AVAHO

Rituximab has presented something of a conundrum for patients taking the monoclonal antibody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Used to manage a variety of autoimmune diseases and cancers, rituximab acts against CD20 proteins expressed on the surface of B cells, causing B-cell depletion. However, it is this B-cell depletion that may put these patients at greater risk of COVID-19 development, progression to more severe disease, and in-hospital mortality. Evidence for this appears to be mixed, with studies showing both that patients using rituximab to manage various diseases are and are not at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 progression, and mortality.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

As COVID-19 vaccine rollouts take place across the world, more questions have been raised about the relationship between B-cell depletion from anti-CD20 therapies and COVID-19 vaccines. Do rituximab and other anti-CD20 therapies affect a patient’s response to COVID-19 vaccines? If this is the case, does the timing of anti-CD20 treatment matter to maximize B-cell levels and improve the vaccine’s effectiveness? And how do COVID-19 vaccine booster doses factor into the equation?

This article aims to summarize the latest research on how rituximab affects humoral and cell-mediated response following a COVID-19 vaccine primary series, and whether the addition of a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose changes patient response.
 

Humoral and cell-mediated responses following COVID-19 vaccination

First, the bad news: The vaccine is unquestionably safe to administer in patients taking rituximab, but one thing that has been well established is that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination in these individuals does is reduced. This isn’t entirely unprecedented, as previous studies have shown a weakened immune response to pneumococcal polysaccharide and keyhole limpet hemocyanin vaccines among patients taking rituximab.

“Compromised immunogenicity to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been demonstrated in rituximab-treated patients, which is of particular concern given the observation that B-cell–depleting therapies may be associated with worse COVID outcomes,” Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.

For example, in a recent study from the Medical University of Vienna, 29 (39%) of 74 patients receiving rituximab (43% as monotherapy, 57% with conventional-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) who were vaccinated with either the Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) or Spikevax (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine achieved seroconversion, compared with 100% of patients in a healthy control group, and all but 1 patient without detectable CD19+ peripheral B cells did not develop anti–SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain antibodies.

“There is an increasing number of studies in this field, and they confirm that patients treated with rituximab and other anti-CD20 agents have severely reduced serological responses to COVID-19 vaccines,” Ingrid Jyssum, MD, of the division of rheumatology and research at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, said in an interview.

One silver lining is that patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies appear to have a cell-mediated response following vaccination even if they don’t develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. “Studies that also investigate T-cell responses are starting to emerge, and so far, they show that, even if the patients do not have antibodies, they may have T-cell responses,” Dr. Jyssum said.

One study of 24 patients with autoimmune diseases taking rituximab that evaluated humoral and T-cell responses following vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine found that none had a humoral response to the vaccine, but the T-cell response from that group did not significantly differ from 35 patients receiving other immunosuppressants and 26 patients in a healthy control group. In another study of rituximab- or ocrelizumab-treated patients who received mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, 69.4% developed SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, compared with a control group, but 96.2% of patients taking ocrelizumab and 81.8% of patients taking rituximab mounted a spike-specific CD8+ T-cell response, compared with 66.7% in the control group, and there were comparable rates (85%-90%) of spike-specific CD4+ T cells in all groups. In the study from the Medical University of Vienna, T-cell response was detected in rituximab-treated patients who both did and did not mount an antibody response.

The clinical relevance of how a blunted humoral immune response but a respectable T-cell response to COVID-19 vaccines affects patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said.

While these data are reassuring, they’re also incomplete, Dr. Spiera noted. “The ultimate outcome of relevance to assess vaccine efficacy is protection from COVID and from severe outcomes of COVID infection (i.e., hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, death). That data will require assessment of very large numbers of rituximab-treated vaccinated patients to be compared with rituximab-treated unvaccinated patients, and is unlikely to be forthcoming in the very near future.

“In the meantime, however, achieving serologic positivity, meaning having evidence of serologic as well as cellular immunity following vaccination, is a desired outcome, and likely implies more robust immunity.”
 

Does treatment timing impact COVID-19 vaccine response?

Given enough time, B-cell reconstitution will occur in patients taking rituximab. With that in mind, is it beneficial to wait a certain amount of time after a patient has stopped rituximab therapy or time since their last dose before giving them a COVID-19 vaccine? In their guidance on COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, the American College of Rheumatology said there is moderate evidence to consider “optimal timing of dosing and vaccination with the rheumatology provider before proceeding.”

“Guidelines and preliminary studies of serologic response to COVID vaccine in rituximab-treated patients have suggested that longer time from last rituximab exposure is associated with a greater likelihood of a serologic response,” Dr. Spiera said.

In a brief report published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, Dr. Spiera and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review of 56 patients with varying levels of last exposure to rituximab who received a COVID-19 vaccine. Their results showed that, when patients were vaccinated 6-12 months after the last rituximab dose, 55% were seronegative, and when this was more than 12 months, only 13% were seronegative, compared with seronegativity in 86% who were vaccinated less than 6 months after their last rituximab dose.

The RituxiVac trial, conducted by researchers in Switzerland, also examined vaccine responses of 96 rituximab-treated patients who received Comirnaty or Spikevax; results recently published in The Lancet Rheumatology showed findings similar to other studies, with reduced humoral and cell-mediated responses. In the RituxiVac trial, the median time to last anti-CD20 treatment was 1.07 years.

“The typical interval between rituximab doses [for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for remission maintenance in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis] is typically 6 months, and this has become widely used as the interval from last rituximab to time of COVID vaccination, with a recommendation to wait 4 weeks (if possible) from time of vaccination until the next rituximab administration,” Dr. Spiera explained. However, this window seems to vary depending on the study.

Recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology indicates B-cell levels could be a relevant indicator for humoral and cell-mediated response in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with rituximab, with a level of 10 B cells/mcL (0.4% of lymphocytes) identified as one potential marker for likely seroconversion following COVID-19 vaccination.

“In some smaller case series, it has been further recognized that rituximab-treated patients who were beginning to reconstitute peripheral B cells were most likely to respond serologically. Our present study confirmed those findings, demonstrating that the presence of detectable B cells was strongly associated with vaccine responsiveness, and affords complementary information to time from last [rituximab dose] in informing the likelihood of a vaccine response,” Dr. Spiera said.

However, the literature is limited in this area, and an exact cutoff for B-cell counts in these patients isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said. A better metric is time away from anti-CD20 therapies, with CD19 cell count being highly correlated with last infusion.

Dr. Spiera agreed that there is no consistent B-cell percentage that works as a cutoff. “In our study, we looked at it as a binary variable, although we did find that a higher percentage of B cells in the peripheral lymphocyte population was associated with a higher likelihood of seroconversion. We did not, however, identify a ‘threshold’ for vaccine serologic responsiveness.”

Should clinicians measure antibodies?

The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that health care providers and the public not use COVID-19 antibody tests as a way to gauge immunity after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases strongly recommends against ordering antibody tests for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases as a way to measure immunity.

“Generally, such measurements are not recommended as the clinical correlate of various antibody levels are not known,” Dr. Jyssum said. “With regular infusions of rituximab or other anti-CD20 agents, one cannot expect that these patients will develop significant levels of antibodies.”

However, she said there might be situations where it’s useful to know whether a patient has developed antibodies at all. “Assessing the significance of specific antibody levels is difficult, and the subject of scientific studies. Patients lacking a humoral vaccine response are left to rely on their T-cell responses and on infectious control measures to prevent disease.”

Dr. Spiera said he disagreed with guidelines recommending against checking antibody levels after vaccination, “particularly in patients treated with immunosuppressive medications that might be expected to blunt their serologic response to the vaccines.

“Although we cannot be sure what level of measurable antibodies offer what level of protection, most clinicians would agree that patients who demonstrate no detectable antibodies (which is a common finding in rituximab-treated patients) should be considered at higher risk,” he said. “Indeed, recommendations regarding booster vaccine administration in general was initially based on the observation of declining antibody levels with longer time from vaccination.”

Do COVID-19 vaccine boosters help patients on anti-CD20 therapy?

As of January 2022, the FDA and CDC have recommended a third primary series shot of COVID-19 vaccines for some moderately to severely immunocompromised patients as young as 5 years old (for Comirnaty vaccine) or a booster shot of either Comirnaty or Spikevax for everyone aged 12 years and older, including immunocompromised people, while the ACR goes into more detail and recommends clinicians time a patient’s booster shot with temporary treatment interruption.

In The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Jyssum and colleagues recently published results from the prospective Nor-vaC study examining the humoral and cell-mediated immune responses of 87 patients with RA being treated with rituximab who received the Comirnaty, Spikevax, or Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines; of these, 49 patients received a booster dose at a median of 70 days after completing their primary series. The results showed 19 patients (28.1%) had a serologic response after their primary series, while 8 of 49 patients (16.3%) who received their booster dose had a serologic response.

All patients who received a third dose in the study had a T-cell response, Dr. Jyssum said. “This is reassuring for patients and clinicians. T cells have been found to be important in countering COVID-19 disease, but whether we can rely on the T-cell response alone in the absence of antibodies to protect patients from infection or from serious COVID disease is still not determined,” she said.

When asked if she would recommend COVID-19 vaccine booster doses for patients on rituximab, Dr. Jyssum replied: “Absolutely.”

Another study, recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, examined heterologous and homologous booster doses for 60 patients receiving rituximab without seroconversion after their COVID-19 vaccine primary series. The results showed no significant difference in new seroconversion at 4 weeks based on whether the patient received a vector or mRNA vaccine (22% vs. 32%), but all patients who received a booster dose with a vector vaccine had specific T-cell responses, compared with 81% of patients who received an mRNA vaccine booster. There was a new humoral and/or cellular response in 9 of 11 patients (82%), and most patients with peripheral B cells (12 of 18 patients; 67%) achieved seroconversion.

“Our data show that a cellular and/or humoral immune response can be achieved on a third COVID-19 vaccination in most of the patients who initially developed neither a humoral nor a cellular immune response,” the researchers concluded. “The efficacy data together with the safety data seen in our trial provide a favorable risk/benefit ratio and support the implementation of a third vaccination for nonseroconverted high-risk autoimmune disease patients treated with B-cell–depleting agents.”

Dr. Spiera said booster doses are an important part of the equation, and “it is important to consider factors that would be associated with a greater likelihood of achieving a serologic response, particularly in those patients who did not demonstrate a serologic response to the initial vaccines series.

“Preliminary data shows that the beginnings of B-cell reconstitution is also associated with a positive serologic response following a booster of the COVID-19 vaccine,” he said.

The authors of the cited studies reported numerous relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Spiera and Dr. Jyssum reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Rituximab has presented something of a conundrum for patients taking the monoclonal antibody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Used to manage a variety of autoimmune diseases and cancers, rituximab acts against CD20 proteins expressed on the surface of B cells, causing B-cell depletion. However, it is this B-cell depletion that may put these patients at greater risk of COVID-19 development, progression to more severe disease, and in-hospital mortality. Evidence for this appears to be mixed, with studies showing both that patients using rituximab to manage various diseases are and are not at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 progression, and mortality.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

As COVID-19 vaccine rollouts take place across the world, more questions have been raised about the relationship between B-cell depletion from anti-CD20 therapies and COVID-19 vaccines. Do rituximab and other anti-CD20 therapies affect a patient’s response to COVID-19 vaccines? If this is the case, does the timing of anti-CD20 treatment matter to maximize B-cell levels and improve the vaccine’s effectiveness? And how do COVID-19 vaccine booster doses factor into the equation?

This article aims to summarize the latest research on how rituximab affects humoral and cell-mediated response following a COVID-19 vaccine primary series, and whether the addition of a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose changes patient response.
 

Humoral and cell-mediated responses following COVID-19 vaccination

First, the bad news: The vaccine is unquestionably safe to administer in patients taking rituximab, but one thing that has been well established is that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination in these individuals does is reduced. This isn’t entirely unprecedented, as previous studies have shown a weakened immune response to pneumococcal polysaccharide and keyhole limpet hemocyanin vaccines among patients taking rituximab.

“Compromised immunogenicity to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been demonstrated in rituximab-treated patients, which is of particular concern given the observation that B-cell–depleting therapies may be associated with worse COVID outcomes,” Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.

For example, in a recent study from the Medical University of Vienna, 29 (39%) of 74 patients receiving rituximab (43% as monotherapy, 57% with conventional-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) who were vaccinated with either the Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) or Spikevax (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine achieved seroconversion, compared with 100% of patients in a healthy control group, and all but 1 patient without detectable CD19+ peripheral B cells did not develop anti–SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain antibodies.

“There is an increasing number of studies in this field, and they confirm that patients treated with rituximab and other anti-CD20 agents have severely reduced serological responses to COVID-19 vaccines,” Ingrid Jyssum, MD, of the division of rheumatology and research at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, said in an interview.

One silver lining is that patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies appear to have a cell-mediated response following vaccination even if they don’t develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. “Studies that also investigate T-cell responses are starting to emerge, and so far, they show that, even if the patients do not have antibodies, they may have T-cell responses,” Dr. Jyssum said.

One study of 24 patients with autoimmune diseases taking rituximab that evaluated humoral and T-cell responses following vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine found that none had a humoral response to the vaccine, but the T-cell response from that group did not significantly differ from 35 patients receiving other immunosuppressants and 26 patients in a healthy control group. In another study of rituximab- or ocrelizumab-treated patients who received mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, 69.4% developed SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, compared with a control group, but 96.2% of patients taking ocrelizumab and 81.8% of patients taking rituximab mounted a spike-specific CD8+ T-cell response, compared with 66.7% in the control group, and there were comparable rates (85%-90%) of spike-specific CD4+ T cells in all groups. In the study from the Medical University of Vienna, T-cell response was detected in rituximab-treated patients who both did and did not mount an antibody response.

The clinical relevance of how a blunted humoral immune response but a respectable T-cell response to COVID-19 vaccines affects patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said.

While these data are reassuring, they’re also incomplete, Dr. Spiera noted. “The ultimate outcome of relevance to assess vaccine efficacy is protection from COVID and from severe outcomes of COVID infection (i.e., hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, death). That data will require assessment of very large numbers of rituximab-treated vaccinated patients to be compared with rituximab-treated unvaccinated patients, and is unlikely to be forthcoming in the very near future.

“In the meantime, however, achieving serologic positivity, meaning having evidence of serologic as well as cellular immunity following vaccination, is a desired outcome, and likely implies more robust immunity.”
 

Does treatment timing impact COVID-19 vaccine response?

Given enough time, B-cell reconstitution will occur in patients taking rituximab. With that in mind, is it beneficial to wait a certain amount of time after a patient has stopped rituximab therapy or time since their last dose before giving them a COVID-19 vaccine? In their guidance on COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, the American College of Rheumatology said there is moderate evidence to consider “optimal timing of dosing and vaccination with the rheumatology provider before proceeding.”

“Guidelines and preliminary studies of serologic response to COVID vaccine in rituximab-treated patients have suggested that longer time from last rituximab exposure is associated with a greater likelihood of a serologic response,” Dr. Spiera said.

In a brief report published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, Dr. Spiera and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review of 56 patients with varying levels of last exposure to rituximab who received a COVID-19 vaccine. Their results showed that, when patients were vaccinated 6-12 months after the last rituximab dose, 55% were seronegative, and when this was more than 12 months, only 13% were seronegative, compared with seronegativity in 86% who were vaccinated less than 6 months after their last rituximab dose.

The RituxiVac trial, conducted by researchers in Switzerland, also examined vaccine responses of 96 rituximab-treated patients who received Comirnaty or Spikevax; results recently published in The Lancet Rheumatology showed findings similar to other studies, with reduced humoral and cell-mediated responses. In the RituxiVac trial, the median time to last anti-CD20 treatment was 1.07 years.

“The typical interval between rituximab doses [for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for remission maintenance in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis] is typically 6 months, and this has become widely used as the interval from last rituximab to time of COVID vaccination, with a recommendation to wait 4 weeks (if possible) from time of vaccination until the next rituximab administration,” Dr. Spiera explained. However, this window seems to vary depending on the study.

Recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology indicates B-cell levels could be a relevant indicator for humoral and cell-mediated response in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with rituximab, with a level of 10 B cells/mcL (0.4% of lymphocytes) identified as one potential marker for likely seroconversion following COVID-19 vaccination.

“In some smaller case series, it has been further recognized that rituximab-treated patients who were beginning to reconstitute peripheral B cells were most likely to respond serologically. Our present study confirmed those findings, demonstrating that the presence of detectable B cells was strongly associated with vaccine responsiveness, and affords complementary information to time from last [rituximab dose] in informing the likelihood of a vaccine response,” Dr. Spiera said.

However, the literature is limited in this area, and an exact cutoff for B-cell counts in these patients isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said. A better metric is time away from anti-CD20 therapies, with CD19 cell count being highly correlated with last infusion.

Dr. Spiera agreed that there is no consistent B-cell percentage that works as a cutoff. “In our study, we looked at it as a binary variable, although we did find that a higher percentage of B cells in the peripheral lymphocyte population was associated with a higher likelihood of seroconversion. We did not, however, identify a ‘threshold’ for vaccine serologic responsiveness.”

Should clinicians measure antibodies?

The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that health care providers and the public not use COVID-19 antibody tests as a way to gauge immunity after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases strongly recommends against ordering antibody tests for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases as a way to measure immunity.

“Generally, such measurements are not recommended as the clinical correlate of various antibody levels are not known,” Dr. Jyssum said. “With regular infusions of rituximab or other anti-CD20 agents, one cannot expect that these patients will develop significant levels of antibodies.”

However, she said there might be situations where it’s useful to know whether a patient has developed antibodies at all. “Assessing the significance of specific antibody levels is difficult, and the subject of scientific studies. Patients lacking a humoral vaccine response are left to rely on their T-cell responses and on infectious control measures to prevent disease.”

Dr. Spiera said he disagreed with guidelines recommending against checking antibody levels after vaccination, “particularly in patients treated with immunosuppressive medications that might be expected to blunt their serologic response to the vaccines.

“Although we cannot be sure what level of measurable antibodies offer what level of protection, most clinicians would agree that patients who demonstrate no detectable antibodies (which is a common finding in rituximab-treated patients) should be considered at higher risk,” he said. “Indeed, recommendations regarding booster vaccine administration in general was initially based on the observation of declining antibody levels with longer time from vaccination.”

Do COVID-19 vaccine boosters help patients on anti-CD20 therapy?

As of January 2022, the FDA and CDC have recommended a third primary series shot of COVID-19 vaccines for some moderately to severely immunocompromised patients as young as 5 years old (for Comirnaty vaccine) or a booster shot of either Comirnaty or Spikevax for everyone aged 12 years and older, including immunocompromised people, while the ACR goes into more detail and recommends clinicians time a patient’s booster shot with temporary treatment interruption.

In The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Jyssum and colleagues recently published results from the prospective Nor-vaC study examining the humoral and cell-mediated immune responses of 87 patients with RA being treated with rituximab who received the Comirnaty, Spikevax, or Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines; of these, 49 patients received a booster dose at a median of 70 days after completing their primary series. The results showed 19 patients (28.1%) had a serologic response after their primary series, while 8 of 49 patients (16.3%) who received their booster dose had a serologic response.

All patients who received a third dose in the study had a T-cell response, Dr. Jyssum said. “This is reassuring for patients and clinicians. T cells have been found to be important in countering COVID-19 disease, but whether we can rely on the T-cell response alone in the absence of antibodies to protect patients from infection or from serious COVID disease is still not determined,” she said.

When asked if she would recommend COVID-19 vaccine booster doses for patients on rituximab, Dr. Jyssum replied: “Absolutely.”

Another study, recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, examined heterologous and homologous booster doses for 60 patients receiving rituximab without seroconversion after their COVID-19 vaccine primary series. The results showed no significant difference in new seroconversion at 4 weeks based on whether the patient received a vector or mRNA vaccine (22% vs. 32%), but all patients who received a booster dose with a vector vaccine had specific T-cell responses, compared with 81% of patients who received an mRNA vaccine booster. There was a new humoral and/or cellular response in 9 of 11 patients (82%), and most patients with peripheral B cells (12 of 18 patients; 67%) achieved seroconversion.

“Our data show that a cellular and/or humoral immune response can be achieved on a third COVID-19 vaccination in most of the patients who initially developed neither a humoral nor a cellular immune response,” the researchers concluded. “The efficacy data together with the safety data seen in our trial provide a favorable risk/benefit ratio and support the implementation of a third vaccination for nonseroconverted high-risk autoimmune disease patients treated with B-cell–depleting agents.”

Dr. Spiera said booster doses are an important part of the equation, and “it is important to consider factors that would be associated with a greater likelihood of achieving a serologic response, particularly in those patients who did not demonstrate a serologic response to the initial vaccines series.

“Preliminary data shows that the beginnings of B-cell reconstitution is also associated with a positive serologic response following a booster of the COVID-19 vaccine,” he said.

The authors of the cited studies reported numerous relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Spiera and Dr. Jyssum reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Rituximab has presented something of a conundrum for patients taking the monoclonal antibody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Used to manage a variety of autoimmune diseases and cancers, rituximab acts against CD20 proteins expressed on the surface of B cells, causing B-cell depletion. However, it is this B-cell depletion that may put these patients at greater risk of COVID-19 development, progression to more severe disease, and in-hospital mortality. Evidence for this appears to be mixed, with studies showing both that patients using rituximab to manage various diseases are and are not at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 progression, and mortality.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

As COVID-19 vaccine rollouts take place across the world, more questions have been raised about the relationship between B-cell depletion from anti-CD20 therapies and COVID-19 vaccines. Do rituximab and other anti-CD20 therapies affect a patient’s response to COVID-19 vaccines? If this is the case, does the timing of anti-CD20 treatment matter to maximize B-cell levels and improve the vaccine’s effectiveness? And how do COVID-19 vaccine booster doses factor into the equation?

This article aims to summarize the latest research on how rituximab affects humoral and cell-mediated response following a COVID-19 vaccine primary series, and whether the addition of a COVID-19 vaccine booster dose changes patient response.
 

Humoral and cell-mediated responses following COVID-19 vaccination

First, the bad news: The vaccine is unquestionably safe to administer in patients taking rituximab, but one thing that has been well established is that antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination in these individuals does is reduced. This isn’t entirely unprecedented, as previous studies have shown a weakened immune response to pneumococcal polysaccharide and keyhole limpet hemocyanin vaccines among patients taking rituximab.

“Compromised immunogenicity to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines has been demonstrated in rituximab-treated patients, which is of particular concern given the observation that B-cell–depleting therapies may be associated with worse COVID outcomes,” Robert F. Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview.

For example, in a recent study from the Medical University of Vienna, 29 (39%) of 74 patients receiving rituximab (43% as monotherapy, 57% with conventional-synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs) who were vaccinated with either the Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) or Spikevax (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccine achieved seroconversion, compared with 100% of patients in a healthy control group, and all but 1 patient without detectable CD19+ peripheral B cells did not develop anti–SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain antibodies.

“There is an increasing number of studies in this field, and they confirm that patients treated with rituximab and other anti-CD20 agents have severely reduced serological responses to COVID-19 vaccines,” Ingrid Jyssum, MD, of the division of rheumatology and research at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo, said in an interview.

One silver lining is that patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies appear to have a cell-mediated response following vaccination even if they don’t develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. “Studies that also investigate T-cell responses are starting to emerge, and so far, they show that, even if the patients do not have antibodies, they may have T-cell responses,” Dr. Jyssum said.

One study of 24 patients with autoimmune diseases taking rituximab that evaluated humoral and T-cell responses following vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine found that none had a humoral response to the vaccine, but the T-cell response from that group did not significantly differ from 35 patients receiving other immunosuppressants and 26 patients in a healthy control group. In another study of rituximab- or ocrelizumab-treated patients who received mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, 69.4% developed SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies, compared with a control group, but 96.2% of patients taking ocrelizumab and 81.8% of patients taking rituximab mounted a spike-specific CD8+ T-cell response, compared with 66.7% in the control group, and there were comparable rates (85%-90%) of spike-specific CD4+ T cells in all groups. In the study from the Medical University of Vienna, T-cell response was detected in rituximab-treated patients who both did and did not mount an antibody response.

The clinical relevance of how a blunted humoral immune response but a respectable T-cell response to COVID-19 vaccines affects patients treated with anti-CD20 therapies isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said.

While these data are reassuring, they’re also incomplete, Dr. Spiera noted. “The ultimate outcome of relevance to assess vaccine efficacy is protection from COVID and from severe outcomes of COVID infection (i.e., hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, death). That data will require assessment of very large numbers of rituximab-treated vaccinated patients to be compared with rituximab-treated unvaccinated patients, and is unlikely to be forthcoming in the very near future.

“In the meantime, however, achieving serologic positivity, meaning having evidence of serologic as well as cellular immunity following vaccination, is a desired outcome, and likely implies more robust immunity.”
 

Does treatment timing impact COVID-19 vaccine response?

Given enough time, B-cell reconstitution will occur in patients taking rituximab. With that in mind, is it beneficial to wait a certain amount of time after a patient has stopped rituximab therapy or time since their last dose before giving them a COVID-19 vaccine? In their guidance on COVID-19 vaccines for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases, the American College of Rheumatology said there is moderate evidence to consider “optimal timing of dosing and vaccination with the rheumatology provider before proceeding.”

“Guidelines and preliminary studies of serologic response to COVID vaccine in rituximab-treated patients have suggested that longer time from last rituximab exposure is associated with a greater likelihood of a serologic response,” Dr. Spiera said.

In a brief report published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, Dr. Spiera and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review of 56 patients with varying levels of last exposure to rituximab who received a COVID-19 vaccine. Their results showed that, when patients were vaccinated 6-12 months after the last rituximab dose, 55% were seronegative, and when this was more than 12 months, only 13% were seronegative, compared with seronegativity in 86% who were vaccinated less than 6 months after their last rituximab dose.

The RituxiVac trial, conducted by researchers in Switzerland, also examined vaccine responses of 96 rituximab-treated patients who received Comirnaty or Spikevax; results recently published in The Lancet Rheumatology showed findings similar to other studies, with reduced humoral and cell-mediated responses. In the RituxiVac trial, the median time to last anti-CD20 treatment was 1.07 years.

“The typical interval between rituximab doses [for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for remission maintenance in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated vasculitis] is typically 6 months, and this has become widely used as the interval from last rituximab to time of COVID vaccination, with a recommendation to wait 4 weeks (if possible) from time of vaccination until the next rituximab administration,” Dr. Spiera explained. However, this window seems to vary depending on the study.

Recent research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology indicates B-cell levels could be a relevant indicator for humoral and cell-mediated response in patients with rheumatic diseases treated with rituximab, with a level of 10 B cells/mcL (0.4% of lymphocytes) identified as one potential marker for likely seroconversion following COVID-19 vaccination.

“In some smaller case series, it has been further recognized that rituximab-treated patients who were beginning to reconstitute peripheral B cells were most likely to respond serologically. Our present study confirmed those findings, demonstrating that the presence of detectable B cells was strongly associated with vaccine responsiveness, and affords complementary information to time from last [rituximab dose] in informing the likelihood of a vaccine response,” Dr. Spiera said.

However, the literature is limited in this area, and an exact cutoff for B-cell counts in these patients isn’t currently known, Dr. Jyssum said. A better metric is time away from anti-CD20 therapies, with CD19 cell count being highly correlated with last infusion.

Dr. Spiera agreed that there is no consistent B-cell percentage that works as a cutoff. “In our study, we looked at it as a binary variable, although we did find that a higher percentage of B cells in the peripheral lymphocyte population was associated with a higher likelihood of seroconversion. We did not, however, identify a ‘threshold’ for vaccine serologic responsiveness.”

Should clinicians measure antibodies?

The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recommended that health care providers and the public not use COVID-19 antibody tests as a way to gauge immunity after exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. The ACR’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases strongly recommends against ordering antibody tests for patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases as a way to measure immunity.

“Generally, such measurements are not recommended as the clinical correlate of various antibody levels are not known,” Dr. Jyssum said. “With regular infusions of rituximab or other anti-CD20 agents, one cannot expect that these patients will develop significant levels of antibodies.”

However, she said there might be situations where it’s useful to know whether a patient has developed antibodies at all. “Assessing the significance of specific antibody levels is difficult, and the subject of scientific studies. Patients lacking a humoral vaccine response are left to rely on their T-cell responses and on infectious control measures to prevent disease.”

Dr. Spiera said he disagreed with guidelines recommending against checking antibody levels after vaccination, “particularly in patients treated with immunosuppressive medications that might be expected to blunt their serologic response to the vaccines.

“Although we cannot be sure what level of measurable antibodies offer what level of protection, most clinicians would agree that patients who demonstrate no detectable antibodies (which is a common finding in rituximab-treated patients) should be considered at higher risk,” he said. “Indeed, recommendations regarding booster vaccine administration in general was initially based on the observation of declining antibody levels with longer time from vaccination.”

Do COVID-19 vaccine boosters help patients on anti-CD20 therapy?

As of January 2022, the FDA and CDC have recommended a third primary series shot of COVID-19 vaccines for some moderately to severely immunocompromised patients as young as 5 years old (for Comirnaty vaccine) or a booster shot of either Comirnaty or Spikevax for everyone aged 12 years and older, including immunocompromised people, while the ACR goes into more detail and recommends clinicians time a patient’s booster shot with temporary treatment interruption.

In The Lancet Rheumatology, Dr. Jyssum and colleagues recently published results from the prospective Nor-vaC study examining the humoral and cell-mediated immune responses of 87 patients with RA being treated with rituximab who received the Comirnaty, Spikevax, or Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines; of these, 49 patients received a booster dose at a median of 70 days after completing their primary series. The results showed 19 patients (28.1%) had a serologic response after their primary series, while 8 of 49 patients (16.3%) who received their booster dose had a serologic response.

All patients who received a third dose in the study had a T-cell response, Dr. Jyssum said. “This is reassuring for patients and clinicians. T cells have been found to be important in countering COVID-19 disease, but whether we can rely on the T-cell response alone in the absence of antibodies to protect patients from infection or from serious COVID disease is still not determined,” she said.

When asked if she would recommend COVID-19 vaccine booster doses for patients on rituximab, Dr. Jyssum replied: “Absolutely.”

Another study, recently published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, examined heterologous and homologous booster doses for 60 patients receiving rituximab without seroconversion after their COVID-19 vaccine primary series. The results showed no significant difference in new seroconversion at 4 weeks based on whether the patient received a vector or mRNA vaccine (22% vs. 32%), but all patients who received a booster dose with a vector vaccine had specific T-cell responses, compared with 81% of patients who received an mRNA vaccine booster. There was a new humoral and/or cellular response in 9 of 11 patients (82%), and most patients with peripheral B cells (12 of 18 patients; 67%) achieved seroconversion.

“Our data show that a cellular and/or humoral immune response can be achieved on a third COVID-19 vaccination in most of the patients who initially developed neither a humoral nor a cellular immune response,” the researchers concluded. “The efficacy data together with the safety data seen in our trial provide a favorable risk/benefit ratio and support the implementation of a third vaccination for nonseroconverted high-risk autoimmune disease patients treated with B-cell–depleting agents.”

Dr. Spiera said booster doses are an important part of the equation, and “it is important to consider factors that would be associated with a greater likelihood of achieving a serologic response, particularly in those patients who did not demonstrate a serologic response to the initial vaccines series.

“Preliminary data shows that the beginnings of B-cell reconstitution is also associated with a positive serologic response following a booster of the COVID-19 vaccine,” he said.

The authors of the cited studies reported numerous relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Spiera and Dr. Jyssum reported no relevant financial disclosures.

People with bipolar disorder as well as their unaffected siblings appear to be at increased risk for cancer, particularly of the breast, according to new research from Taiwan.

“To our knowledge, our study is the first to report an increased overall cancer risk as well as increased risks of breast and ectodermal cancer among the unaffected siblings aged < 50 years of patients with bipolar disorder,” Ya-Mei Bai, MD, PhD, of National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, and colleagues write in an article published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Most, but not all, previous studies have shown a link between bipolar disorder and cancer. Whether the elevated risk of malignancy extends to family members without the mental health condition has not been elucidated.

To investigate, the researchers turned to the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. They identified 25,356 individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder by a psychiatrist between 1996 and 2010 and the same number of unaffected siblings, as well as more than 100,000 age-, sex-, income-, and residence-matched controls without severe mental illness.

Compared with the control group, people with bipolar disorder (odds ratio, 1.22) and their unaffected siblings (OR, 1.17) both had a higher risk of developing malignant cancer of any kind. The researchers also found that both groups were at higher risk for breast cancer, with odds ratios of 1.98 in individuals with bipolar disorder and 1.73 in their unaffected siblings.

However, the risk of skin cancer was only high in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 2.70) and not in their siblings (OR, 0.62). And conversely, the risk of kidney cancer was significantly increased in unaffected siblings (OR, 2.45) but not in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 0.47).

When stratified by the embryonic developmental layer from which tumors had originated – ectodermal, mesodermal, or endodermal – the authors observed a significantly increased risk for only ectodermal cancers. In addition, only people under age 50 in both groups (OR, 1.90 for those with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.65 for siblings) were more likely to develop an ectodermal cancer, especially of the breast, compared with the control group. The risks remained elevated after excluding breast cancer but were no longer significant.

When stratified by age, the risk of developing any cancer in both groups also only appeared to be greater for those under age 50 (OR, 1.34 in people with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.32 in siblings) compared with those aged 50 and over (OR, 0.97 and 0.99, respectively). The authors highlighted these figures in the supplemental data set but did not discuss it further in the study beyond a brief mention that “younger patients with bipolar disorder and younger unaffected siblings (< 50 years), but not older ones (≥ 50 years), were more likely to develop any malignancy during the follow-up than matched controls.”

“This paper essentially finds what we have found in our previous work – that people with bipolar disorder have a greater risk of cancer,” said Michael Berk, MBBCh, PhD, a professor of psychiatry at the Deakin University School of Medicine in Geelong, Australia, who published a systematic review and meta-analysis last spring on cancer risk and the role of lithium treatment in bipolar disorder.

“The interesting finding in our work,” Dr. Berk told this news organization, “is that this risk is attenuated by use of lithium but not other agents.”

The Taiwanese researchers propose a “biopsychosocial explanation” for their results, noting that both the nervous system and the breast and skin develop from the ectoderm, and that cancer risk factors such as smoking and obesity are more common in people with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings.

“The findings,” they write, “imply a genetic overlap in neurodevelopment and malignancy pathogenesis and may encourage clinicians to closely monitor patients with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings for cancer warning signs.”

The authors, however, caution that their study needs validation and had several limitations, including lack of adjustment for drug treatment and lifestyle and environmental factors.

“Our findings may persuade clinicians and researchers to reevaluate the cancer risk among the unaffected siblings of patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder because these two severe mental disorders may have a common biopsychosocial pathophysiology,” the team writes.

The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Yen Tjing Ling Medical Foundation, and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan.

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

People with bipolar disorder as well as their unaffected siblings appear to be at increased risk for cancer, particularly of the breast, according to new research from Taiwan.

“To our knowledge, our study is the first to report an increased overall cancer risk as well as increased risks of breast and ectodermal cancer among the unaffected siblings aged < 50 years of patients with bipolar disorder,” Ya-Mei Bai, MD, PhD, of National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, and colleagues write in an article published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Most, but not all, previous studies have shown a link between bipolar disorder and cancer. Whether the elevated risk of malignancy extends to family members without the mental health condition has not been elucidated.

To investigate, the researchers turned to the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. They identified 25,356 individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder by a psychiatrist between 1996 and 2010 and the same number of unaffected siblings, as well as more than 100,000 age-, sex-, income-, and residence-matched controls without severe mental illness.

Compared with the control group, people with bipolar disorder (odds ratio, 1.22) and their unaffected siblings (OR, 1.17) both had a higher risk of developing malignant cancer of any kind. The researchers also found that both groups were at higher risk for breast cancer, with odds ratios of 1.98 in individuals with bipolar disorder and 1.73 in their unaffected siblings.

However, the risk of skin cancer was only high in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 2.70) and not in their siblings (OR, 0.62). And conversely, the risk of kidney cancer was significantly increased in unaffected siblings (OR, 2.45) but not in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 0.47).

When stratified by the embryonic developmental layer from which tumors had originated – ectodermal, mesodermal, or endodermal – the authors observed a significantly increased risk for only ectodermal cancers. In addition, only people under age 50 in both groups (OR, 1.90 for those with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.65 for siblings) were more likely to develop an ectodermal cancer, especially of the breast, compared with the control group. The risks remained elevated after excluding breast cancer but were no longer significant.

When stratified by age, the risk of developing any cancer in both groups also only appeared to be greater for those under age 50 (OR, 1.34 in people with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.32 in siblings) compared with those aged 50 and over (OR, 0.97 and 0.99, respectively). The authors highlighted these figures in the supplemental data set but did not discuss it further in the study beyond a brief mention that “younger patients with bipolar disorder and younger unaffected siblings (< 50 years), but not older ones (≥ 50 years), were more likely to develop any malignancy during the follow-up than matched controls.”

“This paper essentially finds what we have found in our previous work – that people with bipolar disorder have a greater risk of cancer,” said Michael Berk, MBBCh, PhD, a professor of psychiatry at the Deakin University School of Medicine in Geelong, Australia, who published a systematic review and meta-analysis last spring on cancer risk and the role of lithium treatment in bipolar disorder.

“The interesting finding in our work,” Dr. Berk told this news organization, “is that this risk is attenuated by use of lithium but not other agents.”

The Taiwanese researchers propose a “biopsychosocial explanation” for their results, noting that both the nervous system and the breast and skin develop from the ectoderm, and that cancer risk factors such as smoking and obesity are more common in people with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings.

“The findings,” they write, “imply a genetic overlap in neurodevelopment and malignancy pathogenesis and may encourage clinicians to closely monitor patients with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings for cancer warning signs.”

The authors, however, caution that their study needs validation and had several limitations, including lack of adjustment for drug treatment and lifestyle and environmental factors.

“Our findings may persuade clinicians and researchers to reevaluate the cancer risk among the unaffected siblings of patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder because these two severe mental disorders may have a common biopsychosocial pathophysiology,” the team writes.

The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Yen Tjing Ling Medical Foundation, and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan.

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

People with bipolar disorder as well as their unaffected siblings appear to be at increased risk for cancer, particularly of the breast, according to new research from Taiwan.

“To our knowledge, our study is the first to report an increased overall cancer risk as well as increased risks of breast and ectodermal cancer among the unaffected siblings aged < 50 years of patients with bipolar disorder,” Ya-Mei Bai, MD, PhD, of National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, and colleagues write in an article published online in the International Journal of Cancer.

Most, but not all, previous studies have shown a link between bipolar disorder and cancer. Whether the elevated risk of malignancy extends to family members without the mental health condition has not been elucidated.

To investigate, the researchers turned to the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. They identified 25,356 individuals diagnosed with bipolar disorder by a psychiatrist between 1996 and 2010 and the same number of unaffected siblings, as well as more than 100,000 age-, sex-, income-, and residence-matched controls without severe mental illness.

Compared with the control group, people with bipolar disorder (odds ratio, 1.22) and their unaffected siblings (OR, 1.17) both had a higher risk of developing malignant cancer of any kind. The researchers also found that both groups were at higher risk for breast cancer, with odds ratios of 1.98 in individuals with bipolar disorder and 1.73 in their unaffected siblings.

However, the risk of skin cancer was only high in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 2.70) and not in their siblings (OR, 0.62). And conversely, the risk of kidney cancer was significantly increased in unaffected siblings (OR, 2.45) but not in people with bipolar disorder (OR, 0.47).

When stratified by the embryonic developmental layer from which tumors had originated – ectodermal, mesodermal, or endodermal – the authors observed a significantly increased risk for only ectodermal cancers. In addition, only people under age 50 in both groups (OR, 1.90 for those with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.65 for siblings) were more likely to develop an ectodermal cancer, especially of the breast, compared with the control group. The risks remained elevated after excluding breast cancer but were no longer significant.

When stratified by age, the risk of developing any cancer in both groups also only appeared to be greater for those under age 50 (OR, 1.34 in people with bipolar disorder; OR, 1.32 in siblings) compared with those aged 50 and over (OR, 0.97 and 0.99, respectively). The authors highlighted these figures in the supplemental data set but did not discuss it further in the study beyond a brief mention that “younger patients with bipolar disorder and younger unaffected siblings (< 50 years), but not older ones (≥ 50 years), were more likely to develop any malignancy during the follow-up than matched controls.”

“This paper essentially finds what we have found in our previous work – that people with bipolar disorder have a greater risk of cancer,” said Michael Berk, MBBCh, PhD, a professor of psychiatry at the Deakin University School of Medicine in Geelong, Australia, who published a systematic review and meta-analysis last spring on cancer risk and the role of lithium treatment in bipolar disorder.

“The interesting finding in our work,” Dr. Berk told this news organization, “is that this risk is attenuated by use of lithium but not other agents.”

The Taiwanese researchers propose a “biopsychosocial explanation” for their results, noting that both the nervous system and the breast and skin develop from the ectoderm, and that cancer risk factors such as smoking and obesity are more common in people with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings.

“The findings,” they write, “imply a genetic overlap in neurodevelopment and malignancy pathogenesis and may encourage clinicians to closely monitor patients with bipolar disorder and their unaffected siblings for cancer warning signs.”

The authors, however, caution that their study needs validation and had several limitations, including lack of adjustment for drug treatment and lifestyle and environmental factors.

“Our findings may persuade clinicians and researchers to reevaluate the cancer risk among the unaffected siblings of patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder because these two severe mental disorders may have a common biopsychosocial pathophysiology,” the team writes.

The study was supported by a grant from Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Yen Tjing Ling Medical Foundation, and the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan.

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

Scientists at Newcastle University (England) have identified the mechanism for skin cancer growth.

Their research, published in the British Journal of Dermatology, describes how early-stage melanomas at risk of spreading secrete transforming growth factor beta₂ (TGF-beta₂), which causes the reduction, or down-regulation, of the proteins AMBRA1 and loricrin, both of which are found in the skin overlaying the tumor. TGF-beta₂ also causes the loss of claudin-1, which in turn leads to loss of skin integrity, facilitating ulceration.

Senior author Penny Lovat, PhD, professor of cellular dermatology and oncology at Newcastle University, and chief scientific officer at AMLo Biosciences, explained: “AMBRA1, loricrin, and claudin-1 are all proteins key to maintaining the integrity of the upper layer of the skin,” and that the loss of these proteins causes gaps to develop, allowing the tumor to spread and ulcerate – a process associated with high-risk tumors. Dr. Lovat likened the process to that of “mortar and bricks holding together a wall”, with the loss of these proteins being “like the mortar crumbling away in the wall.”

According to Cancer Research UK, there are over 16,000 new cases of melanoma skin cancer each year in the United Kingdom, with over 2,000 deaths annually. After being surgically removed, primary tumors are histologically staged, with even low-risk cases being followed up for a number of years, a process that can be time-consuming for patients and costly for the NHS.
 

Some reassurance for those with melanoma

The creators of the new test say that it is these low-risk patients that the test is able to identify, offering a degree of reassurance to those diagnosed with the disease, and potentially reducing the number of hospital clinic visits they require.

Dr. Lovat commented: “Our test offers a personalized prognosis as it more accurately predicts if your skin cancer is unlikely to spread.”

She added that the test will aid clinicians to identify genuinely low-risk patients diagnosed with an early-stage melanoma, reducing the number of follow-up appointments for those identified as low risk. It, therefore, offers the opportunity to save the NHS time and money.
 

Excellent news for those with skin cancer

Phil Brady, chief operating officer of the British Skin Foundation, echoed Dr. Lovat’s comments, saying: “The test can alleviate stress and anxiety for patients caused by this potentially deadly skin cancer, whilst increasing efficiency and reducing costs to the NHS.”

Nick Levell, MD, consultant dermatologist & British Skin Foundation spokesperson, who has not been involved in the research, commented how the arrival of the test was “excellent news,” adding that “people at low risk can be reassured and will not have to attend hospital so often for check-ups”.

The development of the new test AMBLor has been led by Dr. Lovat, in association with the university spin-out company AMLo Biosciences, and is accredited by the National Accreditation Body for the United Kingdom. The test involves tissue sections from the standard biopsy being sent in the post to the lab for analysis and costs £293 plus VAT. Currently available through a private referral service, the Newcastle team have applied for the test to be made available on the NHS.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Scientists at Newcastle University (England) have identified the mechanism for skin cancer growth.

Their research, published in the British Journal of Dermatology, describes how early-stage melanomas at risk of spreading secrete transforming growth factor beta₂ (TGF-beta₂), which causes the reduction, or down-regulation, of the proteins AMBRA1 and loricrin, both of which are found in the skin overlaying the tumor. TGF-beta₂ also causes the loss of claudin-1, which in turn leads to loss of skin integrity, facilitating ulceration.

Senior author Penny Lovat, PhD, professor of cellular dermatology and oncology at Newcastle University, and chief scientific officer at AMLo Biosciences, explained: “AMBRA1, loricrin, and claudin-1 are all proteins key to maintaining the integrity of the upper layer of the skin,” and that the loss of these proteins causes gaps to develop, allowing the tumor to spread and ulcerate – a process associated with high-risk tumors. Dr. Lovat likened the process to that of “mortar and bricks holding together a wall”, with the loss of these proteins being “like the mortar crumbling away in the wall.”

According to Cancer Research UK, there are over 16,000 new cases of melanoma skin cancer each year in the United Kingdom, with over 2,000 deaths annually. After being surgically removed, primary tumors are histologically staged, with even low-risk cases being followed up for a number of years, a process that can be time-consuming for patients and costly for the NHS.
 

Some reassurance for those with melanoma

The creators of the new test say that it is these low-risk patients that the test is able to identify, offering a degree of reassurance to those diagnosed with the disease, and potentially reducing the number of hospital clinic visits they require.

Dr. Lovat commented: “Our test offers a personalized prognosis as it more accurately predicts if your skin cancer is unlikely to spread.”

She added that the test will aid clinicians to identify genuinely low-risk patients diagnosed with an early-stage melanoma, reducing the number of follow-up appointments for those identified as low risk. It, therefore, offers the opportunity to save the NHS time and money.
 

Excellent news for those with skin cancer

Phil Brady, chief operating officer of the British Skin Foundation, echoed Dr. Lovat’s comments, saying: “The test can alleviate stress and anxiety for patients caused by this potentially deadly skin cancer, whilst increasing efficiency and reducing costs to the NHS.”

Nick Levell, MD, consultant dermatologist & British Skin Foundation spokesperson, who has not been involved in the research, commented how the arrival of the test was “excellent news,” adding that “people at low risk can be reassured and will not have to attend hospital so often for check-ups”.

The development of the new test AMBLor has been led by Dr. Lovat, in association with the university spin-out company AMLo Biosciences, and is accredited by the National Accreditation Body for the United Kingdom. The test involves tissue sections from the standard biopsy being sent in the post to the lab for analysis and costs £293 plus VAT. Currently available through a private referral service, the Newcastle team have applied for the test to be made available on the NHS.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Scientists at Newcastle University (England) have identified the mechanism for skin cancer growth.

Their research, published in the British Journal of Dermatology, describes how early-stage melanomas at risk of spreading secrete transforming growth factor beta₂ (TGF-beta₂), which causes the reduction, or down-regulation, of the proteins AMBRA1 and loricrin, both of which are found in the skin overlaying the tumor. TGF-beta₂ also causes the loss of claudin-1, which in turn leads to loss of skin integrity, facilitating ulceration.

Senior author Penny Lovat, PhD, professor of cellular dermatology and oncology at Newcastle University, and chief scientific officer at AMLo Biosciences, explained: “AMBRA1, loricrin, and claudin-1 are all proteins key to maintaining the integrity of the upper layer of the skin,” and that the loss of these proteins causes gaps to develop, allowing the tumor to spread and ulcerate – a process associated with high-risk tumors. Dr. Lovat likened the process to that of “mortar and bricks holding together a wall”, with the loss of these proteins being “like the mortar crumbling away in the wall.”

According to Cancer Research UK, there are over 16,000 new cases of melanoma skin cancer each year in the United Kingdom, with over 2,000 deaths annually. After being surgically removed, primary tumors are histologically staged, with even low-risk cases being followed up for a number of years, a process that can be time-consuming for patients and costly for the NHS.
 

Some reassurance for those with melanoma

The creators of the new test say that it is these low-risk patients that the test is able to identify, offering a degree of reassurance to those diagnosed with the disease, and potentially reducing the number of hospital clinic visits they require.

Dr. Lovat commented: “Our test offers a personalized prognosis as it more accurately predicts if your skin cancer is unlikely to spread.”

She added that the test will aid clinicians to identify genuinely low-risk patients diagnosed with an early-stage melanoma, reducing the number of follow-up appointments for those identified as low risk. It, therefore, offers the opportunity to save the NHS time and money.
 

Excellent news for those with skin cancer

Phil Brady, chief operating officer of the British Skin Foundation, echoed Dr. Lovat’s comments, saying: “The test can alleviate stress and anxiety for patients caused by this potentially deadly skin cancer, whilst increasing efficiency and reducing costs to the NHS.”

Nick Levell, MD, consultant dermatologist & British Skin Foundation spokesperson, who has not been involved in the research, commented how the arrival of the test was “excellent news,” adding that “people at low risk can be reassured and will not have to attend hospital so often for check-ups”.

The development of the new test AMBLor has been led by Dr. Lovat, in association with the university spin-out company AMLo Biosciences, and is accredited by the National Accreditation Body for the United Kingdom. The test involves tissue sections from the standard biopsy being sent in the post to the lab for analysis and costs £293 plus VAT. Currently available through a private referral service, the Newcastle team have applied for the test to be made available on the NHS.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Fed up with personal attacks on the nation’s top infectious disease expert, scores of leading scientists and physicians have signed an open letter defending Anthony Fauci, MD, for his years of service to the public and his leadership on the pandemic.

“We deplore the personal attacks on Dr. Fauci. The criticism is inaccurate, unscientific, ill-founded in the facts and, increasingly, motivated by partisan politics,” reads the letter of support, initiated by Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, and signed by almost 300 scientists and public health and medical professionals, including Nobel Laureates, a former Republican senator, and leadership of medical societies and institutions.

Dr. Fauci has led the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and serves as President Biden’s top medical advisor on the pandemic.

“Dr. Anthony Fauci has served the U.S.A. with wisdom and integrity for nearly 40 years. Through HIV, Ebola, and now COVID, he has unswervingly served the United States guiding the country to very successful outcomes. He has our unreserved respect and trust as a scientist and a national leader,” the letter reads.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly faced harsh criticism from congressional Republicans, especially Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

At a particularly contentious congressional hearing earlier this week on the federal government’s response to Omicron, Dr. Fauci fought back, telling Sen. Marshall, “You’re so misinformed, it’s extraordinary.”

Dr. Fauci, who has received death threats and harassment of his family, told Sen. Rand that his “completely untrue” statements and rhetoric “kindles the crazies out there.”
 

‘Sagacious counsel’

The personal attacks on Dr. Fauci are a “distraction from what should be the national focus – working together to finally overcome a pandemic that is killing about 500,000 people a year. We are grateful for Dr. Fauci’s dedication and tireless efforts to help the country through this pandemic and other health crises,” the letter reads.

“Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci has provided the American political leadership and the public with sagacious counsel in these most difficult of times. His advice has been as well informed as data and the rapidly evolving circumstances allowed,” it states.

“Importantly,” Dr. Fauci has given his advice with “humility, being clear about what we know and what is unknown, but requires judgment. He has consistently emphasized the importance of mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination. These are standard and necessary public health measures that we all support,” the letter states.

“We are grateful that Dr. Fauci has consistently stated the science in a way that represents the facts as they emerge, without unwarranted speculation.”

“Sadly, in these politically polarized times where misinformation contaminates the United States’ response to the pandemic, routine public health measures have become unnecessarily controversial, undermining the effectiveness of our country’s response,” the letter reads.

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

Fed up with personal attacks on the nation’s top infectious disease expert, scores of leading scientists and physicians have signed an open letter defending Anthony Fauci, MD, for his years of service to the public and his leadership on the pandemic.

“We deplore the personal attacks on Dr. Fauci. The criticism is inaccurate, unscientific, ill-founded in the facts and, increasingly, motivated by partisan politics,” reads the letter of support, initiated by Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, and signed by almost 300 scientists and public health and medical professionals, including Nobel Laureates, a former Republican senator, and leadership of medical societies and institutions.

Dr. Fauci has led the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and serves as President Biden’s top medical advisor on the pandemic.

“Dr. Anthony Fauci has served the U.S.A. with wisdom and integrity for nearly 40 years. Through HIV, Ebola, and now COVID, he has unswervingly served the United States guiding the country to very successful outcomes. He has our unreserved respect and trust as a scientist and a national leader,” the letter reads.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly faced harsh criticism from congressional Republicans, especially Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

At a particularly contentious congressional hearing earlier this week on the federal government’s response to Omicron, Dr. Fauci fought back, telling Sen. Marshall, “You’re so misinformed, it’s extraordinary.”

Dr. Fauci, who has received death threats and harassment of his family, told Sen. Rand that his “completely untrue” statements and rhetoric “kindles the crazies out there.”
 

‘Sagacious counsel’

The personal attacks on Dr. Fauci are a “distraction from what should be the national focus – working together to finally overcome a pandemic that is killing about 500,000 people a year. We are grateful for Dr. Fauci’s dedication and tireless efforts to help the country through this pandemic and other health crises,” the letter reads.

“Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci has provided the American political leadership and the public with sagacious counsel in these most difficult of times. His advice has been as well informed as data and the rapidly evolving circumstances allowed,” it states.

“Importantly,” Dr. Fauci has given his advice with “humility, being clear about what we know and what is unknown, but requires judgment. He has consistently emphasized the importance of mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination. These are standard and necessary public health measures that we all support,” the letter states.

“We are grateful that Dr. Fauci has consistently stated the science in a way that represents the facts as they emerge, without unwarranted speculation.”

“Sadly, in these politically polarized times where misinformation contaminates the United States’ response to the pandemic, routine public health measures have become unnecessarily controversial, undermining the effectiveness of our country’s response,” the letter reads.

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

Fed up with personal attacks on the nation’s top infectious disease expert, scores of leading scientists and physicians have signed an open letter defending Anthony Fauci, MD, for his years of service to the public and his leadership on the pandemic.

“We deplore the personal attacks on Dr. Fauci. The criticism is inaccurate, unscientific, ill-founded in the facts and, increasingly, motivated by partisan politics,” reads the letter of support, initiated by Ezekiel Emanuel, MD, and signed by almost 300 scientists and public health and medical professionals, including Nobel Laureates, a former Republican senator, and leadership of medical societies and institutions.

Dr. Fauci has led the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984 and serves as President Biden’s top medical advisor on the pandemic.

“Dr. Anthony Fauci has served the U.S.A. with wisdom and integrity for nearly 40 years. Through HIV, Ebola, and now COVID, he has unswervingly served the United States guiding the country to very successful outcomes. He has our unreserved respect and trust as a scientist and a national leader,” the letter reads.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly faced harsh criticism from congressional Republicans, especially Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

At a particularly contentious congressional hearing earlier this week on the federal government’s response to Omicron, Dr. Fauci fought back, telling Sen. Marshall, “You’re so misinformed, it’s extraordinary.”

Dr. Fauci, who has received death threats and harassment of his family, told Sen. Rand that his “completely untrue” statements and rhetoric “kindles the crazies out there.”
 

‘Sagacious counsel’

The personal attacks on Dr. Fauci are a “distraction from what should be the national focus – working together to finally overcome a pandemic that is killing about 500,000 people a year. We are grateful for Dr. Fauci’s dedication and tireless efforts to help the country through this pandemic and other health crises,” the letter reads.

“Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci has provided the American political leadership and the public with sagacious counsel in these most difficult of times. His advice has been as well informed as data and the rapidly evolving circumstances allowed,” it states.

“Importantly,” Dr. Fauci has given his advice with “humility, being clear about what we know and what is unknown, but requires judgment. He has consistently emphasized the importance of mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination. These are standard and necessary public health measures that we all support,” the letter states.

“We are grateful that Dr. Fauci has consistently stated the science in a way that represents the facts as they emerge, without unwarranted speculation.”

“Sadly, in these politically polarized times where misinformation contaminates the United States’ response to the pandemic, routine public health measures have become unnecessarily controversial, undermining the effectiveness of our country’s response,” the letter reads.

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

The number of women screened for cervical cancer in the United States declined between 2005 and 2019 with lack of knowledge about the need for screening being cited as the most common reason for not receiving up-to-date screening. These are the results of a population-based, cross-sectional study conducted by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and were published online in JAMA Network Open.

“The fact that this reason increased over time across most sociodemographic groups suggests a need for interventions targeting screening awareness for all women,” lead author Ryan Suk, PhD, MS, from the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, and colleagues wrote.

Between 2005 and 2019, the researchers evaluated data from 20,557 women (weighted, 113.1 million women) included in the U.S. National Health Interview Survey. The cohort included women aged 21-65 years without previous hysterectomy and included data on sociodemographic factors such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, health insurance type, and rurality of residence.

Dr. Suk and colleagues found that the proportion of women without current screening increased from 2005 to 2019 (from 14.4% to 23.0%; P < .001) and that a higher proportion of those women were in the 21- to 29-year age group (weighted, 29.1%), compared with women in the 30- to 65-year age group (weighted, 21.1%; P < .001). Regardless of age, not knowing that screening was indicated was the most common reason cited for not having up-to-date screening.
 

Sociodemographic factors influence on rates and reasons for overdue screening

Based on weighted population estimates, 6.1% of women included were Asian, 17.2% were Hispanic, 13.1% were non-Hispanic Black, 61% were non-Hispanic White, and 2.7% were other races and/or ethnicities.

Dr. Suk and colleagues found that Asian women had the highest rates of overdue screening, compared with non-Hispanic White women, who had the lowest rates (weighted, 31.4% vs. 20.1%, respectively). The authors also found that reasons for overdue screening varied by sociodemographic factors. For example, while both Asian and Hispanic women cited lack of knowledge as a barrier to routine screening, Asian women were more likely to also report lack of recommendation from a health care professional as a barrier while Hispanic women were more likely to also report lack of access as a barrier to timely screening.

Over the 14-year study period, higher rates of overdue screening were also noted among those identifying as LGBTQ+ versus heterosexual (32.0% vs. 22.2%; P < .001), those with no insurance versus private insurance (41.7% vs. 18.1%; P < .001), and those living in rural versus urban areas (26.2% vs. 22.6%; P = .04).

For the study, guideline-concordant, up-to-date screening in 2005 was defined as screening every 3 years for women aged 21-65 years based on USPSTF guidelines and clinical recommendations. For 2019, up-to-date screening was defined as screening every 3 years with a Papanicolaou (Pap smear) test alone for women aged 21-29 years and screening every 3 years with a Pap smear alone or every 5 years with high-risk human papillomavirus testing or cotesting for women aged 30-65 years.

Dr. Suk and colleagues suggested that guideline updates over the study period could have led to uncertainty regarding appropriate timing and recommended screening intervals, which in turn, may have played a role in decreased cancer screening recommendations.

“Studies have suggested that changing guidelines may produce an increase in both overscreening and underscreening but those already at higher risk of cervical cancer may be most susceptible to underscreening,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Ruchi Garg, MD, from Mid Atlantic Gynecologic Oncology and Pelvic Surgery Associates, Fairfax, Va., commented: “I think it has been hard to keep up with the guidelines changing so frequently. Furthermore it’s not clearly delineated (or at least there seems to be confusion or extrapolation) that the guidelines are just for Pap smear and that it doesn’t translate into a well woman checkup/pelvic exam; [however], if physicians continue to tell the patients to come in every year, then there won’t be so much underscreening since the physicians/providers will be able to keep track of when the Pap smears need to get done.”

Similar to the study authors, Dr. Garg also suggested that community lectures and public health announcements, particularly when guidelines are updated, will be helpful in enhancing patient education and reducing the rate of this preventable cancer.

The study authors and commentator disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The number of women screened for cervical cancer in the United States declined between 2005 and 2019 with lack of knowledge about the need for screening being cited as the most common reason for not receiving up-to-date screening. These are the results of a population-based, cross-sectional study conducted by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and were published online in JAMA Network Open.

“The fact that this reason increased over time across most sociodemographic groups suggests a need for interventions targeting screening awareness for all women,” lead author Ryan Suk, PhD, MS, from the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, and colleagues wrote.

Between 2005 and 2019, the researchers evaluated data from 20,557 women (weighted, 113.1 million women) included in the U.S. National Health Interview Survey. The cohort included women aged 21-65 years without previous hysterectomy and included data on sociodemographic factors such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, health insurance type, and rurality of residence.

Dr. Suk and colleagues found that the proportion of women without current screening increased from 2005 to 2019 (from 14.4% to 23.0%; P < .001) and that a higher proportion of those women were in the 21- to 29-year age group (weighted, 29.1%), compared with women in the 30- to 65-year age group (weighted, 21.1%; P < .001). Regardless of age, not knowing that screening was indicated was the most common reason cited for not having up-to-date screening.
 

Sociodemographic factors influence on rates and reasons for overdue screening

Based on weighted population estimates, 6.1% of women included were Asian, 17.2% were Hispanic, 13.1% were non-Hispanic Black, 61% were non-Hispanic White, and 2.7% were other races and/or ethnicities.

Dr. Suk and colleagues found that Asian women had the highest rates of overdue screening, compared with non-Hispanic White women, who had the lowest rates (weighted, 31.4% vs. 20.1%, respectively). The authors also found that reasons for overdue screening varied by sociodemographic factors. For example, while both Asian and Hispanic women cited lack of knowledge as a barrier to routine screening, Asian women were more likely to also report lack of recommendation from a health care professional as a barrier while Hispanic women were more likely to also report lack of access as a barrier to timely screening.

Over the 14-year study period, higher rates of overdue screening were also noted among those identifying as LGBTQ+ versus heterosexual (32.0% vs. 22.2%; P < .001), those with no insurance versus private insurance (41.7% vs. 18.1%; P < .001), and those living in rural versus urban areas (26.2% vs. 22.6%; P = .04).

For the study, guideline-concordant, up-to-date screening in 2005 was defined as screening every 3 years for women aged 21-65 years based on USPSTF guidelines and clinical recommendations. For 2019, up-to-date screening was defined as screening every 3 years with a Papanicolaou (Pap smear) test alone for women aged 21-29 years and screening every 3 years with a Pap smear alone or every 5 years with high-risk human papillomavirus testing or cotesting for women aged 30-65 years.

Dr. Suk and colleagues suggested that guideline updates over the study period could have led to uncertainty regarding appropriate timing and recommended screening intervals, which in turn, may have played a role in decreased cancer screening recommendations.

“Studies have suggested that changing guidelines may produce an increase in both overscreening and underscreening but those already at higher risk of cervical cancer may be most susceptible to underscreening,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Ruchi Garg, MD, from Mid Atlantic Gynecologic Oncology and Pelvic Surgery Associates, Fairfax, Va., commented: “I think it has been hard to keep up with the guidelines changing so frequently. Furthermore it’s not clearly delineated (or at least there seems to be confusion or extrapolation) that the guidelines are just for Pap smear and that it doesn’t translate into a well woman checkup/pelvic exam; [however], if physicians continue to tell the patients to come in every year, then there won’t be so much underscreening since the physicians/providers will be able to keep track of when the Pap smears need to get done.”

Similar to the study authors, Dr. Garg also suggested that community lectures and public health announcements, particularly when guidelines are updated, will be helpful in enhancing patient education and reducing the rate of this preventable cancer.

The study authors and commentator disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The number of women screened for cervical cancer in the United States declined between 2005 and 2019 with lack of knowledge about the need for screening being cited as the most common reason for not receiving up-to-date screening. These are the results of a population-based, cross-sectional study conducted by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and were published online in JAMA Network Open.

“The fact that this reason increased over time across most sociodemographic groups suggests a need for interventions targeting screening awareness for all women,” lead author Ryan Suk, PhD, MS, from the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, and colleagues wrote.

Between 2005 and 2019, the researchers evaluated data from 20,557 women (weighted, 113.1 million women) included in the U.S. National Health Interview Survey. The cohort included women aged 21-65 years without previous hysterectomy and included data on sociodemographic factors such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, health insurance type, and rurality of residence.

Dr. Suk and colleagues found that the proportion of women without current screening increased from 2005 to 2019 (from 14.4% to 23.0%; P < .001) and that a higher proportion of those women were in the 21- to 29-year age group (weighted, 29.1%), compared with women in the 30- to 65-year age group (weighted, 21.1%; P < .001). Regardless of age, not knowing that screening was indicated was the most common reason cited for not having up-to-date screening.
 

Sociodemographic factors influence on rates and reasons for overdue screening

Based on weighted population estimates, 6.1% of women included were Asian, 17.2% were Hispanic, 13.1% were non-Hispanic Black, 61% were non-Hispanic White, and 2.7% were other races and/or ethnicities.

Dr. Suk and colleagues found that Asian women had the highest rates of overdue screening, compared with non-Hispanic White women, who had the lowest rates (weighted, 31.4% vs. 20.1%, respectively). The authors also found that reasons for overdue screening varied by sociodemographic factors. For example, while both Asian and Hispanic women cited lack of knowledge as a barrier to routine screening, Asian women were more likely to also report lack of recommendation from a health care professional as a barrier while Hispanic women were more likely to also report lack of access as a barrier to timely screening.

Over the 14-year study period, higher rates of overdue screening were also noted among those identifying as LGBTQ+ versus heterosexual (32.0% vs. 22.2%; P < .001), those with no insurance versus private insurance (41.7% vs. 18.1%; P < .001), and those living in rural versus urban areas (26.2% vs. 22.6%; P = .04).

For the study, guideline-concordant, up-to-date screening in 2005 was defined as screening every 3 years for women aged 21-65 years based on USPSTF guidelines and clinical recommendations. For 2019, up-to-date screening was defined as screening every 3 years with a Papanicolaou (Pap smear) test alone for women aged 21-29 years and screening every 3 years with a Pap smear alone or every 5 years with high-risk human papillomavirus testing or cotesting for women aged 30-65 years.

Dr. Suk and colleagues suggested that guideline updates over the study period could have led to uncertainty regarding appropriate timing and recommended screening intervals, which in turn, may have played a role in decreased cancer screening recommendations.

“Studies have suggested that changing guidelines may produce an increase in both overscreening and underscreening but those already at higher risk of cervical cancer may be most susceptible to underscreening,” wrote the authors.

In an interview, Ruchi Garg, MD, from Mid Atlantic Gynecologic Oncology and Pelvic Surgery Associates, Fairfax, Va., commented: “I think it has been hard to keep up with the guidelines changing so frequently. Furthermore it’s not clearly delineated (or at least there seems to be confusion or extrapolation) that the guidelines are just for Pap smear and that it doesn’t translate into a well woman checkup/pelvic exam; [however], if physicians continue to tell the patients to come in every year, then there won’t be so much underscreening since the physicians/providers will be able to keep track of when the Pap smears need to get done.”

Similar to the study authors, Dr. Garg also suggested that community lectures and public health announcements, particularly when guidelines are updated, will be helpful in enhancing patient education and reducing the rate of this preventable cancer.

The study authors and commentator disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Vitamin D supplementation did not appear to influence the incidence of cancer or major cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in older adults who largely already had adequate vitamin D levels, according to a new randomized controlled study.

In the cohort of nearly 2,500 healthy individuals, the researchers found no differences in cancer or CVD incidence over 5 years between the groups randomly assigned to vitamin D supplementation and to placebo.

The findings, published online Jan. 4, 2022, in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, may be influenced by the fact that most participants had sufficient vitamin D levels at baseline, and thus received higher than recommended doses of vitamin D during the study.

“Vitamin D₃ supplementation with 1600 or 3200 IU/day for 5 years did not reduce the incidence of major CVD events, any invasive cancer, or mortality among generally healthy and mostly vitamin D sufficient older adults in Finland,” write the authors, led by Jyrki Virtanen, RD, PhD, associate professor of nutrition and public health at University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio.

“The low number of subjects with low vitamin D concentrations was a bit of a surprise for us also, but it likely reflects the quite successful food fortification policy in Finland,” Dr. Virtanen told this news organization.

Prior research has found that vitamin D insufficiency is associated with a higher risk of nearly all diseases. Although the evidence on the benefits of vitamin D supplementation remains more limited, a meta-analysis reported a consistent and significant 13% reduction in cancer mortality in those who received vitamin D supplements.

In this study, Dr. Virtanen and colleagues investigated the effects of vitamin D₃ supplementation on cancer and CVD incidence in a cohort of 2,495 healthy participants.

Men 60 years or older and women 65 years or older were randomly assigned to one of three groups: placebo, 40 mcg (1,600 IU) of daily vitamin D₃, or 80 mcg (3,200 IU) of daily vitamin D₃.

Data collected at baseline and throughout the trial included serum 25(OH)D concentrations, nutrition, sun exposure, medication use, mental health, and other factors that could affect the risk of disease.

The study’s primary endpoints were incident of major CVD and invasive cancer. Secondary endpoints included incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, and CVD mortality as well as site-specific cancers and cancer death.

Follow-up occurred via annual study questionnaires and national registry data. A representative subcohort of 551 participants had more detailed in-person evaluations. In the sub-cohort, mean serum 25(OH)D concentration was 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL) at baseline; 9.1% had concentrations less than 50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL) and 50.0% had concentrations of at least 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL).

The authors identified no major differences between the three arms at baseline, but noted that, compared with the overall study population, those in the subcohort were younger, more likely to use their own vitamin D supplements, and more likely to rate their health as good or excellent.

Among 503 participants that had complete data from baseline, the mean increase in serum 25(OH)D in participants receiving 1,600 IU/day vitamin D₃ was 23.4 nmol/L (9.4 ng/mL) and 43.6 nmol/L (17.4 ng/mL) in the arm receiving 3,200 IU/day between baseline and 6 months. The authors observed a small additional increase in levels between the 6-month and 12-month visits, but few changes in vitamin D₃ levels in the placebo arm.

At the 5-year follow-up, major CVD events occurred in 4.9% of participants in the placebo arm, 5% in those in the 1,600 IU/d arm (hazard ratio, 0.97), and 4.3% of those in the 3,200 IU/d arm (HR, 0.84; P = .44). Invasive cancer at follow-up was diagnosed in 4.9% of placebo recipients, 5.8% of those on 1,600 IU/d supplementation (HR, 1.14; P = .55), and 4.8% in the 3,200 IU/d group (HR, 0.95; P = .81). No significant differences were observed in the secondary endpoints or in total mortality.

The authors did not conduct a subanalysis in participants who had low 25(OH)D concentrations levels at baseline because “there were too few participants to do any meaningful analyses,” said Dr. Virtanen, who noted that blood samples were available for a representative subgroup of 550 subjects, and only 9% of them had low 25(OH)D concentrations at baseline.

Dr. Virtanen noted that future vitamin D supplementation trials should focus on recruiting participants with low vitamin D status.

The study was supported by funding from the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, Juho Vainio Foundation, Medicinska Understödsföreningen Liv och Hälsa, Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, Finnish Diabetes Research Foundation, and Finnish Cultural Foundation. Dr. Virtanen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vitamin D supplementation did not appear to influence the incidence of cancer or major cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in older adults who largely already had adequate vitamin D levels, according to a new randomized controlled study.

In the cohort of nearly 2,500 healthy individuals, the researchers found no differences in cancer or CVD incidence over 5 years between the groups randomly assigned to vitamin D supplementation and to placebo.

The findings, published online Jan. 4, 2022, in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, may be influenced by the fact that most participants had sufficient vitamin D levels at baseline, and thus received higher than recommended doses of vitamin D during the study.

“Vitamin D₃ supplementation with 1600 or 3200 IU/day for 5 years did not reduce the incidence of major CVD events, any invasive cancer, or mortality among generally healthy and mostly vitamin D sufficient older adults in Finland,” write the authors, led by Jyrki Virtanen, RD, PhD, associate professor of nutrition and public health at University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio.

“The low number of subjects with low vitamin D concentrations was a bit of a surprise for us also, but it likely reflects the quite successful food fortification policy in Finland,” Dr. Virtanen told this news organization.

Prior research has found that vitamin D insufficiency is associated with a higher risk of nearly all diseases. Although the evidence on the benefits of vitamin D supplementation remains more limited, a meta-analysis reported a consistent and significant 13% reduction in cancer mortality in those who received vitamin D supplements.

In this study, Dr. Virtanen and colleagues investigated the effects of vitamin D₃ supplementation on cancer and CVD incidence in a cohort of 2,495 healthy participants.

Men 60 years or older and women 65 years or older were randomly assigned to one of three groups: placebo, 40 mcg (1,600 IU) of daily vitamin D₃, or 80 mcg (3,200 IU) of daily vitamin D₃.

Data collected at baseline and throughout the trial included serum 25(OH)D concentrations, nutrition, sun exposure, medication use, mental health, and other factors that could affect the risk of disease.

The study’s primary endpoints were incident of major CVD and invasive cancer. Secondary endpoints included incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, and CVD mortality as well as site-specific cancers and cancer death.

Follow-up occurred via annual study questionnaires and national registry data. A representative subcohort of 551 participants had more detailed in-person evaluations. In the sub-cohort, mean serum 25(OH)D concentration was 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL) at baseline; 9.1% had concentrations less than 50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL) and 50.0% had concentrations of at least 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL).

The authors identified no major differences between the three arms at baseline, but noted that, compared with the overall study population, those in the subcohort were younger, more likely to use their own vitamin D supplements, and more likely to rate their health as good or excellent.

Among 503 participants that had complete data from baseline, the mean increase in serum 25(OH)D in participants receiving 1,600 IU/day vitamin D₃ was 23.4 nmol/L (9.4 ng/mL) and 43.6 nmol/L (17.4 ng/mL) in the arm receiving 3,200 IU/day between baseline and 6 months. The authors observed a small additional increase in levels between the 6-month and 12-month visits, but few changes in vitamin D₃ levels in the placebo arm.

At the 5-year follow-up, major CVD events occurred in 4.9% of participants in the placebo arm, 5% in those in the 1,600 IU/d arm (hazard ratio, 0.97), and 4.3% of those in the 3,200 IU/d arm (HR, 0.84; P = .44). Invasive cancer at follow-up was diagnosed in 4.9% of placebo recipients, 5.8% of those on 1,600 IU/d supplementation (HR, 1.14; P = .55), and 4.8% in the 3,200 IU/d group (HR, 0.95; P = .81). No significant differences were observed in the secondary endpoints or in total mortality.

The authors did not conduct a subanalysis in participants who had low 25(OH)D concentrations levels at baseline because “there were too few participants to do any meaningful analyses,” said Dr. Virtanen, who noted that blood samples were available for a representative subgroup of 550 subjects, and only 9% of them had low 25(OH)D concentrations at baseline.

Dr. Virtanen noted that future vitamin D supplementation trials should focus on recruiting participants with low vitamin D status.

The study was supported by funding from the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, Juho Vainio Foundation, Medicinska Understödsföreningen Liv och Hälsa, Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, Finnish Diabetes Research Foundation, and Finnish Cultural Foundation. Dr. Virtanen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Vitamin D supplementation did not appear to influence the incidence of cancer or major cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in older adults who largely already had adequate vitamin D levels, according to a new randomized controlled study.

In the cohort of nearly 2,500 healthy individuals, the researchers found no differences in cancer or CVD incidence over 5 years between the groups randomly assigned to vitamin D supplementation and to placebo.

The findings, published online Jan. 4, 2022, in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, may be influenced by the fact that most participants had sufficient vitamin D levels at baseline, and thus received higher than recommended doses of vitamin D during the study.

“Vitamin D₃ supplementation with 1600 or 3200 IU/day for 5 years did not reduce the incidence of major CVD events, any invasive cancer, or mortality among generally healthy and mostly vitamin D sufficient older adults in Finland,” write the authors, led by Jyrki Virtanen, RD, PhD, associate professor of nutrition and public health at University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio.

“The low number of subjects with low vitamin D concentrations was a bit of a surprise for us also, but it likely reflects the quite successful food fortification policy in Finland,” Dr. Virtanen told this news organization.

Prior research has found that vitamin D insufficiency is associated with a higher risk of nearly all diseases. Although the evidence on the benefits of vitamin D supplementation remains more limited, a meta-analysis reported a consistent and significant 13% reduction in cancer mortality in those who received vitamin D supplements.

In this study, Dr. Virtanen and colleagues investigated the effects of vitamin D₃ supplementation on cancer and CVD incidence in a cohort of 2,495 healthy participants.

Men 60 years or older and women 65 years or older were randomly assigned to one of three groups: placebo, 40 mcg (1,600 IU) of daily vitamin D₃, or 80 mcg (3,200 IU) of daily vitamin D₃.

Data collected at baseline and throughout the trial included serum 25(OH)D concentrations, nutrition, sun exposure, medication use, mental health, and other factors that could affect the risk of disease.

The study’s primary endpoints were incident of major CVD and invasive cancer. Secondary endpoints included incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, and CVD mortality as well as site-specific cancers and cancer death.

Follow-up occurred via annual study questionnaires and national registry data. A representative subcohort of 551 participants had more detailed in-person evaluations. In the sub-cohort, mean serum 25(OH)D concentration was 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL) at baseline; 9.1% had concentrations less than 50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL) and 50.0% had concentrations of at least 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL).

The authors identified no major differences between the three arms at baseline, but noted that, compared with the overall study population, those in the subcohort were younger, more likely to use their own vitamin D supplements, and more likely to rate their health as good or excellent.

Among 503 participants that had complete data from baseline, the mean increase in serum 25(OH)D in participants receiving 1,600 IU/day vitamin D₃ was 23.4 nmol/L (9.4 ng/mL) and 43.6 nmol/L (17.4 ng/mL) in the arm receiving 3,200 IU/day between baseline and 6 months. The authors observed a small additional increase in levels between the 6-month and 12-month visits, but few changes in vitamin D₃ levels in the placebo arm.

At the 5-year follow-up, major CVD events occurred in 4.9% of participants in the placebo arm, 5% in those in the 1,600 IU/d arm (hazard ratio, 0.97), and 4.3% of those in the 3,200 IU/d arm (HR, 0.84; P = .44). Invasive cancer at follow-up was diagnosed in 4.9% of placebo recipients, 5.8% of those on 1,600 IU/d supplementation (HR, 1.14; P = .55), and 4.8% in the 3,200 IU/d group (HR, 0.95; P = .81). No significant differences were observed in the secondary endpoints or in total mortality.

The authors did not conduct a subanalysis in participants who had low 25(OH)D concentrations levels at baseline because “there were too few participants to do any meaningful analyses,” said Dr. Virtanen, who noted that blood samples were available for a representative subgroup of 550 subjects, and only 9% of them had low 25(OH)D concentrations at baseline.

Dr. Virtanen noted that future vitamin D supplementation trials should focus on recruiting participants with low vitamin D status.

The study was supported by funding from the Academy of Finland, University of Eastern Finland, Juho Vainio Foundation, Medicinska Understödsföreningen Liv och Hälsa, Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, Finnish Diabetes Research Foundation, and Finnish Cultural Foundation. Dr. Virtanen disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the United States, the risk of death from cancer overall has been continuously dropping since 1991, the American Cancer Society (ACS) noted in its latest report.

There has been an overall decline of 32% in cancer deaths as of 2019, or approximately 3.5 million cancer deaths averted, the report noted.

“This success is largely because of reductions in smoking that resulted in downstream declines in lung and other smoking-related cancers,” lead author Rebecca L. Siegel of the ACS, and colleagues, noted in the latest edition of the society’s annual report on cancer rates and trends.

The paper was published online Jan. 12 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

In particular, there has been a fall in both the incidence of and mortality from lung cancer, largely due to successful efforts to get people to quit smoking, but also from earlier diagnosis at a stage when the disease is far more amenable to treatment, noted the authors.

For example, the incidence of lung cancer declined by almost 3% per year in men between the years 2009 and 2018 and by 1% a year in women. Currently, the historically large gender gap in lung cancer incidence is disappearing such that in 2018, lung cancer rates were 24% higher in men than they were in women, and rates in women were actually higher in some younger age groups than they were in men.

Moreover, 28% of lung cancers detected in 2018 were found at a localized stage of disease compared with 17% in 2004.

Patients diagnosed with lung cancer are also living longer, with almost one-third of lung cancer patients still alive 3 years after their diagnosis compared with 21% a decade ago.

However, lung cancer is still the biggest contributor to cancer-related mortality overall, at a death toll of 350 per day – more than breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancer combined, the authors wrote.

This is 2.5 times higher than the death rate from colorectal cancer (CRC), the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, they added.

Nevertheless, the decrease in lung cancer mortality accelerated from 3.1% per year between 2010 and 2014 to 5.4% per year during 2015 to 2019 in men and from 1.8% to 4.3% in women. “Overall, the lung cancer death rate has dropped by 56% from 1990 to 2019 in men and by 32% from 2002 to 2019 in women,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues emphasized.

Overall, the ACS projects there will be over 1.9 million new cancer cases and over 600,000 cancer deaths across the United States in 2022.


 

Patterns are changing

With prostate cancer now accounting for some 27% of all cancer diagnoses in men, recent trends in the incidence of prostate cancer are somewhat worrisome, the authors wrote. While the incidence for local-stage disease remained stable from 2014 through to 2018, the incidence of advanced-stage disease has increased by 6% a year since 2011. “Consequently, the proportion of distant-stage diagnoses has more than doubled,” the authors noted, “from a low of 3.9% in 2007 to 8.2% in 2018.”

The incidence of breast cancer among women has been slowly increasing by 0.5% per year since about the mid-2000s. This increase is due at least in part to declines in fertility and increases in body weight among women, the authors suggested. Declines in breast cancer mortality have slowed in recent years, dropping from 1% per year from 2013 to 2019 from 2%-3% per year seen during the 1990s and the early 2000s.

As for CRC, incidence patterns are similar by sex but differ by age. For example, incidence rates of CRC declined by about 2% per year between 2014 and 2018 in individuals 50 years and older, but they increased by 1.5% per year in adults under the age of 50. Overall, however, mortality from CRC decreased by about 2% per year between 2010 and 2019, although this trend again masks increasing mortality from CRC among younger adults, where death rates rose by 1.2% per year from 2005 through 2019 in patients under the age of 50.

The third leading cause of death in men and women combined is pancreatic cancer. Here again, mortality rates slowly increased in men between 2000 and 2013 but have remained relatively stable in women.

Between 2010 and 2019, cancers of the tongue, tonsils, and oropharynx caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) increased by about 2% per year in men and by 1% per year in women.

Death from cervical cancer – despite its being one of the most preventable cancers overall – is still the second leading cause of cancer death in women between 20 and 39 years of age. “Most of these women have never been screened so this is low-hanging fruit easily addressed by increasing access to screening and [HPV] vaccination among underserved women,” Ms. Siegel said in a statement.

On the other hand, mortality from liver cancer – having increased rapidly over the past number of decades – appears to have stabilized in more recent years.
 

Survival at 5 years

For all cancers combined, survival at 5 years between the mid-1970s and 2011 through 2017 increased from 50% to 68% for White patients and by 39% to 63% for Black patients. “For all stages combined, survival is highest for prostate cancer (98%), melanoma of the skin (93%) and female breast cancer (90%),” the authors pointed out.

In contrast, survival at 5 years is lowest, at 11% for pancreatic cancer, 20% for cancers of the liver and esophagus, and 22% for lung cancer.

Indeed, for most of the common cancers, cancer survival has improved since the mid-1970s with the exception or uterine and cervical cancer, the latter because there have been few advancements in treatment.

Even among the more rare blood and lymphoid malignancies, improvements in treatment strategies, including the use of targeted therapies, have resulted in major survival gains from around 20% in the mid-1970s for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients to over 70% for CML patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017.

Similarly, the discovery and use of immunotherapy has doubled 5-year survival rates to 30% for patients with metastatic melanoma from 15% in 2004. On the other hand, racial disparities in survival odds continue to persist. For every cancer type except for cancer of the pancreas and kidney, survival rates were lower for Black patients than for White patients, the researchers pointed out.

“Black individuals also have lower stage-specific survival for most cancer types,” the report authors noted. Indeed, after adjustment for sex, age, and stage at diagnosis, the risk of death is 33% higher in Black patients than White patients and 51% higher in American Indian/Alaska Natives compared to White patients.

That said, the overall incidence of cancer is still highest among White individuals, in part because of high rates of breast cancer in White women, which may in part reflect overdiagnosis of breast cancer in this patient population, as the authors suggested.

“However, Black women have the highest cancer mortality rates – 12% higher than White women,” they observed. Even more striking, Black women have a 4% lower incidence of breast cancer than White women but a 41% higher mortality risk from it.

As for pediatric and adolescent cancers, incidence rates may be increasing slightly among both age groups, but dramatic reductions in death by 71% among children and by 61% among adolescents from the mid-70s until now continue as a singular success story in the treatment of cancer overall.

All the authors are employed by the ACS.

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

In the United States, the risk of death from cancer overall has been continuously dropping since 1991, the American Cancer Society (ACS) noted in its latest report.

There has been an overall decline of 32% in cancer deaths as of 2019, or approximately 3.5 million cancer deaths averted, the report noted.

“This success is largely because of reductions in smoking that resulted in downstream declines in lung and other smoking-related cancers,” lead author Rebecca L. Siegel of the ACS, and colleagues, noted in the latest edition of the society’s annual report on cancer rates and trends.

The paper was published online Jan. 12 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

In particular, there has been a fall in both the incidence of and mortality from lung cancer, largely due to successful efforts to get people to quit smoking, but also from earlier diagnosis at a stage when the disease is far more amenable to treatment, noted the authors.

For example, the incidence of lung cancer declined by almost 3% per year in men between the years 2009 and 2018 and by 1% a year in women. Currently, the historically large gender gap in lung cancer incidence is disappearing such that in 2018, lung cancer rates were 24% higher in men than they were in women, and rates in women were actually higher in some younger age groups than they were in men.

Moreover, 28% of lung cancers detected in 2018 were found at a localized stage of disease compared with 17% in 2004.

Patients diagnosed with lung cancer are also living longer, with almost one-third of lung cancer patients still alive 3 years after their diagnosis compared with 21% a decade ago.

However, lung cancer is still the biggest contributor to cancer-related mortality overall, at a death toll of 350 per day – more than breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancer combined, the authors wrote.

This is 2.5 times higher than the death rate from colorectal cancer (CRC), the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, they added.

Nevertheless, the decrease in lung cancer mortality accelerated from 3.1% per year between 2010 and 2014 to 5.4% per year during 2015 to 2019 in men and from 1.8% to 4.3% in women. “Overall, the lung cancer death rate has dropped by 56% from 1990 to 2019 in men and by 32% from 2002 to 2019 in women,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues emphasized.

Overall, the ACS projects there will be over 1.9 million new cancer cases and over 600,000 cancer deaths across the United States in 2022.


 

Patterns are changing

With prostate cancer now accounting for some 27% of all cancer diagnoses in men, recent trends in the incidence of prostate cancer are somewhat worrisome, the authors wrote. While the incidence for local-stage disease remained stable from 2014 through to 2018, the incidence of advanced-stage disease has increased by 6% a year since 2011. “Consequently, the proportion of distant-stage diagnoses has more than doubled,” the authors noted, “from a low of 3.9% in 2007 to 8.2% in 2018.”

The incidence of breast cancer among women has been slowly increasing by 0.5% per year since about the mid-2000s. This increase is due at least in part to declines in fertility and increases in body weight among women, the authors suggested. Declines in breast cancer mortality have slowed in recent years, dropping from 1% per year from 2013 to 2019 from 2%-3% per year seen during the 1990s and the early 2000s.

As for CRC, incidence patterns are similar by sex but differ by age. For example, incidence rates of CRC declined by about 2% per year between 2014 and 2018 in individuals 50 years and older, but they increased by 1.5% per year in adults under the age of 50. Overall, however, mortality from CRC decreased by about 2% per year between 2010 and 2019, although this trend again masks increasing mortality from CRC among younger adults, where death rates rose by 1.2% per year from 2005 through 2019 in patients under the age of 50.

The third leading cause of death in men and women combined is pancreatic cancer. Here again, mortality rates slowly increased in men between 2000 and 2013 but have remained relatively stable in women.

Between 2010 and 2019, cancers of the tongue, tonsils, and oropharynx caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) increased by about 2% per year in men and by 1% per year in women.

Death from cervical cancer – despite its being one of the most preventable cancers overall – is still the second leading cause of cancer death in women between 20 and 39 years of age. “Most of these women have never been screened so this is low-hanging fruit easily addressed by increasing access to screening and [HPV] vaccination among underserved women,” Ms. Siegel said in a statement.

On the other hand, mortality from liver cancer – having increased rapidly over the past number of decades – appears to have stabilized in more recent years.
 

Survival at 5 years

For all cancers combined, survival at 5 years between the mid-1970s and 2011 through 2017 increased from 50% to 68% for White patients and by 39% to 63% for Black patients. “For all stages combined, survival is highest for prostate cancer (98%), melanoma of the skin (93%) and female breast cancer (90%),” the authors pointed out.

In contrast, survival at 5 years is lowest, at 11% for pancreatic cancer, 20% for cancers of the liver and esophagus, and 22% for lung cancer.

Indeed, for most of the common cancers, cancer survival has improved since the mid-1970s with the exception or uterine and cervical cancer, the latter because there have been few advancements in treatment.

Even among the more rare blood and lymphoid malignancies, improvements in treatment strategies, including the use of targeted therapies, have resulted in major survival gains from around 20% in the mid-1970s for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients to over 70% for CML patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017.

Similarly, the discovery and use of immunotherapy has doubled 5-year survival rates to 30% for patients with metastatic melanoma from 15% in 2004. On the other hand, racial disparities in survival odds continue to persist. For every cancer type except for cancer of the pancreas and kidney, survival rates were lower for Black patients than for White patients, the researchers pointed out.

“Black individuals also have lower stage-specific survival for most cancer types,” the report authors noted. Indeed, after adjustment for sex, age, and stage at diagnosis, the risk of death is 33% higher in Black patients than White patients and 51% higher in American Indian/Alaska Natives compared to White patients.

That said, the overall incidence of cancer is still highest among White individuals, in part because of high rates of breast cancer in White women, which may in part reflect overdiagnosis of breast cancer in this patient population, as the authors suggested.

“However, Black women have the highest cancer mortality rates – 12% higher than White women,” they observed. Even more striking, Black women have a 4% lower incidence of breast cancer than White women but a 41% higher mortality risk from it.

As for pediatric and adolescent cancers, incidence rates may be increasing slightly among both age groups, but dramatic reductions in death by 71% among children and by 61% among adolescents from the mid-70s until now continue as a singular success story in the treatment of cancer overall.

All the authors are employed by the ACS.

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

In the United States, the risk of death from cancer overall has been continuously dropping since 1991, the American Cancer Society (ACS) noted in its latest report.

There has been an overall decline of 32% in cancer deaths as of 2019, or approximately 3.5 million cancer deaths averted, the report noted.

“This success is largely because of reductions in smoking that resulted in downstream declines in lung and other smoking-related cancers,” lead author Rebecca L. Siegel of the ACS, and colleagues, noted in the latest edition of the society’s annual report on cancer rates and trends.

The paper was published online Jan. 12 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

In particular, there has been a fall in both the incidence of and mortality from lung cancer, largely due to successful efforts to get people to quit smoking, but also from earlier diagnosis at a stage when the disease is far more amenable to treatment, noted the authors.

For example, the incidence of lung cancer declined by almost 3% per year in men between the years 2009 and 2018 and by 1% a year in women. Currently, the historically large gender gap in lung cancer incidence is disappearing such that in 2018, lung cancer rates were 24% higher in men than they were in women, and rates in women were actually higher in some younger age groups than they were in men.

Moreover, 28% of lung cancers detected in 2018 were found at a localized stage of disease compared with 17% in 2004.

Patients diagnosed with lung cancer are also living longer, with almost one-third of lung cancer patients still alive 3 years after their diagnosis compared with 21% a decade ago.

However, lung cancer is still the biggest contributor to cancer-related mortality overall, at a death toll of 350 per day – more than breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancer combined, the authors wrote.

This is 2.5 times higher than the death rate from colorectal cancer (CRC), the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States, they added.

Nevertheless, the decrease in lung cancer mortality accelerated from 3.1% per year between 2010 and 2014 to 5.4% per year during 2015 to 2019 in men and from 1.8% to 4.3% in women. “Overall, the lung cancer death rate has dropped by 56% from 1990 to 2019 in men and by 32% from 2002 to 2019 in women,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues emphasized.

Overall, the ACS projects there will be over 1.9 million new cancer cases and over 600,000 cancer deaths across the United States in 2022.


 

Patterns are changing

With prostate cancer now accounting for some 27% of all cancer diagnoses in men, recent trends in the incidence of prostate cancer are somewhat worrisome, the authors wrote. While the incidence for local-stage disease remained stable from 2014 through to 2018, the incidence of advanced-stage disease has increased by 6% a year since 2011. “Consequently, the proportion of distant-stage diagnoses has more than doubled,” the authors noted, “from a low of 3.9% in 2007 to 8.2% in 2018.”

The incidence of breast cancer among women has been slowly increasing by 0.5% per year since about the mid-2000s. This increase is due at least in part to declines in fertility and increases in body weight among women, the authors suggested. Declines in breast cancer mortality have slowed in recent years, dropping from 1% per year from 2013 to 2019 from 2%-3% per year seen during the 1990s and the early 2000s.

As for CRC, incidence patterns are similar by sex but differ by age. For example, incidence rates of CRC declined by about 2% per year between 2014 and 2018 in individuals 50 years and older, but they increased by 1.5% per year in adults under the age of 50. Overall, however, mortality from CRC decreased by about 2% per year between 2010 and 2019, although this trend again masks increasing mortality from CRC among younger adults, where death rates rose by 1.2% per year from 2005 through 2019 in patients under the age of 50.

The third leading cause of death in men and women combined is pancreatic cancer. Here again, mortality rates slowly increased in men between 2000 and 2013 but have remained relatively stable in women.

Between 2010 and 2019, cancers of the tongue, tonsils, and oropharynx caused by human papilloma virus (HPV) increased by about 2% per year in men and by 1% per year in women.

Death from cervical cancer – despite its being one of the most preventable cancers overall – is still the second leading cause of cancer death in women between 20 and 39 years of age. “Most of these women have never been screened so this is low-hanging fruit easily addressed by increasing access to screening and [HPV] vaccination among underserved women,” Ms. Siegel said in a statement.

On the other hand, mortality from liver cancer – having increased rapidly over the past number of decades – appears to have stabilized in more recent years.
 

Survival at 5 years

For all cancers combined, survival at 5 years between the mid-1970s and 2011 through 2017 increased from 50% to 68% for White patients and by 39% to 63% for Black patients. “For all stages combined, survival is highest for prostate cancer (98%), melanoma of the skin (93%) and female breast cancer (90%),” the authors pointed out.

In contrast, survival at 5 years is lowest, at 11% for pancreatic cancer, 20% for cancers of the liver and esophagus, and 22% for lung cancer.

Indeed, for most of the common cancers, cancer survival has improved since the mid-1970s with the exception or uterine and cervical cancer, the latter because there have been few advancements in treatment.

Even among the more rare blood and lymphoid malignancies, improvements in treatment strategies, including the use of targeted therapies, have resulted in major survival gains from around 20% in the mid-1970s for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients to over 70% for CML patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017.

Similarly, the discovery and use of immunotherapy has doubled 5-year survival rates to 30% for patients with metastatic melanoma from 15% in 2004. On the other hand, racial disparities in survival odds continue to persist. For every cancer type except for cancer of the pancreas and kidney, survival rates were lower for Black patients than for White patients, the researchers pointed out.

“Black individuals also have lower stage-specific survival for most cancer types,” the report authors noted. Indeed, after adjustment for sex, age, and stage at diagnosis, the risk of death is 33% higher in Black patients than White patients and 51% higher in American Indian/Alaska Natives compared to White patients.

That said, the overall incidence of cancer is still highest among White individuals, in part because of high rates of breast cancer in White women, which may in part reflect overdiagnosis of breast cancer in this patient population, as the authors suggested.

“However, Black women have the highest cancer mortality rates – 12% higher than White women,” they observed. Even more striking, Black women have a 4% lower incidence of breast cancer than White women but a 41% higher mortality risk from it.

As for pediatric and adolescent cancers, incidence rates may be increasing slightly among both age groups, but dramatic reductions in death by 71% among children and by 61% among adolescents from the mid-70s until now continue as a singular success story in the treatment of cancer overall.

All the authors are employed by the ACS.

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

Almost 90% of treatment naive chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma patients (33/37) had undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) in both blood and bone marrow when the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) was added on to obinutuzumab and venetoclax for a median of just 10 treatment cycles.

Treatment was stopped in the single-arm phase 2 trial when patients reached undetectable MRD, a novel use of MRD to guide treatment duration. At a median of 16 months after discontinuation, MRD remained undetectable in 31 of 33 patients (94%).

The team also found that a reduction to 1/400 of baseline MRD (delta-MRD400) by day 1 of cycle five predicted undetectable bone marrow MRD within eight treatment cycles.

delta-MRD400 is “a potential biomarker” to identify patients who’ll do well with a shorter treatment and flag others who require longer courses of therapy, said investigators led by Jacob Soumerai, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Overall, the results “are highly encouraging,” they said, with efficacy and safety comparing favorably to trials that added other BTK inhibitors – namely ibrutinib and acalabrutinib – to the standard obinutuzumab/venetoclax backbone, with a shorter treatment duration.

They said the novel triplet warrants further study in the first line and noted that they also “plan to prospectively validate early-MRD-response kinetics as a biomarker to guide treatment duration.” The study was published recently in The Lancet Haematology.

Two editorialists – Davide Rossi, MD, PhD, and Joyce Marques De Almeida, both of the of the Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Bellinzona – were encouraged by the findings and wanted future research to assess how well MRD-guided treatment duration works in patients with tumor protein p53-disrupted disease, who “benefit less from time-limited therapies” then patients with wild-type TP53; the trial was too small to address the issue.

There was a two-cycle lead-in with zanubrutinib and obinutuzumab then venetoclax ramp-up starting at cycle 3, with each cycle running 28 days.

Zanubrutinib is approved in the U.S. for mantle cell lymphoma, Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, and marginal zone lymphoma.

In a previous phase 2 trial of ibrutinib add-on to venetoclax-obinutuzumab for 14 cycles followed by ibrutinib monotherapy, the rate of undetectable MRD in both peripheral blood and bone marrow was 67%. The rate of bone marrow undetectable MRD was 77% in another phase 2 trial of acalabrutinib, venetoclax, and obinutuzumab for at least 15 cycles.

Dr. Soumerai and his team cautioned, however, that “comparisons across trials are fraught with selection bias resulting in differences in treated patient populations, and randomized data are needed to establish the optimal BTK inhibitor to combine with venetoclax with or without obinutuzumab, and to establish whether” the zanubrutinib triplet “improves progression-free survival and overall survival compared with current standard first-line therapy.”

There was grade 3 or worse neutropenia in 18% of subjects (7/39), one episode of febrile neutropenia (3%), lung infections in three patients (8%) patients, and five cases of hypertension (13%).

The editorialists characterized the numbers as low and the regimen as well tolerated. Past studies of ibrutinib, a first generation BTK, with venetoclax and obinutuzumab have pegged grade 3 or worse neutropenia at 56% and the hypertension incidence at 48%.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration “could partially account for the low incidence of severe neutropenia” in the trial, the investigators said.

The study was funded by zanubrutinib marketer Beigene as well as Genentech, the National Cancer Institute, and others. Many of the authors had industry ties, including Dr. Soumerai who reported being a consultant and researcher for Beigene and other companies. Dr. Rossi reported honoraria and research grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen.

Almost 90% of treatment naive chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma patients (33/37) had undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) in both blood and bone marrow when the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) was added on to obinutuzumab and venetoclax for a median of just 10 treatment cycles.

Treatment was stopped in the single-arm phase 2 trial when patients reached undetectable MRD, a novel use of MRD to guide treatment duration. At a median of 16 months after discontinuation, MRD remained undetectable in 31 of 33 patients (94%).

The team also found that a reduction to 1/400 of baseline MRD (delta-MRD400) by day 1 of cycle five predicted undetectable bone marrow MRD within eight treatment cycles.

delta-MRD400 is “a potential biomarker” to identify patients who’ll do well with a shorter treatment and flag others who require longer courses of therapy, said investigators led by Jacob Soumerai, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Overall, the results “are highly encouraging,” they said, with efficacy and safety comparing favorably to trials that added other BTK inhibitors – namely ibrutinib and acalabrutinib – to the standard obinutuzumab/venetoclax backbone, with a shorter treatment duration.

They said the novel triplet warrants further study in the first line and noted that they also “plan to prospectively validate early-MRD-response kinetics as a biomarker to guide treatment duration.” The study was published recently in The Lancet Haematology.

Two editorialists – Davide Rossi, MD, PhD, and Joyce Marques De Almeida, both of the of the Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Bellinzona – were encouraged by the findings and wanted future research to assess how well MRD-guided treatment duration works in patients with tumor protein p53-disrupted disease, who “benefit less from time-limited therapies” then patients with wild-type TP53; the trial was too small to address the issue.

There was a two-cycle lead-in with zanubrutinib and obinutuzumab then venetoclax ramp-up starting at cycle 3, with each cycle running 28 days.

Zanubrutinib is approved in the U.S. for mantle cell lymphoma, Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, and marginal zone lymphoma.

In a previous phase 2 trial of ibrutinib add-on to venetoclax-obinutuzumab for 14 cycles followed by ibrutinib monotherapy, the rate of undetectable MRD in both peripheral blood and bone marrow was 67%. The rate of bone marrow undetectable MRD was 77% in another phase 2 trial of acalabrutinib, venetoclax, and obinutuzumab for at least 15 cycles.

Dr. Soumerai and his team cautioned, however, that “comparisons across trials are fraught with selection bias resulting in differences in treated patient populations, and randomized data are needed to establish the optimal BTK inhibitor to combine with venetoclax with or without obinutuzumab, and to establish whether” the zanubrutinib triplet “improves progression-free survival and overall survival compared with current standard first-line therapy.”

There was grade 3 or worse neutropenia in 18% of subjects (7/39), one episode of febrile neutropenia (3%), lung infections in three patients (8%) patients, and five cases of hypertension (13%).

The editorialists characterized the numbers as low and the regimen as well tolerated. Past studies of ibrutinib, a first generation BTK, with venetoclax and obinutuzumab have pegged grade 3 or worse neutropenia at 56% and the hypertension incidence at 48%.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration “could partially account for the low incidence of severe neutropenia” in the trial, the investigators said.

The study was funded by zanubrutinib marketer Beigene as well as Genentech, the National Cancer Institute, and others. Many of the authors had industry ties, including Dr. Soumerai who reported being a consultant and researcher for Beigene and other companies. Dr. Rossi reported honoraria and research grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen.

Almost 90% of treatment naive chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma patients (33/37) had undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD) in both blood and bone marrow when the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) was added on to obinutuzumab and venetoclax for a median of just 10 treatment cycles.

Treatment was stopped in the single-arm phase 2 trial when patients reached undetectable MRD, a novel use of MRD to guide treatment duration. At a median of 16 months after discontinuation, MRD remained undetectable in 31 of 33 patients (94%).

The team also found that a reduction to 1/400 of baseline MRD (delta-MRD400) by day 1 of cycle five predicted undetectable bone marrow MRD within eight treatment cycles.

delta-MRD400 is “a potential biomarker” to identify patients who’ll do well with a shorter treatment and flag others who require longer courses of therapy, said investigators led by Jacob Soumerai, MD, a hematologist/oncologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Overall, the results “are highly encouraging,” they said, with efficacy and safety comparing favorably to trials that added other BTK inhibitors – namely ibrutinib and acalabrutinib – to the standard obinutuzumab/venetoclax backbone, with a shorter treatment duration.

They said the novel triplet warrants further study in the first line and noted that they also “plan to prospectively validate early-MRD-response kinetics as a biomarker to guide treatment duration.” The study was published recently in The Lancet Haematology.

Two editorialists – Davide Rossi, MD, PhD, and Joyce Marques De Almeida, both of the of the Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Bellinzona – were encouraged by the findings and wanted future research to assess how well MRD-guided treatment duration works in patients with tumor protein p53-disrupted disease, who “benefit less from time-limited therapies” then patients with wild-type TP53; the trial was too small to address the issue.

There was a two-cycle lead-in with zanubrutinib and obinutuzumab then venetoclax ramp-up starting at cycle 3, with each cycle running 28 days.

Zanubrutinib is approved in the U.S. for mantle cell lymphoma, Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia, and marginal zone lymphoma.

In a previous phase 2 trial of ibrutinib add-on to venetoclax-obinutuzumab for 14 cycles followed by ibrutinib monotherapy, the rate of undetectable MRD in both peripheral blood and bone marrow was 67%. The rate of bone marrow undetectable MRD was 77% in another phase 2 trial of acalabrutinib, venetoclax, and obinutuzumab for at least 15 cycles.

Dr. Soumerai and his team cautioned, however, that “comparisons across trials are fraught with selection bias resulting in differences in treated patient populations, and randomized data are needed to establish the optimal BTK inhibitor to combine with venetoclax with or without obinutuzumab, and to establish whether” the zanubrutinib triplet “improves progression-free survival and overall survival compared with current standard first-line therapy.”

There was grade 3 or worse neutropenia in 18% of subjects (7/39), one episode of febrile neutropenia (3%), lung infections in three patients (8%) patients, and five cases of hypertension (13%).

The editorialists characterized the numbers as low and the regimen as well tolerated. Past studies of ibrutinib, a first generation BTK, with venetoclax and obinutuzumab have pegged grade 3 or worse neutropenia at 56% and the hypertension incidence at 48%.

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor administration “could partially account for the low incidence of severe neutropenia” in the trial, the investigators said.

The study was funded by zanubrutinib marketer Beigene as well as Genentech, the National Cancer Institute, and others. Many of the authors had industry ties, including Dr. Soumerai who reported being a consultant and researcher for Beigene and other companies. Dr. Rossi reported honoraria and research grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and Janssen.

Nearly 1 in 5 women who receive the recommended 10 biennial screening rounds for breast cancer in Norway will get a false positive result, and 1 in 20 women will receive a false positive result that leads to an invasive procedure, a new analysis shows.

While the risk may seem high, it is actually much lower than what researchers have reported in the U.S., the study authors note in their paper, published online Dec. 21 in Cancer.

“I am proud about the low rate of recalls we have in Norway and Europe – and hope we can keep it that low for the future,” said senior author Solveig Hofvind, PhD, head of BreastScreen Norway, a nationwide screening program that invites women aged 50 to 69 to mammographic screening every other year.

“The double reading in Europe is probably the main reason for the lower rate in Europe compared to the U.S., where single reading is used,” she said in an interview.

Until now, Dr. Hofvind and her colleagues say, no studies have been performed using exclusively empirical data to describe the cumulative risk of experiencing a false positive screening result in Europe because of the need for long-term follow-up and complete data registration.

For their study, the researchers turned to the Cancer Registry of Norway, which administers BreastScreen Norway. They focused on data from 1995 to 2019 on women aged 50 to 69 years who had attended one or more screening rounds and could potentially attend all 10 screening examinations over the 20-year period.

Women were excluded if they were diagnosed with breast cancer before attending screening, participated in interventional research, self-referred for screening, were recalled due to self-reported symptoms or technically inadequate mammograms, or declined follow-up after a positive screen.

Among more than 421,000 women who underwent nearly 1.9 million screening examinations, 11.3% experienced at least one false positive result and 3.3% experienced at least one false positive involving an invasive procedure, such as fine-needle aspiration cytology, core-needle biopsy, or open biopsy.

The cumulative risk of experiencing a first false positive screen was 18.0% and that of experiencing a false positive that involved an invasive procedure was 5.01%. Adjusting for irregular attendance, age at screening, or the number of screens attended had little effect on the estimates.

The results closely match earlier findings from Norway that have been based on assumptions rather than exclusively empirical data. However, these findings differ from results reported in U.S. studies, which have relied largely on data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, the researchers say.

“The latter have indicated that, for women who initiate biennial screening at the age of 50 years, the cumulative risk after 10 years is 42% for experiencing at least one false-positive screening result and 6.4% for experiencing at least one false-positive screening result involving an invasive procedure,” Dr. Hofvind and her colleagues write.

Several principal investigators with the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium did not respond or were unavailable for comment when contacted by this news organization.

However, the study authors highlighted several factors that could help explain the discrepancy between the U.S. and European results.

In addition to double mammogram reading, “European guidelines recommend that breast radiologists read 3,500 to 11,000 mammograms annually, whereas 960 every 2 years are required by the U.S. Mammography Quality Standards Act,” the researchers note. They also point out that previous screening mammograms are readily available in Norway, whereas this is not always the case in the U.S.

“False-positive screening results are a part of the screening for breast cancer – and the women need to be informed about the risk,” Dr. Hofvind concluded. “The screening programs should aim to keep the rate as low as possible for the women [given] the costs.”

The study was supported by the Dam Foundation via the Norwegian Breast Cancer Society.

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

Nearly 1 in 5 women who receive the recommended 10 biennial screening rounds for breast cancer in Norway will get a false positive result, and 1 in 20 women will receive a false positive result that leads to an invasive procedure, a new analysis shows.

While the risk may seem high, it is actually much lower than what researchers have reported in the U.S., the study authors note in their paper, published online Dec. 21 in Cancer.

“I am proud about the low rate of recalls we have in Norway and Europe – and hope we can keep it that low for the future,” said senior author Solveig Hofvind, PhD, head of BreastScreen Norway, a nationwide screening program that invites women aged 50 to 69 to mammographic screening every other year.

“The double reading in Europe is probably the main reason for the lower rate in Europe compared to the U.S., where single reading is used,” she said in an interview.

Until now, Dr. Hofvind and her colleagues say, no studies have been performed using exclusively empirical data to describe the cumulative risk of experiencing a false positive screening result in Europe because of the need for long-term follow-up and complete data registration.

For their study, the researchers turned to the Cancer Registry of Norway, which administers BreastScreen Norway. They focused on data from 1995 to 2019 on women aged 50 to 69 years who had attended one or more screening rounds and could potentially attend all 10 screening examinations over the 20-year period.

Women were excluded if they were diagnosed with breast cancer before attending screening, participated in interventional research, self-referred for screening, were recalled due to self-reported symptoms or technically inadequate mammograms, or declined follow-up after a positive screen.

Among more than 421,000 women who underwent nearly 1.9 million screening examinations, 11.3% experienced at least one false positive result and 3.3% experienced at least one false positive involving an invasive procedure, such as fine-needle aspiration cytology, core-needle biopsy, or open biopsy.

The cumulative risk of experiencing a first false positive screen was 18.0% and that of experiencing a false positive that involved an invasive procedure was 5.01%. Adjusting for irregular attendance, age at screening, or the number of screens attended had little effect on the estimates.

The results closely match earlier findings from Norway that have been based on assumptions rather than exclusively empirical data. However, these findings differ from results reported in U.S. studies, which have relied largely on data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, the researchers say.

“The latter have indicated that, for women who initiate biennial screening at the age of 50 years, the cumulative risk after 10 years is 42% for experiencing at least one false-positive screening result and 6.4% for experiencing at least one false-positive screening result involving an invasive procedure,” Dr. Hofvind and her colleagues write.

Several principal investigators with the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium did not respond or were unavailable for comment when contacted by this news organization.

However, the study authors highlighted several factors that could help explain the discrepancy between the U.S. and European results.

In addition to double mammogram reading, “European guidelines recommend that breast radiologists read 3,500 to 11,000 mammograms annually, whereas 960 every 2 years are required by the U.S. Mammography Quality Standards Act,” the researchers note. They also point out that previous screening mammograms are readily available in Norway, whereas this is not always the case in the U.S.

“False-positive screening results are a part of the screening for breast cancer – and the women need to be informed about the risk,” Dr. Hofvind concluded. “The screening programs should aim to keep the rate as low as possible for the women [given] the costs.”

The study was supported by the Dam Foundation via the Norwegian Breast Cancer Society.

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

Nearly 1 in 5 women who receive the recommended 10 biennial screening rounds for breast cancer in Norway will get a false positive result, and 1 in 20 women will receive a false positive result that leads to an invasive procedure, a new analysis shows.

While the risk may seem high, it is actually much lower than what researchers have reported in the U.S., the study authors note in their paper, published online Dec. 21 in Cancer.

“I am proud about the low rate of recalls we have in Norway and Europe – and hope we can keep it that low for the future,” said senior author Solveig Hofvind, PhD, head of BreastScreen Norway, a nationwide screening program that invites women aged 50 to 69 to mammographic screening every other year.

“The double reading in Europe is probably the main reason for the lower rate in Europe compared to the U.S., where single reading is used,” she said in an interview.

Until now, Dr. Hofvind and her colleagues say, no studies have been performed using exclusively empirical data to describe the cumulative risk of experiencing a false positive screening result in Europe because of the need for long-term follow-up and complete data registration.

For their study, the researchers turned to the Cancer Registry of Norway, which administers BreastScreen Norway. They focused on data from 1995 to 2019 on women aged 50 to 69 years who had attended one or more screening rounds and could potentially attend all 10 screening examinations over the 20-year period.

Women were excluded if they were diagnosed with breast cancer before attending screening, participated in interventional research, self-referred for screening, were recalled due to self-reported symptoms or technically inadequate mammograms, or declined follow-up after a positive screen.

Among more than 421,000 women who underwent nearly 1.9 million screening examinations, 11.3% experienced at least one false positive result and 3.3% experienced at least one false positive involving an invasive procedure, such as fine-needle aspiration cytology, core-needle biopsy, or open biopsy.

The cumulative risk of experiencing a first false positive screen was 18.0% and that of experiencing a false positive that involved an invasive procedure was 5.01%. Adjusting for irregular attendance, age at screening, or the number of screens attended had little effect on the estimates.

The results closely match earlier findings from Norway that have been based on assumptions rather than exclusively empirical data. However, these findings differ from results reported in U.S. studies, which have relied largely on data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, the researchers say.

“The latter have indicated that, for women who initiate biennial screening at the age of 50 years, the cumulative risk after 10 years is 42% for experiencing at least one false-positive screening result and 6.4% for experiencing at least one false-positive screening result involving an invasive procedure,” Dr. Hofvind and her colleagues write.

Several principal investigators with the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium did not respond or were unavailable for comment when contacted by this news organization.

However, the study authors highlighted several factors that could help explain the discrepancy between the U.S. and European results.

In addition to double mammogram reading, “European guidelines recommend that breast radiologists read 3,500 to 11,000 mammograms annually, whereas 960 every 2 years are required by the U.S. Mammography Quality Standards Act,” the researchers note. They also point out that previous screening mammograms are readily available in Norway, whereas this is not always the case in the U.S.

“False-positive screening results are a part of the screening for breast cancer – and the women need to be informed about the risk,” Dr. Hofvind concluded. “The screening programs should aim to keep the rate as low as possible for the women [given] the costs.”

The study was supported by the Dam Foundation via the Norwegian Breast Cancer Society.

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

In early January, Ohio not only set a state record for COVID-19 hospitalizations—it had the fourth highest rate in the country, with 6,747 hospitalized coronavirus patients on January 10, a 40% increase over the previous 21 days. Most were unvaccinated. To help overwhelmed hospitals cope, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine turned to the National Guard. Unfortunately, nearly half of the Ohio National Guard also were unvaccinated.

By US Department of Defense (DoD) directive, National Guard members must have a COVID-19 vaccination to be deployed on hospital missions. Thus, in COVID hotspots across the nation, governors are on the horns of a dilemma. They want and need to deploy the National Guard to give medical and nonclinical support but aren’t sure whether they will be able to or, indeed, whether they should.

So far, vaccinated teams are already on the ground in a number of states. In Indiana, where hospitalizations jumped 50% over 2 weeks in December, the National Guard sent 6-person teams, all fully vaccinated. In New Hampshire, 70 guards are being deployed to help hospitals with food service, clerical work, and other nonmedical functions. New York Governor Kathy Hochul has deployed guard members for help to ease the strain on nursing homes. Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker has activated up to 500 guard members; some will be supporting 55 acute care hospital and 12 ambulance services. In Maine, where cases have peaked, Governor Janet Mills activated guard members to support nursing facilities and administer monoclonal antibodies. The Louisiana National Guard has administered more than 542,000 COVID-19 tests and 206,300 vaccines. As many as 1,000 Maryland Air and Army National Guardsmen are being activated to help with testing and other missions.

However, as in Ohio, other states are facing problematic scenarios. For instance, about 40% of the more than 20,000 Texas National Guard are refusing to get vaccinated, challenging the Biden Administration vaccine requirement for all military.

And a court showdown over federal vaccine mandates, started by Governor Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma and joined by the Republican governors of Wyoming, Iowa, Alaska, Nebraska, and Mississippi, came to a head in December. Last November, Stitt asked Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to exempt Oklahoma’s National Guard from the vaccine mandate. He claimed the requirement violated the personal freedoms of many Oklahomans and could cause them to “potentially sacrifice their personal beliefs.” But in a memo to the Joint Chiefs chairmen, the service secretaries and the head of the National Guard Bureau, Austin wrote that Pentagon funds could not be used to pay for duties performed under Title 32 for members of the Guard who do not comply with the military’s vaccine requirement. (Title 32 refers to Guard operations under state orders.) Austin also said National Guard members must be vaccinated to participate in drills, training, and other duty conducted under Title 32.

Stitt, maintaining that he is commander in chief of the Oklahoma National Guard as long as it operates under Title 32 orders, put out his own memo stipulating that no Guard member was required to get vaccinated. He also ordered Brig. Gen. Thomas Mancino, newly appointed commander of the Oklahoma National Guard, to not enforce the mandate. Subsequently, Mancino issued a statement pointing out that current state law is limited in protecting troops who opt out of the shot. Moreover, if the Guard were called up under federal orders, he said, he would enforce the mandate. Training events, schools, and mobilizations were going to “eventually force you out of that safe harbor,” he wrote, “…This is reality.”

In late December, a federal judge denied Oklahoma’s motion to enjoin the mandate. The Oklahoma Attorney General’s office responded, “We will not be surprised if the President’s vaccine mandate actually reduces the nation’s military readiness instead of promoting it.”

In a press briefing, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said, “The Secretary has the authorities he needs to require this vaccine across the force, including the National Guard. …[E]ven when they’re in a Title 32 status.” He added, “It is a lawful order for National Guardsmen to receive the COVID vaccine. It’s a lawful order, and refusing to do that, absent of an improved exemption, puts them in the same potential [position] as active-duty members who refuse the vaccine.” That could mean, for instance, loss of pay and membership in the National Guard.

A core rationale for the mandate, according to Secretary Austin, is the need for military readiness—meaning Guard members must be healthy and fit for duty. And that extends to being healthy and fit for missions like transporting at-risk patients. Ohio National Guard Adjutant General Major General John Harris Jr. said, “I would never put a soldier or airman in harm’s way without the best protection we could put on them—body armor, helmets. And this medical readiness is the exact same thing. We’re putting folks into harm’s way.” He has moved the deadline from the Pentagon’s June 30 date to March 31—a move that boosted the vaccination rate from 53% to 56% in one week.

Ohio Governor DeWine has expressed frustration that almost half of the Ohio Army National Guard personnel can’t be deployed on this mission because they’re unvaccinated. “In some of our testing places, 40 to 50% of the people are testing positive,” he said. “So this is a high-risk operation. You need to be protected. The best way for you to be protected is to get the vaccination.”

As of December 2021, according to the National Guard Bureau, the National Guard as a whole was 66% fully vaccinated. The percentages vary according to service; for instance, nearly 90% of airmen have been vaccinated, compared with only 40% of Army Guardsmen. Among the states challenging the mandate, the vaccinated rates have been moving upward: In Alaska, about 92% of the Air National Guard have been vaccinated—leaving roughly 11,000 troops who had not met the December 2 deadline. In Iowa, as of Nov. 30, 91% of Air National Guard and 80% of Army National Guard members had been vaccinated, but about 9,000 soldiers had been directed to get the vaccination or risk disciplinary action. Almost 2,200 of the more than 2,800-strong Wyoming National Guard (77%) have received at least 1 dose. Nebraska Air National Guard’s force of 1,000 was 94% fully vaccinated as of December 1. (Maj Scott Ingalsbe, public affairs officer, said, “Vaccinations are tied to individual medical readiness. They provide service members with the best protection available so they can perform missions across the globe.”).

In most states, Army National Guard members have until June 30, 2022, to comply. “Our soldiers …have until [the DoD’s deadline], and some of them are just going to wait close to the deadline,” John Goheen of the National Guard Association of the United States said in a discussion on NPR. “That’s human nature.”

Earlier this month, Texas Governor Greg Abbott told National Guard members they can ignore the Pentagon’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate: “President Biden is not your commander-in-chief.” He has also sued the Biden administration over the requirement.

In the meantime, the hospitals at breaking point must hope for the best and take as much help as they can get. 

In early January, Ohio not only set a state record for COVID-19 hospitalizations—it had the fourth highest rate in the country, with 6,747 hospitalized coronavirus patients on January 10, a 40% increase over the previous 21 days. Most were unvaccinated. To help overwhelmed hospitals cope, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine turned to the National Guard. Unfortunately, nearly half of the Ohio National Guard also were unvaccinated.

By US Department of Defense (DoD) directive, National Guard members must have a COVID-19 vaccination to be deployed on hospital missions. Thus, in COVID hotspots across the nation, governors are on the horns of a dilemma. They want and need to deploy the National Guard to give medical and nonclinical support but aren’t sure whether they will be able to or, indeed, whether they should.

So far, vaccinated teams are already on the ground in a number of states. In Indiana, where hospitalizations jumped 50% over 2 weeks in December, the National Guard sent 6-person teams, all fully vaccinated. In New Hampshire, 70 guards are being deployed to help hospitals with food service, clerical work, and other nonmedical functions. New York Governor Kathy Hochul has deployed guard members for help to ease the strain on nursing homes. Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker has activated up to 500 guard members; some will be supporting 55 acute care hospital and 12 ambulance services. In Maine, where cases have peaked, Governor Janet Mills activated guard members to support nursing facilities and administer monoclonal antibodies. The Louisiana National Guard has administered more than 542,000 COVID-19 tests and 206,300 vaccines. As many as 1,000 Maryland Air and Army National Guardsmen are being activated to help with testing and other missions.

However, as in Ohio, other states are facing problematic scenarios. For instance, about 40% of the more than 20,000 Texas National Guard are refusing to get vaccinated, challenging the Biden Administration vaccine requirement for all military.

And a court showdown over federal vaccine mandates, started by Governor Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma and joined by the Republican governors of Wyoming, Iowa, Alaska, Nebraska, and Mississippi, came to a head in December. Last November, Stitt asked Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to exempt Oklahoma’s National Guard from the vaccine mandate. He claimed the requirement violated the personal freedoms of many Oklahomans and could cause them to “potentially sacrifice their personal beliefs.” But in a memo to the Joint Chiefs chairmen, the service secretaries and the head of the National Guard Bureau, Austin wrote that Pentagon funds could not be used to pay for duties performed under Title 32 for members of the Guard who do not comply with the military’s vaccine requirement. (Title 32 refers to Guard operations under state orders.) Austin also said National Guard members must be vaccinated to participate in drills, training, and other duty conducted under Title 32.

Stitt, maintaining that he is commander in chief of the Oklahoma National Guard as long as it operates under Title 32 orders, put out his own memo stipulating that no Guard member was required to get vaccinated. He also ordered Brig. Gen. Thomas Mancino, newly appointed commander of the Oklahoma National Guard, to not enforce the mandate. Subsequently, Mancino issued a statement pointing out that current state law is limited in protecting troops who opt out of the shot. Moreover, if the Guard were called up under federal orders, he said, he would enforce the mandate. Training events, schools, and mobilizations were going to “eventually force you out of that safe harbor,” he wrote, “…This is reality.”

In late December, a federal judge denied Oklahoma’s motion to enjoin the mandate. The Oklahoma Attorney General’s office responded, “We will not be surprised if the President’s vaccine mandate actually reduces the nation’s military readiness instead of promoting it.”

In a press briefing, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said, “The Secretary has the authorities he needs to require this vaccine across the force, including the National Guard. …[E]ven when they’re in a Title 32 status.” He added, “It is a lawful order for National Guardsmen to receive the COVID vaccine. It’s a lawful order, and refusing to do that, absent of an improved exemption, puts them in the same potential [position] as active-duty members who refuse the vaccine.” That could mean, for instance, loss of pay and membership in the National Guard.

A core rationale for the mandate, according to Secretary Austin, is the need for military readiness—meaning Guard members must be healthy and fit for duty. And that extends to being healthy and fit for missions like transporting at-risk patients. Ohio National Guard Adjutant General Major General John Harris Jr. said, “I would never put a soldier or airman in harm’s way without the best protection we could put on them—body armor, helmets. And this medical readiness is the exact same thing. We’re putting folks into harm’s way.” He has moved the deadline from the Pentagon’s June 30 date to March 31—a move that boosted the vaccination rate from 53% to 56% in one week.

Ohio Governor DeWine has expressed frustration that almost half of the Ohio Army National Guard personnel can’t be deployed on this mission because they’re unvaccinated. “In some of our testing places, 40 to 50% of the people are testing positive,” he said. “So this is a high-risk operation. You need to be protected. The best way for you to be protected is to get the vaccination.”

As of December 2021, according to the National Guard Bureau, the National Guard as a whole was 66% fully vaccinated. The percentages vary according to service; for instance, nearly 90% of airmen have been vaccinated, compared with only 40% of Army Guardsmen. Among the states challenging the mandate, the vaccinated rates have been moving upward: In Alaska, about 92% of the Air National Guard have been vaccinated—leaving roughly 11,000 troops who had not met the December 2 deadline. In Iowa, as of Nov. 30, 91% of Air National Guard and 80% of Army National Guard members had been vaccinated, but about 9,000 soldiers had been directed to get the vaccination or risk disciplinary action. Almost 2,200 of the more than 2,800-strong Wyoming National Guard (77%) have received at least 1 dose. Nebraska Air National Guard’s force of 1,000 was 94% fully vaccinated as of December 1. (Maj Scott Ingalsbe, public affairs officer, said, “Vaccinations are tied to individual medical readiness. They provide service members with the best protection available so they can perform missions across the globe.”).

In most states, Army National Guard members have until June 30, 2022, to comply. “Our soldiers …have until [the DoD’s deadline], and some of them are just going to wait close to the deadline,” John Goheen of the National Guard Association of the United States said in a discussion on NPR. “That’s human nature.”

Earlier this month, Texas Governor Greg Abbott told National Guard members they can ignore the Pentagon’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate: “President Biden is not your commander-in-chief.” He has also sued the Biden administration over the requirement.

In the meantime, the hospitals at breaking point must hope for the best and take as much help as they can get. 

In early January, Ohio not only set a state record for COVID-19 hospitalizations—it had the fourth highest rate in the country, with 6,747 hospitalized coronavirus patients on January 10, a 40% increase over the previous 21 days. Most were unvaccinated. To help overwhelmed hospitals cope, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine turned to the National Guard. Unfortunately, nearly half of the Ohio National Guard also were unvaccinated.

By US Department of Defense (DoD) directive, National Guard members must have a COVID-19 vaccination to be deployed on hospital missions. Thus, in COVID hotspots across the nation, governors are on the horns of a dilemma. They want and need to deploy the National Guard to give medical and nonclinical support but aren’t sure whether they will be able to or, indeed, whether they should.

So far, vaccinated teams are already on the ground in a number of states. In Indiana, where hospitalizations jumped 50% over 2 weeks in December, the National Guard sent 6-person teams, all fully vaccinated. In New Hampshire, 70 guards are being deployed to help hospitals with food service, clerical work, and other nonmedical functions. New York Governor Kathy Hochul has deployed guard members for help to ease the strain on nursing homes. Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker has activated up to 500 guard members; some will be supporting 55 acute care hospital and 12 ambulance services. In Maine, where cases have peaked, Governor Janet Mills activated guard members to support nursing facilities and administer monoclonal antibodies. The Louisiana National Guard has administered more than 542,000 COVID-19 tests and 206,300 vaccines. As many as 1,000 Maryland Air and Army National Guardsmen are being activated to help with testing and other missions.

However, as in Ohio, other states are facing problematic scenarios. For instance, about 40% of the more than 20,000 Texas National Guard are refusing to get vaccinated, challenging the Biden Administration vaccine requirement for all military.

And a court showdown over federal vaccine mandates, started by Governor Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma and joined by the Republican governors of Wyoming, Iowa, Alaska, Nebraska, and Mississippi, came to a head in December. Last November, Stitt asked Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to exempt Oklahoma’s National Guard from the vaccine mandate. He claimed the requirement violated the personal freedoms of many Oklahomans and could cause them to “potentially sacrifice their personal beliefs.” But in a memo to the Joint Chiefs chairmen, the service secretaries and the head of the National Guard Bureau, Austin wrote that Pentagon funds could not be used to pay for duties performed under Title 32 for members of the Guard who do not comply with the military’s vaccine requirement. (Title 32 refers to Guard operations under state orders.) Austin also said National Guard members must be vaccinated to participate in drills, training, and other duty conducted under Title 32.

Stitt, maintaining that he is commander in chief of the Oklahoma National Guard as long as it operates under Title 32 orders, put out his own memo stipulating that no Guard member was required to get vaccinated. He also ordered Brig. Gen. Thomas Mancino, newly appointed commander of the Oklahoma National Guard, to not enforce the mandate. Subsequently, Mancino issued a statement pointing out that current state law is limited in protecting troops who opt out of the shot. Moreover, if the Guard were called up under federal orders, he said, he would enforce the mandate. Training events, schools, and mobilizations were going to “eventually force you out of that safe harbor,” he wrote, “…This is reality.”

In late December, a federal judge denied Oklahoma’s motion to enjoin the mandate. The Oklahoma Attorney General’s office responded, “We will not be surprised if the President’s vaccine mandate actually reduces the nation’s military readiness instead of promoting it.”

In a press briefing, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said, “The Secretary has the authorities he needs to require this vaccine across the force, including the National Guard. …[E]ven when they’re in a Title 32 status.” He added, “It is a lawful order for National Guardsmen to receive the COVID vaccine. It’s a lawful order, and refusing to do that, absent of an improved exemption, puts them in the same potential [position] as active-duty members who refuse the vaccine.” That could mean, for instance, loss of pay and membership in the National Guard.

A core rationale for the mandate, according to Secretary Austin, is the need for military readiness—meaning Guard members must be healthy and fit for duty. And that extends to being healthy and fit for missions like transporting at-risk patients. Ohio National Guard Adjutant General Major General John Harris Jr. said, “I would never put a soldier or airman in harm’s way without the best protection we could put on them—body armor, helmets. And this medical readiness is the exact same thing. We’re putting folks into harm’s way.” He has moved the deadline from the Pentagon’s June 30 date to March 31—a move that boosted the vaccination rate from 53% to 56% in one week.

Ohio Governor DeWine has expressed frustration that almost half of the Ohio Army National Guard personnel can’t be deployed on this mission because they’re unvaccinated. “In some of our testing places, 40 to 50% of the people are testing positive,” he said. “So this is a high-risk operation. You need to be protected. The best way for you to be protected is to get the vaccination.”

As of December 2021, according to the National Guard Bureau, the National Guard as a whole was 66% fully vaccinated. The percentages vary according to service; for instance, nearly 90% of airmen have been vaccinated, compared with only 40% of Army Guardsmen. Among the states challenging the mandate, the vaccinated rates have been moving upward: In Alaska, about 92% of the Air National Guard have been vaccinated—leaving roughly 11,000 troops who had not met the December 2 deadline. In Iowa, as of Nov. 30, 91% of Air National Guard and 80% of Army National Guard members had been vaccinated, but about 9,000 soldiers had been directed to get the vaccination or risk disciplinary action. Almost 2,200 of the more than 2,800-strong Wyoming National Guard (77%) have received at least 1 dose. Nebraska Air National Guard’s force of 1,000 was 94% fully vaccinated as of December 1. (Maj Scott Ingalsbe, public affairs officer, said, “Vaccinations are tied to individual medical readiness. They provide service members with the best protection available so they can perform missions across the globe.”).

In most states, Army National Guard members have until June 30, 2022, to comply. “Our soldiers …have until [the DoD’s deadline], and some of them are just going to wait close to the deadline,” John Goheen of the National Guard Association of the United States said in a discussion on NPR. “That’s human nature.”

Earlier this month, Texas Governor Greg Abbott told National Guard members they can ignore the Pentagon’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate: “President Biden is not your commander-in-chief.” He has also sued the Biden administration over the requirement.

In the meantime, the hospitals at breaking point must hope for the best and take as much help as they can get.