenomas, the researchers explained.

According to co–first author Elinor Zhou, MD, also with Johns Hopkins University, a potential explanation for this link “is that adult height correlates with body organ size. More active proliferation in organs of taller people could increase the possibility of mutations leading to malignant transformation.”

The study authors said more research is needed to identify particular subgroups of tall people at risk for CRC.

“For instance, tall athletes and individuals with inherited tallness, such as those with Marfan syndrome, could be screened earlier and the impact of height further explored,” Dr. Zhou said.

Plus, Dr. Zhou added, more studies are needed to “definitively say at what height you would need earlier colorectal cancer screening.”

The current study was supported by grants from Bloomberg Philanthropies, intramural funds, and the Johns Hopkins Cancer Center Support Grant. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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