AVAHO

U.S. prices for brand-name lung cancer drugs generally increased between 2015 and 2020 without evidence of price competition, a cross-sectional analysis revealed.

The findings underscore the need for price reform, according to the investigators, who analyzed prices for 17 brand-name medications used for treating metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Prices increased during the study period and correlated within each drug class, Aakash Desai, MBBS, and colleagues from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., found.

“Because numerous new drugs have been approved for the treatment of NSCLC in recent years, we sought to specifically study the price competition among drugs used to treat this cancer subtype,” they explained, noting that for most drug classes price increases outpaced changes in the consumer price index for prescription medications and the inflation rate.

The findings were published Jan. 25, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

Multiple brand-name medications across several drug classes, including four immune checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab), five epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (gefitinib, afatinib, erlotinib, osimertinib, and dacomitinib), five anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors (crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib), two BRAF inhibitors (dabrafenib, vemurafenib), and one MEK inhibitor (trametinib) were included in the analysis.

Median Pearson correlation coefficients approached 1.0 for all drug classes, indicating that prices increased despite within-class drug competition. Median values ranged from 0.898 for epidermal growth factor inhibitors to 0.999 for anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors and BRAF and MEK inhibitors, the investigators found.

Median compounded annual growth rates (CAGRs) were 1.81% for immune checkpoint inhibitors, 2.56% for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, 2.46% for anaplastic lymphoma kinase and ROS1 inhibitors, and 3.06% for BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

“With the exception of the immunotherapy class, the median cost CAGR outpaced the annual growth rate of the consumer price index for prescription drugs at 2.10% and, for all classes, the average yearly inflation rate of 1.75% during the same period,” they wrote.

Also of note, only one price decrease occurred among all therapeutic classes studied.

“This was observed for erlotinib between 2019 and 2020, and it corresponded with the introduction of a generic competitor to the market,” the authors said.

The findings are reminiscent of an earlier study that showed a 25% increase in the price of 24 patented injectable anticancer agents in the United States over a period of 8 years after launch.

“These increases in cost were not offset by supplemental U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals, new competitors, or new off-label indications. Thus, price increases over time were not substantially reduced by market competition and increased at similar rates among drugs within the same class,” they wrote, adding that “although one might expect oncology drug prices to decrease over time after market entry, the list price of most anticancer agents increases paradoxically.”

The “lock-step price increases” observed without evidence of price competition in this analysis raise concerns about the affordability of promising oncology drugs, they said, concluding that “academic, industry, and government partnerships should be developed to address the high costs of prescription oncology drugs, which may soon be unaffordable for most patients if the trends discovered in the present study continue.”

Dr. Desai reported having no disclosures.

U.S. prices for brand-name lung cancer drugs generally increased between 2015 and 2020 without evidence of price competition, a cross-sectional analysis revealed.

The findings underscore the need for price reform, according to the investigators, who analyzed prices for 17 brand-name medications used for treating metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Prices increased during the study period and correlated within each drug class, Aakash Desai, MBBS, and colleagues from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., found.

“Because numerous new drugs have been approved for the treatment of NSCLC in recent years, we sought to specifically study the price competition among drugs used to treat this cancer subtype,” they explained, noting that for most drug classes price increases outpaced changes in the consumer price index for prescription medications and the inflation rate.

The findings were published Jan. 25, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

Multiple brand-name medications across several drug classes, including four immune checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab), five epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (gefitinib, afatinib, erlotinib, osimertinib, and dacomitinib), five anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors (crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib), two BRAF inhibitors (dabrafenib, vemurafenib), and one MEK inhibitor (trametinib) were included in the analysis.

Median Pearson correlation coefficients approached 1.0 for all drug classes, indicating that prices increased despite within-class drug competition. Median values ranged from 0.898 for epidermal growth factor inhibitors to 0.999 for anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors and BRAF and MEK inhibitors, the investigators found.

Median compounded annual growth rates (CAGRs) were 1.81% for immune checkpoint inhibitors, 2.56% for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, 2.46% for anaplastic lymphoma kinase and ROS1 inhibitors, and 3.06% for BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

“With the exception of the immunotherapy class, the median cost CAGR outpaced the annual growth rate of the consumer price index for prescription drugs at 2.10% and, for all classes, the average yearly inflation rate of 1.75% during the same period,” they wrote.

Also of note, only one price decrease occurred among all therapeutic classes studied.

“This was observed for erlotinib between 2019 and 2020, and it corresponded with the introduction of a generic competitor to the market,” the authors said.

The findings are reminiscent of an earlier study that showed a 25% increase in the price of 24 patented injectable anticancer agents in the United States over a period of 8 years after launch.

“These increases in cost were not offset by supplemental U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals, new competitors, or new off-label indications. Thus, price increases over time were not substantially reduced by market competition and increased at similar rates among drugs within the same class,” they wrote, adding that “although one might expect oncology drug prices to decrease over time after market entry, the list price of most anticancer agents increases paradoxically.”

The “lock-step price increases” observed without evidence of price competition in this analysis raise concerns about the affordability of promising oncology drugs, they said, concluding that “academic, industry, and government partnerships should be developed to address the high costs of prescription oncology drugs, which may soon be unaffordable for most patients if the trends discovered in the present study continue.”

Dr. Desai reported having no disclosures.

U.S. prices for brand-name lung cancer drugs generally increased between 2015 and 2020 without evidence of price competition, a cross-sectional analysis revealed.

The findings underscore the need for price reform, according to the investigators, who analyzed prices for 17 brand-name medications used for treating metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Prices increased during the study period and correlated within each drug class, Aakash Desai, MBBS, and colleagues from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., found.

“Because numerous new drugs have been approved for the treatment of NSCLC in recent years, we sought to specifically study the price competition among drugs used to treat this cancer subtype,” they explained, noting that for most drug classes price increases outpaced changes in the consumer price index for prescription medications and the inflation rate.

The findings were published Jan. 25, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

Multiple brand-name medications across several drug classes, including four immune checkpoint inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, and durvalumab), five epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (gefitinib, afatinib, erlotinib, osimertinib, and dacomitinib), five anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors (crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib), two BRAF inhibitors (dabrafenib, vemurafenib), and one MEK inhibitor (trametinib) were included in the analysis.

Median Pearson correlation coefficients approached 1.0 for all drug classes, indicating that prices increased despite within-class drug competition. Median values ranged from 0.898 for epidermal growth factor inhibitors to 0.999 for anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors and BRAF and MEK inhibitors, the investigators found.

Median compounded annual growth rates (CAGRs) were 1.81% for immune checkpoint inhibitors, 2.56% for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, 2.46% for anaplastic lymphoma kinase and ROS1 inhibitors, and 3.06% for BRAF and MEK inhibitors.

“With the exception of the immunotherapy class, the median cost CAGR outpaced the annual growth rate of the consumer price index for prescription drugs at 2.10% and, for all classes, the average yearly inflation rate of 1.75% during the same period,” they wrote.

Also of note, only one price decrease occurred among all therapeutic classes studied.

“This was observed for erlotinib between 2019 and 2020, and it corresponded with the introduction of a generic competitor to the market,” the authors said.

The findings are reminiscent of an earlier study that showed a 25% increase in the price of 24 patented injectable anticancer agents in the United States over a period of 8 years after launch.

“These increases in cost were not offset by supplemental U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals, new competitors, or new off-label indications. Thus, price increases over time were not substantially reduced by market competition and increased at similar rates among drugs within the same class,” they wrote, adding that “although one might expect oncology drug prices to decrease over time after market entry, the list price of most anticancer agents increases paradoxically.”

The “lock-step price increases” observed without evidence of price competition in this analysis raise concerns about the affordability of promising oncology drugs, they said, concluding that “academic, industry, and government partnerships should be developed to address the high costs of prescription oncology drugs, which may soon be unaffordable for most patients if the trends discovered in the present study continue.”

Dr. Desai reported having no disclosures.

A new treatment option for patients with refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried four or more therapies has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The product, ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), will be marketed as Carvykti by Janssen and Legend Biotech. It is a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy directed against B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is a new target for therapies for multiple myeloma.

There are already two other therapies on the market that target BCMA – another CAR T cell, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma), which was approved by the FDA in March 2021, and a drug conjugate, belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep), which was approved in August 2020.

The approval of cilta-cel was based on clinical data from the CARTITUDE-1 study, which were initially presented in December 2020 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, as reported at the time by this news organization.

The trial involved 97 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had already received a median of six previous treatments (range, three to 18), including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

“The treatment journey for the majority of patients living with multiple myeloma is a relentless cycle of remission and relapse, with fewer patients achieving a deep response as they progress through later lines of therapy,” commented Sundar Jagannath, MBBS, professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology at Mount Sinai, who was a principal investigator on the pivotal study.

“That is why I have been really excited about the results from the CARTITUDE-1 study, which has demonstrated that cilta-cel can provide deep and durable responses and long-term treatment-free intervals, even in this heavily pretreated multiple myeloma patient population,” he said.

“Today’s approval of Carvykti helps address a great unmet need for these patients,” he commented in a press release from the manufacturer.

Like other CAR T-cell therapies, ciltacabtagene autoleucel is a one-time treatment. It involves collecting blood from the patient, extracting T cells, genetically engineering them, then transfusing them back to the patient, who in the meantime has undergone conditioning.

The results from CARTITUDE-1 show that this one-time treatment resulted in deep and durable responses.

The overall response rate was 98%, and the majority of patients (78%) achieved a stringent complete response, in which physicians are unable to observe any signs or symptoms of disease via imaging or other tests after treatment.

At a median of 18 months’ follow-up, the median duration of response was 21.8 months.

“The responses in the CARTITUDE-1 study showed durability over time and resulted in the majority of heavily pretreated patients achieving deep responses after 18-month follow-up,” commented Mr. Jagannath.

“The approval of cilta-cel provides physicians an immunotherapy treatment option that offers patients an opportunity to be free from anti-myeloma therapies for a period of time,” he added.

As with other CAR T-cell therapies, there were serious side effects, and these products are available only through restricted programs under a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy.

The product information for Cartykti includes a boxed warning that mentions cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, parkinsonism, Guillain-Barré syndrome, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, and prolonged and/or recurrent cytopenias.

The most common adverse reactions (reported in greater than or equal to 20% of patients) are pyrexia, CRS, hypogammaglobulinemia, hypotension, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, infections–pathogens unspecified, cough, chills, diarrhea, nausea, encephalopathy, decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, tachycardia, dizziness, dyspnea, edema, viral infections, coagulopathy, constipation, and vomiting.

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

A new treatment option for patients with refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried four or more therapies has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The product, ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), will be marketed as Carvykti by Janssen and Legend Biotech. It is a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy directed against B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is a new target for therapies for multiple myeloma.

There are already two other therapies on the market that target BCMA – another CAR T cell, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma), which was approved by the FDA in March 2021, and a drug conjugate, belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep), which was approved in August 2020.

The approval of cilta-cel was based on clinical data from the CARTITUDE-1 study, which were initially presented in December 2020 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, as reported at the time by this news organization.

The trial involved 97 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had already received a median of six previous treatments (range, three to 18), including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

“The treatment journey for the majority of patients living with multiple myeloma is a relentless cycle of remission and relapse, with fewer patients achieving a deep response as they progress through later lines of therapy,” commented Sundar Jagannath, MBBS, professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology at Mount Sinai, who was a principal investigator on the pivotal study.

“That is why I have been really excited about the results from the CARTITUDE-1 study, which has demonstrated that cilta-cel can provide deep and durable responses and long-term treatment-free intervals, even in this heavily pretreated multiple myeloma patient population,” he said.

“Today’s approval of Carvykti helps address a great unmet need for these patients,” he commented in a press release from the manufacturer.

Like other CAR T-cell therapies, ciltacabtagene autoleucel is a one-time treatment. It involves collecting blood from the patient, extracting T cells, genetically engineering them, then transfusing them back to the patient, who in the meantime has undergone conditioning.

The results from CARTITUDE-1 show that this one-time treatment resulted in deep and durable responses.

The overall response rate was 98%, and the majority of patients (78%) achieved a stringent complete response, in which physicians are unable to observe any signs or symptoms of disease via imaging or other tests after treatment.

At a median of 18 months’ follow-up, the median duration of response was 21.8 months.

“The responses in the CARTITUDE-1 study showed durability over time and resulted in the majority of heavily pretreated patients achieving deep responses after 18-month follow-up,” commented Mr. Jagannath.

“The approval of cilta-cel provides physicians an immunotherapy treatment option that offers patients an opportunity to be free from anti-myeloma therapies for a period of time,” he added.

As with other CAR T-cell therapies, there were serious side effects, and these products are available only through restricted programs under a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy.

The product information for Cartykti includes a boxed warning that mentions cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, parkinsonism, Guillain-Barré syndrome, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, and prolonged and/or recurrent cytopenias.

The most common adverse reactions (reported in greater than or equal to 20% of patients) are pyrexia, CRS, hypogammaglobulinemia, hypotension, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, infections–pathogens unspecified, cough, chills, diarrhea, nausea, encephalopathy, decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, tachycardia, dizziness, dyspnea, edema, viral infections, coagulopathy, constipation, and vomiting.

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

A new treatment option for patients with refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma who have already tried four or more therapies has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The product, ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), will be marketed as Carvykti by Janssen and Legend Biotech. It is a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy directed against B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA), which is a new target for therapies for multiple myeloma.

There are already two other therapies on the market that target BCMA – another CAR T cell, idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma), which was approved by the FDA in March 2021, and a drug conjugate, belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep), which was approved in August 2020.

The approval of cilta-cel was based on clinical data from the CARTITUDE-1 study, which were initially presented in December 2020 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, as reported at the time by this news organization.

The trial involved 97 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who had already received a median of six previous treatments (range, three to 18), including a proteasome inhibitor, an immunomodulatory agent, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody.

“The treatment journey for the majority of patients living with multiple myeloma is a relentless cycle of remission and relapse, with fewer patients achieving a deep response as they progress through later lines of therapy,” commented Sundar Jagannath, MBBS, professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology at Mount Sinai, who was a principal investigator on the pivotal study.

“That is why I have been really excited about the results from the CARTITUDE-1 study, which has demonstrated that cilta-cel can provide deep and durable responses and long-term treatment-free intervals, even in this heavily pretreated multiple myeloma patient population,” he said.

“Today’s approval of Carvykti helps address a great unmet need for these patients,” he commented in a press release from the manufacturer.

Like other CAR T-cell therapies, ciltacabtagene autoleucel is a one-time treatment. It involves collecting blood from the patient, extracting T cells, genetically engineering them, then transfusing them back to the patient, who in the meantime has undergone conditioning.

The results from CARTITUDE-1 show that this one-time treatment resulted in deep and durable responses.

The overall response rate was 98%, and the majority of patients (78%) achieved a stringent complete response, in which physicians are unable to observe any signs or symptoms of disease via imaging or other tests after treatment.

At a median of 18 months’ follow-up, the median duration of response was 21.8 months.

“The responses in the CARTITUDE-1 study showed durability over time and resulted in the majority of heavily pretreated patients achieving deep responses after 18-month follow-up,” commented Mr. Jagannath.

“The approval of cilta-cel provides physicians an immunotherapy treatment option that offers patients an opportunity to be free from anti-myeloma therapies for a period of time,” he added.

As with other CAR T-cell therapies, there were serious side effects, and these products are available only through restricted programs under a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy.

The product information for Cartykti includes a boxed warning that mentions cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome, parkinsonism, Guillain-Barré syndrome, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis/macrophage activation syndrome, and prolonged and/or recurrent cytopenias.

The most common adverse reactions (reported in greater than or equal to 20% of patients) are pyrexia, CRS, hypogammaglobulinemia, hypotension, musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, infections–pathogens unspecified, cough, chills, diarrhea, nausea, encephalopathy, decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, tachycardia, dizziness, dyspnea, edema, viral infections, coagulopathy, constipation, and vomiting.

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

A New York state radiation oncologist accused of gross negligence and incompetence back in 2018 has now lost his medical license.

The state Board for Professional Medical Conduct has revoked the medical license of Won Sam Yi, MD, following a lengthy review of the care he provided to seven cancer patients; six of them died.

“He is a danger to potential new patients should he be reinstated as a radiation oncologist,” board members wrote, according to a news report in the Buffalo News.

Dr. Yi’s lawyer said that he is appealing the decision.

Dr. Yi was the former CEO of the now-defunct private cancer practice CCS Oncology, located in western New York.

In 2018, the state health department brought numerous charges of professional misconduct against Dr. Yi, including charges that he had failed to “account for prior doses of radiotherapy” as well as exceeding “appropriate tissue tolerances” during the treatment.

Now, the state’s Board for Professional Medical Conduct has upheld nearly all of the departmental charges that had been levied against him, and also found that Dr. Yi failed to take responsibility or show contrition for his treatment decisions.

However, whistleblower claims from a former CSS Oncology employee were dismissed.
 

Troubled history

CCS Oncology was once one of the largest private cancer practices in Erie and Niagara counties, both in the Buffalo metropolitan area.

Dr. Yi purchased CCS Oncology in 2008 and was its sole shareholder, and in 2012 he also acquired CCS Medical. As of 2016, the practices provided care to about 30% of cancer patients in the region. CCS also began acquiring other practices as it expanded into noncancer specialties, including primary care.

However, CCS began to struggle financially in late 2016, when health insurance provider Independent Health announced it was removing CCS Oncology from its network, and several vendors and lenders subsequently sued CCS and Dr. Yi for nonpayment.

The announcement from Independent Health was “financially devastating to CCS,” and also was “the direct cause” of the practice defaulting on its Bank of America loan and of the practice’s inability to pay not only its vendors but state and federal tax agencies, the Buffalo News reported. As a result, several vendors and lenders had sued CCS and Dr. Yi for nonpayment.

The FBI raided numerous CCS locations in March 2018, seizing financial and other data as part of an investigation into possible Medicare billing fraud. The following month, CCS filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, citing it owed millions of dollars to Bank of America and other creditors. Shortly afterward, the practice closed.
 

Medical misconduct

The state’s charges of professional misconduct accused Dr. Yi of “gross negligence,” “gross incompetence,” and several other cases of misconduct in treating seven patients between 2009 and 2013 at various CCS locations. The patients ranged in age from 27 to 72. Six of the seven patients died.

In one case, Dr. Yi was accused of providing whole-brain radiation therapy to a 43-year-old woman for about 6 weeks in 2012, but the treatment was “contrary to medical indications” and did not take into account prior doses of such treatment. The patient died in December of that year, and the board concluded that Dr. Yi had improperly treated her with a high dose of radiation that was intended to cure her cancer even though she was at a stage where her disease was incurable.

The state board eventually concluded that for all but one of the patients in question, Dr. Yi was guilty of misconduct in his treatment decisions. They wrote that Dr. Yi had frequently administered radiation doses without taking into account how much radiation therapy the patients had received previously and without considering the risk of serious complications for them.

Dr. Yi plans to appeal the board’s decision in state court, according to his attorney, Anthony Scher.

“Dr Yi has treated over 10,000 patients in his career,” Mr. Scher told the Buffalo News. “These handful of cases don’t represent the thousands of success stories that he’s had.”

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

A New York state radiation oncologist accused of gross negligence and incompetence back in 2018 has now lost his medical license.

The state Board for Professional Medical Conduct has revoked the medical license of Won Sam Yi, MD, following a lengthy review of the care he provided to seven cancer patients; six of them died.

“He is a danger to potential new patients should he be reinstated as a radiation oncologist,” board members wrote, according to a news report in the Buffalo News.

Dr. Yi’s lawyer said that he is appealing the decision.

Dr. Yi was the former CEO of the now-defunct private cancer practice CCS Oncology, located in western New York.

In 2018, the state health department brought numerous charges of professional misconduct against Dr. Yi, including charges that he had failed to “account for prior doses of radiotherapy” as well as exceeding “appropriate tissue tolerances” during the treatment.

Now, the state’s Board for Professional Medical Conduct has upheld nearly all of the departmental charges that had been levied against him, and also found that Dr. Yi failed to take responsibility or show contrition for his treatment decisions.

However, whistleblower claims from a former CSS Oncology employee were dismissed.
 

Troubled history

CCS Oncology was once one of the largest private cancer practices in Erie and Niagara counties, both in the Buffalo metropolitan area.

Dr. Yi purchased CCS Oncology in 2008 and was its sole shareholder, and in 2012 he also acquired CCS Medical. As of 2016, the practices provided care to about 30% of cancer patients in the region. CCS also began acquiring other practices as it expanded into noncancer specialties, including primary care.

However, CCS began to struggle financially in late 2016, when health insurance provider Independent Health announced it was removing CCS Oncology from its network, and several vendors and lenders subsequently sued CCS and Dr. Yi for nonpayment.

The announcement from Independent Health was “financially devastating to CCS,” and also was “the direct cause” of the practice defaulting on its Bank of America loan and of the practice’s inability to pay not only its vendors but state and federal tax agencies, the Buffalo News reported. As a result, several vendors and lenders had sued CCS and Dr. Yi for nonpayment.

The FBI raided numerous CCS locations in March 2018, seizing financial and other data as part of an investigation into possible Medicare billing fraud. The following month, CCS filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, citing it owed millions of dollars to Bank of America and other creditors. Shortly afterward, the practice closed.
 

Medical misconduct

The state’s charges of professional misconduct accused Dr. Yi of “gross negligence,” “gross incompetence,” and several other cases of misconduct in treating seven patients between 2009 and 2013 at various CCS locations. The patients ranged in age from 27 to 72. Six of the seven patients died.

In one case, Dr. Yi was accused of providing whole-brain radiation therapy to a 43-year-old woman for about 6 weeks in 2012, but the treatment was “contrary to medical indications” and did not take into account prior doses of such treatment. The patient died in December of that year, and the board concluded that Dr. Yi had improperly treated her with a high dose of radiation that was intended to cure her cancer even though she was at a stage where her disease was incurable.

The state board eventually concluded that for all but one of the patients in question, Dr. Yi was guilty of misconduct in his treatment decisions. They wrote that Dr. Yi had frequently administered radiation doses without taking into account how much radiation therapy the patients had received previously and without considering the risk of serious complications for them.

Dr. Yi plans to appeal the board’s decision in state court, according to his attorney, Anthony Scher.

“Dr Yi has treated over 10,000 patients in his career,” Mr. Scher told the Buffalo News. “These handful of cases don’t represent the thousands of success stories that he’s had.”

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

A New York state radiation oncologist accused of gross negligence and incompetence back in 2018 has now lost his medical license.

The state Board for Professional Medical Conduct has revoked the medical license of Won Sam Yi, MD, following a lengthy review of the care he provided to seven cancer patients; six of them died.

“He is a danger to potential new patients should he be reinstated as a radiation oncologist,” board members wrote, according to a news report in the Buffalo News.

Dr. Yi’s lawyer said that he is appealing the decision.

Dr. Yi was the former CEO of the now-defunct private cancer practice CCS Oncology, located in western New York.

In 2018, the state health department brought numerous charges of professional misconduct against Dr. Yi, including charges that he had failed to “account for prior doses of radiotherapy” as well as exceeding “appropriate tissue tolerances” during the treatment.

Now, the state’s Board for Professional Medical Conduct has upheld nearly all of the departmental charges that had been levied against him, and also found that Dr. Yi failed to take responsibility or show contrition for his treatment decisions.

However, whistleblower claims from a former CSS Oncology employee were dismissed.
 

Troubled history

CCS Oncology was once one of the largest private cancer practices in Erie and Niagara counties, both in the Buffalo metropolitan area.

Dr. Yi purchased CCS Oncology in 2008 and was its sole shareholder, and in 2012 he also acquired CCS Medical. As of 2016, the practices provided care to about 30% of cancer patients in the region. CCS also began acquiring other practices as it expanded into noncancer specialties, including primary care.

However, CCS began to struggle financially in late 2016, when health insurance provider Independent Health announced it was removing CCS Oncology from its network, and several vendors and lenders subsequently sued CCS and Dr. Yi for nonpayment.

The announcement from Independent Health was “financially devastating to CCS,” and also was “the direct cause” of the practice defaulting on its Bank of America loan and of the practice’s inability to pay not only its vendors but state and federal tax agencies, the Buffalo News reported. As a result, several vendors and lenders had sued CCS and Dr. Yi for nonpayment.

The FBI raided numerous CCS locations in March 2018, seizing financial and other data as part of an investigation into possible Medicare billing fraud. The following month, CCS filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, citing it owed millions of dollars to Bank of America and other creditors. Shortly afterward, the practice closed.
 

Medical misconduct

The state’s charges of professional misconduct accused Dr. Yi of “gross negligence,” “gross incompetence,” and several other cases of misconduct in treating seven patients between 2009 and 2013 at various CCS locations. The patients ranged in age from 27 to 72. Six of the seven patients died.

In one case, Dr. Yi was accused of providing whole-brain radiation therapy to a 43-year-old woman for about 6 weeks in 2012, but the treatment was “contrary to medical indications” and did not take into account prior doses of such treatment. The patient died in December of that year, and the board concluded that Dr. Yi had improperly treated her with a high dose of radiation that was intended to cure her cancer even though she was at a stage where her disease was incurable.

The state board eventually concluded that for all but one of the patients in question, Dr. Yi was guilty of misconduct in his treatment decisions. They wrote that Dr. Yi had frequently administered radiation doses without taking into account how much radiation therapy the patients had received previously and without considering the risk of serious complications for them.

Dr. Yi plans to appeal the board’s decision in state court, according to his attorney, Anthony Scher.

“Dr Yi has treated over 10,000 patients in his career,” Mr. Scher told the Buffalo News. “These handful of cases don’t represent the thousands of success stories that he’s had.”

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

About 5% of people who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening do not live close to a facility and have limited or no access to screening,a recent analysis shows.

That percentage, although quite small, still translates to more than 750,000 individuals who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening but live at least 40 miles from a facility.

Overall, a larger proportion of eligible individuals in rural areas had no access to a facility, but a greater number of people in urban areas had no access, especially at shorter distances.

Understanding access issues is important given that “lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography scanning (LDCT) reduces mortality among high-risk adults, ... [but] annual screening rates remain low,” write study authors Liora Sahar, PhD, of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 15 in the journal Cancer.

It expands on a previous report, which found that “less than 6% of those 55 to 79 years of age do not have access to registry screening facilities”.

The new analysis incorporates the most recent guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which lowered the screening age to 50 years and compares access across urban and rural areas.

Dr. Sahar and colleagues calculated the distances from population centers to screening facilities and estimated the number of individuals living within different distances of those facilities – 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles. Geographical subdivisions, or census tracts, were also classified along a spectrum of rural to urban.

The authors found that, overall, about 14.8 million people aged 50-80 years are eligible for lung cancer screening, and 5.1% of that population – or 753,038 individuals – do not live within 40 miles of a facility and have no access to screening.

The proportion of people affected by access issues varies by geographic location. For eligible people living 40 miles or more from a facility, almost 25% (n = 287,803) in rural counties had no access, compared with 1.6% (n = 195,120) in metropolitan areas.

At greater distances to facilities (50 and 100 miles), these proportions diminish. In rural counties, for instance, 16% of eligible individuals (n = 186,401) living 50 or more miles away and 2.8% (n = 33,504) living 100 or more miles away had no access to a facility.

Not surprisingly, across all distances, “there is a significantly higher percentage of rural residents who do not have access to facilities in comparison with those in urban settings,” the authors write. “There are fewer facilities in rural areas, so residents need to travel longer distances to reach a facility.”

Notably, however, distance to a facility was not necessarily the greatest barrier to screening. The authors found a greater number of eligible individuals living in or close to urban areas were not getting screening when facilities were 10 miles away – more than 2.8 million in metropolitan areas versus just over 1 million in rural areas.

“The total number of individuals with no access in urban areas exceeds that of rural individuals, particularly at shorter distances ... [which] reveals an additional underserved population.”

Identifying geographic areas with greater access issues can help researchers address barriers to screening and improve uptake. 

“Areas and local pockets with persistently low or no access across short and long distances should be considered for tailored interventions, such as implementing mobile units, repurposing existing imaging or health facilities, and adding appropriate navigation, radiology, and screening program staff to better support the communities,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported in part by the National Lung Cancer Roundtable. Coauthor Debra S. Dyer, MD, serves on the clinical advisory board for computer software company Imidex and on the GO2 Foundation scientific advisory board; she also serves as a consultant for Lung Ambition Alliance. Coauthor Ella A. Kazerooni, MD, reports past participation on the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation advisory board. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 5% of people who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening do not live close to a facility and have limited or no access to screening,a recent analysis shows.

That percentage, although quite small, still translates to more than 750,000 individuals who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening but live at least 40 miles from a facility.

Overall, a larger proportion of eligible individuals in rural areas had no access to a facility, but a greater number of people in urban areas had no access, especially at shorter distances.

Understanding access issues is important given that “lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography scanning (LDCT) reduces mortality among high-risk adults, ... [but] annual screening rates remain low,” write study authors Liora Sahar, PhD, of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 15 in the journal Cancer.

It expands on a previous report, which found that “less than 6% of those 55 to 79 years of age do not have access to registry screening facilities”.

The new analysis incorporates the most recent guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which lowered the screening age to 50 years and compares access across urban and rural areas.

Dr. Sahar and colleagues calculated the distances from population centers to screening facilities and estimated the number of individuals living within different distances of those facilities – 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles. Geographical subdivisions, or census tracts, were also classified along a spectrum of rural to urban.

The authors found that, overall, about 14.8 million people aged 50-80 years are eligible for lung cancer screening, and 5.1% of that population – or 753,038 individuals – do not live within 40 miles of a facility and have no access to screening.

The proportion of people affected by access issues varies by geographic location. For eligible people living 40 miles or more from a facility, almost 25% (n = 287,803) in rural counties had no access, compared with 1.6% (n = 195,120) in metropolitan areas.

At greater distances to facilities (50 and 100 miles), these proportions diminish. In rural counties, for instance, 16% of eligible individuals (n = 186,401) living 50 or more miles away and 2.8% (n = 33,504) living 100 or more miles away had no access to a facility.

Not surprisingly, across all distances, “there is a significantly higher percentage of rural residents who do not have access to facilities in comparison with those in urban settings,” the authors write. “There are fewer facilities in rural areas, so residents need to travel longer distances to reach a facility.”

Notably, however, distance to a facility was not necessarily the greatest barrier to screening. The authors found a greater number of eligible individuals living in or close to urban areas were not getting screening when facilities were 10 miles away – more than 2.8 million in metropolitan areas versus just over 1 million in rural areas.

“The total number of individuals with no access in urban areas exceeds that of rural individuals, particularly at shorter distances ... [which] reveals an additional underserved population.”

Identifying geographic areas with greater access issues can help researchers address barriers to screening and improve uptake. 

“Areas and local pockets with persistently low or no access across short and long distances should be considered for tailored interventions, such as implementing mobile units, repurposing existing imaging or health facilities, and adding appropriate navigation, radiology, and screening program staff to better support the communities,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported in part by the National Lung Cancer Roundtable. Coauthor Debra S. Dyer, MD, serves on the clinical advisory board for computer software company Imidex and on the GO2 Foundation scientific advisory board; she also serves as a consultant for Lung Ambition Alliance. Coauthor Ella A. Kazerooni, MD, reports past participation on the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation advisory board. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

About 5% of people who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening do not live close to a facility and have limited or no access to screening,a recent analysis shows.

That percentage, although quite small, still translates to more than 750,000 individuals who are eligible to receive lung cancer screening but live at least 40 miles from a facility.

Overall, a larger proportion of eligible individuals in rural areas had no access to a facility, but a greater number of people in urban areas had no access, especially at shorter distances.

Understanding access issues is important given that “lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography scanning (LDCT) reduces mortality among high-risk adults, ... [but] annual screening rates remain low,” write study authors Liora Sahar, PhD, of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 15 in the journal Cancer.

It expands on a previous report, which found that “less than 6% of those 55 to 79 years of age do not have access to registry screening facilities”.

The new analysis incorporates the most recent guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which lowered the screening age to 50 years and compares access across urban and rural areas.

Dr. Sahar and colleagues calculated the distances from population centers to screening facilities and estimated the number of individuals living within different distances of those facilities – 10, 20, 40, 50, and 100 miles. Geographical subdivisions, or census tracts, were also classified along a spectrum of rural to urban.

The authors found that, overall, about 14.8 million people aged 50-80 years are eligible for lung cancer screening, and 5.1% of that population – or 753,038 individuals – do not live within 40 miles of a facility and have no access to screening.

The proportion of people affected by access issues varies by geographic location. For eligible people living 40 miles or more from a facility, almost 25% (n = 287,803) in rural counties had no access, compared with 1.6% (n = 195,120) in metropolitan areas.

At greater distances to facilities (50 and 100 miles), these proportions diminish. In rural counties, for instance, 16% of eligible individuals (n = 186,401) living 50 or more miles away and 2.8% (n = 33,504) living 100 or more miles away had no access to a facility.

Not surprisingly, across all distances, “there is a significantly higher percentage of rural residents who do not have access to facilities in comparison with those in urban settings,” the authors write. “There are fewer facilities in rural areas, so residents need to travel longer distances to reach a facility.”

Notably, however, distance to a facility was not necessarily the greatest barrier to screening. The authors found a greater number of eligible individuals living in or close to urban areas were not getting screening when facilities were 10 miles away – more than 2.8 million in metropolitan areas versus just over 1 million in rural areas.

“The total number of individuals with no access in urban areas exceeds that of rural individuals, particularly at shorter distances ... [which] reveals an additional underserved population.”

Identifying geographic areas with greater access issues can help researchers address barriers to screening and improve uptake. 

“Areas and local pockets with persistently low or no access across short and long distances should be considered for tailored interventions, such as implementing mobile units, repurposing existing imaging or health facilities, and adding appropriate navigation, radiology, and screening program staff to better support the communities,” the authors conclude.

The study was supported in part by the National Lung Cancer Roundtable. Coauthor Debra S. Dyer, MD, serves on the clinical advisory board for computer software company Imidex and on the GO2 Foundation scientific advisory board; she also serves as a consultant for Lung Ambition Alliance. Coauthor Ella A. Kazerooni, MD, reports past participation on the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation advisory board. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This study was published on Medrxiv.org as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• in analyses of more than 100,000 women that used Mendelian randomization (MR) as a tool to reduce residual confounding.
• The MR analyses showed no significant association between ANM and breast cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and Alzheimer’s disease.
• The clear lack of a causal effect of ANM on the outcomes of coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke in the MR analyses despite a strong inverse association seen in the observational data of this study (without MR) suggests residual confounding plays a substantial role in driving the observed outcomes.

Why this matters

• The authors said that, to their knowledge, this is the first study that has shown a causal association between older ANM and higher risk of postmenopausal lung cancer.
• This finding was directionally opposite to the significant protective effect of increased ANM documented in an observational analysis of roughly the same data as well as prior reports that did not use MR. This “notable inconsistency” suggests very substantial residual confounding without MR that could be driven by factors such as smoking, diet, and exercise.
• If these results are replicated in additional datasets, it would highlight a need for randomized, controlled trials of antiestrogen therapies in postmenopausal women for the prevention or treatment of lung cancer.

Study design

• The study included data from 106,853 postmenopausal women enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) and 95,464 women who were 37-73 years old included in the UK Biobank (UKB). Analyses for each outcome also included data from smaller numbers of women obtained from several additional datasets.
• The MR analysis used up to 55 single-nucleotide polymorphisms previously discovered through a genome-wide association study of about 70,000 women of European ancestry and independent of all datasets analyzed in the current study. The authors included all single-nucleotide polymorphisms with a consistent direction of effect on ANM.
• The MR analysis for lung cancer included 113,371 women from the two primary datasets and an additional 3012 women from six additional datasets.
• The MR analysis for bone fracture involved 113,239 women from the WHI and UKB only. The MR analysis for osteoporosis involved 137,080 women from the WHI, UKB, and one additional external dataset.

Key results

• Results from a meta-analysis of the MR results using data from the WHI, UKB, and the additional datasets showed ANM was causally associated with an increased risk of lung cancer by an odds ratio of 1.35 for each 5-year increase in ANM. In contrast, the adjusted observational analysis of data just from the WHI and UKB showed a significant 11% relative risk reduction in the incidence of lung cancer for each 5-year increase in ANM.
• The MR results also showed causally protective effects for fracture, with a 24% relative risk reduction, and for osteoporosis, with a 19% relative risk reduction for each 5-year increase in ANM.
• The MR analyses showed no significant association between AMN and outcome for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Limitations

The main limitation of the MR study was the potential for inadequate power for assessing some outcomes despite the large overall size of the study cohort. Lack of adequate power may be responsible for some of the nonsignificant associations seen in the study, such as for breast and endometrial cancers, where substantial prior evidence has implicated increased risk through the effects of prolonged exposure to endogenous or exogenous estrogens.

The healthy cohort effect in the UKB is a known weakness of this dataset that may have limited the number of cases and generalizability of findings.

Osteoporosis and Alzheimer’s disease were self-reported.

The study only included participants of European ancestry because most subjects in most of the cohorts examined were White women and the applied MR instruments were found by genome-wide association studies run predominantly in White women. The authors said the causal effects of ANM need study in more diverse populations.
 

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• None of the authors had disclosures.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Genetic evidence for causal relationships between age at natural menopause and the risk of aging-associated adverse health outcomes,” written by authors primarily based at Stanford University School of Medicine i

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

This study was published on Medrxiv.org as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• in analyses of more than 100,000 women that used Mendelian randomization (MR) as a tool to reduce residual confounding.
• The MR analyses showed no significant association between ANM and breast cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and Alzheimer’s disease.
• The clear lack of a causal effect of ANM on the outcomes of coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke in the MR analyses despite a strong inverse association seen in the observational data of this study (without MR) suggests residual confounding plays a substantial role in driving the observed outcomes.

Why this matters

• The authors said that, to their knowledge, this is the first study that has shown a causal association between older ANM and higher risk of postmenopausal lung cancer.
• This finding was directionally opposite to the significant protective effect of increased ANM documented in an observational analysis of roughly the same data as well as prior reports that did not use MR. This “notable inconsistency” suggests very substantial residual confounding without MR that could be driven by factors such as smoking, diet, and exercise.
• If these results are replicated in additional datasets, it would highlight a need for randomized, controlled trials of antiestrogen therapies in postmenopausal women for the prevention or treatment of lung cancer.

Study design

• The study included data from 106,853 postmenopausal women enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) and 95,464 women who were 37-73 years old included in the UK Biobank (UKB). Analyses for each outcome also included data from smaller numbers of women obtained from several additional datasets.
• The MR analysis used up to 55 single-nucleotide polymorphisms previously discovered through a genome-wide association study of about 70,000 women of European ancestry and independent of all datasets analyzed in the current study. The authors included all single-nucleotide polymorphisms with a consistent direction of effect on ANM.
• The MR analysis for lung cancer included 113,371 women from the two primary datasets and an additional 3012 women from six additional datasets.
• The MR analysis for bone fracture involved 113,239 women from the WHI and UKB only. The MR analysis for osteoporosis involved 137,080 women from the WHI, UKB, and one additional external dataset.

Key results

• Results from a meta-analysis of the MR results using data from the WHI, UKB, and the additional datasets showed ANM was causally associated with an increased risk of lung cancer by an odds ratio of 1.35 for each 5-year increase in ANM. In contrast, the adjusted observational analysis of data just from the WHI and UKB showed a significant 11% relative risk reduction in the incidence of lung cancer for each 5-year increase in ANM.
• The MR results also showed causally protective effects for fracture, with a 24% relative risk reduction, and for osteoporosis, with a 19% relative risk reduction for each 5-year increase in ANM.
• The MR analyses showed no significant association between AMN and outcome for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Limitations

The main limitation of the MR study was the potential for inadequate power for assessing some outcomes despite the large overall size of the study cohort. Lack of adequate power may be responsible for some of the nonsignificant associations seen in the study, such as for breast and endometrial cancers, where substantial prior evidence has implicated increased risk through the effects of prolonged exposure to endogenous or exogenous estrogens.

The healthy cohort effect in the UKB is a known weakness of this dataset that may have limited the number of cases and generalizability of findings.

Osteoporosis and Alzheimer’s disease were self-reported.

The study only included participants of European ancestry because most subjects in most of the cohorts examined were White women and the applied MR instruments were found by genome-wide association studies run predominantly in White women. The authors said the causal effects of ANM need study in more diverse populations.
 

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• None of the authors had disclosures.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Genetic evidence for causal relationships between age at natural menopause and the risk of aging-associated adverse health outcomes,” written by authors primarily based at Stanford University School of Medicine i

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

This study was published on Medrxiv.org as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaways

• in analyses of more than 100,000 women that used Mendelian randomization (MR) as a tool to reduce residual confounding.
• The MR analyses showed no significant association between ANM and breast cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and Alzheimer’s disease.
• The clear lack of a causal effect of ANM on the outcomes of coronary heart disease and ischemic stroke in the MR analyses despite a strong inverse association seen in the observational data of this study (without MR) suggests residual confounding plays a substantial role in driving the observed outcomes.

Why this matters

• The authors said that, to their knowledge, this is the first study that has shown a causal association between older ANM and higher risk of postmenopausal lung cancer.
• This finding was directionally opposite to the significant protective effect of increased ANM documented in an observational analysis of roughly the same data as well as prior reports that did not use MR. This “notable inconsistency” suggests very substantial residual confounding without MR that could be driven by factors such as smoking, diet, and exercise.
• If these results are replicated in additional datasets, it would highlight a need for randomized, controlled trials of antiestrogen therapies in postmenopausal women for the prevention or treatment of lung cancer.

Study design

• The study included data from 106,853 postmenopausal women enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) and 95,464 women who were 37-73 years old included in the UK Biobank (UKB). Analyses for each outcome also included data from smaller numbers of women obtained from several additional datasets.
• The MR analysis used up to 55 single-nucleotide polymorphisms previously discovered through a genome-wide association study of about 70,000 women of European ancestry and independent of all datasets analyzed in the current study. The authors included all single-nucleotide polymorphisms with a consistent direction of effect on ANM.
• The MR analysis for lung cancer included 113,371 women from the two primary datasets and an additional 3012 women from six additional datasets.
• The MR analysis for bone fracture involved 113,239 women from the WHI and UKB only. The MR analysis for osteoporosis involved 137,080 women from the WHI, UKB, and one additional external dataset.

Key results

• Results from a meta-analysis of the MR results using data from the WHI, UKB, and the additional datasets showed ANM was causally associated with an increased risk of lung cancer by an odds ratio of 1.35 for each 5-year increase in ANM. In contrast, the adjusted observational analysis of data just from the WHI and UKB showed a significant 11% relative risk reduction in the incidence of lung cancer for each 5-year increase in ANM.
• The MR results also showed causally protective effects for fracture, with a 24% relative risk reduction, and for osteoporosis, with a 19% relative risk reduction for each 5-year increase in ANM.
• The MR analyses showed no significant association between AMN and outcome for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, and Alzheimer’s disease.

Limitations

The main limitation of the MR study was the potential for inadequate power for assessing some outcomes despite the large overall size of the study cohort. Lack of adequate power may be responsible for some of the nonsignificant associations seen in the study, such as for breast and endometrial cancers, where substantial prior evidence has implicated increased risk through the effects of prolonged exposure to endogenous or exogenous estrogens.

The healthy cohort effect in the UKB is a known weakness of this dataset that may have limited the number of cases and generalizability of findings.

Osteoporosis and Alzheimer’s disease were self-reported.

The study only included participants of European ancestry because most subjects in most of the cohorts examined were White women and the applied MR instruments were found by genome-wide association studies run predominantly in White women. The authors said the causal effects of ANM need study in more diverse populations.
 

Disclosures

• The study received no commercial funding.
• None of the authors had disclosures.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “Genetic evidence for causal relationships between age at natural menopause and the risk of aging-associated adverse health outcomes,” written by authors primarily based at Stanford University School of Medicine i

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

Investigators presenting at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Genitourinary Cancers Symposium called for neoadjuvant chemotherapy to be a new standard of care for high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma.

They made the call after finding that 63% of patients (36/57) had a pathologic response to gemcitabine/cisplatin before extirpative surgery, with pathologic response defined as less than pT2NO disease on postoperative pathology. Nineteen percent (11/57) had complete responses, with no evidence of the main tumor (ypT0N0).

The approach has a “favorable pathologic response, is well tolerated ... and thus should be considered a new standard of care option,” said investigators led by Wesley Yip, MD, a urologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

There was no comparator arm, but the results are in line with previous reports, including a 2014 investigation that found a 5-year disease specific survival (DSS) of 90.1% and 5-year overall survival (OS) of 80.2% among 31 upper tract urothelial carcinoma patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, versus a 5-year DSS and OS of 57.6% among 81 historical controls.

Presentation moderator Stephen Boorjian, MD, chair of urology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., called the findings “valuable” but noted there’s level 1 evidence for an alternative approach, chemotherapy or nivolumab after surgery for patients with particularly worrisome postop pathology. It makes it tough to know if patients should be treated beforehand or afterwards.

“What do we do?” he asked.

Dr. Yip said it’s an open question at this point but that trials are underway to address the issue. In the meantime, “it’s definitely a multidisciplinary discussion to know what’s best for each patient,” he said. One of the factors that argues for the neoadjuvant approach is that substantially fewer patients are eligible for chemotherapy after nephroureterectomy because of diminished renal function. “Patients who might not be eligible ... are the ones we’d be targeting for” neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), he said.

In the study, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² and cisplatin 35 mg/m² were administered on days 1 and 8 of four 21-day cycles, followed by radical nephroureterectomy or ureterectomy.

Fifty-three of the subjects had high-grade disease by endoscopic biopsy, and the remaining four were enrolled based on imaging and selective cytology. There was no nodal disease on CT within 30 days of neoadjuvant chemotherapy initiation.

Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% among pathologic responders but only 52% among nonresponders. Every responder was alive at 2 years versus 80% of nonresponders.

Across the entire cohort, 5-year PFS was 61% and 5-year OS 79%; 89.5% of patients were alive at a median follow-up of 3.5 years.

Almost all of the patients completed at least three NAC cycles, and all of them went to surgery, which had a 90-day grade 3 or higher complication rate of 7%.

Sixty-three percent were men, and 95% were White. The median age was 66 years.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Dr. Yip had no disclosures. Dr. Boorjian advises ArTara Therapeutics, FerGene, and Ferring.

Investigators presenting at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Genitourinary Cancers Symposium called for neoadjuvant chemotherapy to be a new standard of care for high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma.

They made the call after finding that 63% of patients (36/57) had a pathologic response to gemcitabine/cisplatin before extirpative surgery, with pathologic response defined as less than pT2NO disease on postoperative pathology. Nineteen percent (11/57) had complete responses, with no evidence of the main tumor (ypT0N0).

The approach has a “favorable pathologic response, is well tolerated ... and thus should be considered a new standard of care option,” said investigators led by Wesley Yip, MD, a urologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

There was no comparator arm, but the results are in line with previous reports, including a 2014 investigation that found a 5-year disease specific survival (DSS) of 90.1% and 5-year overall survival (OS) of 80.2% among 31 upper tract urothelial carcinoma patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, versus a 5-year DSS and OS of 57.6% among 81 historical controls.

Presentation moderator Stephen Boorjian, MD, chair of urology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., called the findings “valuable” but noted there’s level 1 evidence for an alternative approach, chemotherapy or nivolumab after surgery for patients with particularly worrisome postop pathology. It makes it tough to know if patients should be treated beforehand or afterwards.

“What do we do?” he asked.

Dr. Yip said it’s an open question at this point but that trials are underway to address the issue. In the meantime, “it’s definitely a multidisciplinary discussion to know what’s best for each patient,” he said. One of the factors that argues for the neoadjuvant approach is that substantially fewer patients are eligible for chemotherapy after nephroureterectomy because of diminished renal function. “Patients who might not be eligible ... are the ones we’d be targeting for” neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), he said.

In the study, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² and cisplatin 35 mg/m² were administered on days 1 and 8 of four 21-day cycles, followed by radical nephroureterectomy or ureterectomy.

Fifty-three of the subjects had high-grade disease by endoscopic biopsy, and the remaining four were enrolled based on imaging and selective cytology. There was no nodal disease on CT within 30 days of neoadjuvant chemotherapy initiation.

Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% among pathologic responders but only 52% among nonresponders. Every responder was alive at 2 years versus 80% of nonresponders.

Across the entire cohort, 5-year PFS was 61% and 5-year OS 79%; 89.5% of patients were alive at a median follow-up of 3.5 years.

Almost all of the patients completed at least three NAC cycles, and all of them went to surgery, which had a 90-day grade 3 or higher complication rate of 7%.

Sixty-three percent were men, and 95% were White. The median age was 66 years.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Dr. Yip had no disclosures. Dr. Boorjian advises ArTara Therapeutics, FerGene, and Ferring.

Investigators presenting at the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s Genitourinary Cancers Symposium called for neoadjuvant chemotherapy to be a new standard of care for high-grade upper tract urothelial carcinoma.

They made the call after finding that 63% of patients (36/57) had a pathologic response to gemcitabine/cisplatin before extirpative surgery, with pathologic response defined as less than pT2NO disease on postoperative pathology. Nineteen percent (11/57) had complete responses, with no evidence of the main tumor (ypT0N0).

The approach has a “favorable pathologic response, is well tolerated ... and thus should be considered a new standard of care option,” said investigators led by Wesley Yip, MD, a urologic oncology fellow at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

There was no comparator arm, but the results are in line with previous reports, including a 2014 investigation that found a 5-year disease specific survival (DSS) of 90.1% and 5-year overall survival (OS) of 80.2% among 31 upper tract urothelial carcinoma patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, versus a 5-year DSS and OS of 57.6% among 81 historical controls.

Presentation moderator Stephen Boorjian, MD, chair of urology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., called the findings “valuable” but noted there’s level 1 evidence for an alternative approach, chemotherapy or nivolumab after surgery for patients with particularly worrisome postop pathology. It makes it tough to know if patients should be treated beforehand or afterwards.

“What do we do?” he asked.

Dr. Yip said it’s an open question at this point but that trials are underway to address the issue. In the meantime, “it’s definitely a multidisciplinary discussion to know what’s best for each patient,” he said. One of the factors that argues for the neoadjuvant approach is that substantially fewer patients are eligible for chemotherapy after nephroureterectomy because of diminished renal function. “Patients who might not be eligible ... are the ones we’d be targeting for” neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), he said.

In the study, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² and cisplatin 35 mg/m² were administered on days 1 and 8 of four 21-day cycles, followed by radical nephroureterectomy or ureterectomy.

Fifty-three of the subjects had high-grade disease by endoscopic biopsy, and the remaining four were enrolled based on imaging and selective cytology. There was no nodal disease on CT within 30 days of neoadjuvant chemotherapy initiation.

Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% among pathologic responders but only 52% among nonresponders. Every responder was alive at 2 years versus 80% of nonresponders.

Across the entire cohort, 5-year PFS was 61% and 5-year OS 79%; 89.5% of patients were alive at a median follow-up of 3.5 years.

Almost all of the patients completed at least three NAC cycles, and all of them went to surgery, which had a 90-day grade 3 or higher complication rate of 7%.

Sixty-three percent were men, and 95% were White. The median age was 66 years.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and Memorial Sloan Kettering. Dr. Yip had no disclosures. Dr. Boorjian advises ArTara Therapeutics, FerGene, and Ferring.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) shows efficacy as a potential noninvasive option for the treatment of low-risk microcarcinomas in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) when measures beyond active surveillance are warranted, results from a new review show.

“The results in the current study suggest that RFA could function as a useful alternative treatment strategy in which patients are treated minimally invasively with curative intentions,” reported the authors of the meta-analysis published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.

Commenting on the research, Joanna Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, MD, PhD, said the work offers useful evidence on the potential role for RFA in low-risk micro-PTC – with some notable caveats.

“I agree that RFA might be a good option for patients unwilling or unable to accept active surveillance and for patients who are at high surgical risk because of comorbid conditions,” she told this news organization.

However, “RFA for patients with an evidence of nodule growth requires more data to be analyzed and a longer follow-up period in lieu of the fact that 21% of nodules subjected to RFA did not disappear, based on the data the authors provide,” noted Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, who is acting chief of thyroid tumors and functional thyroid disorders at the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, in Bethesda, Md.  
 

When active surveillance isn’t enough

Microcarcinoma PTC, defined as measuring 10 mm or less, is highly common, making up approximately half of papillary thyroid cancers diagnosed in some countries, and the outcomes of those cancers are excellent, with disease-specific survival of more than 99% after 10 years.

Guidelines in the United States and Europe typically recommend surgery (lobectomy) as a standard treatment for thyroid cancer, however, with many of the low-risk microcarcinomas remaining indolent and never progressing to the point of requiring treatment over a person’s lifetime, some also recommend considering active surveillance, or watchful waiting, for those lower-risk cancers.

In situations such as evidence of tumor growth during active surveillance, some countries, particularly Asian countries, also suggest considering thermal ablation techniques, including RFA, as an alternative to surgery, with key benefits including lower costs and potentially a lower risk of complications, compared with surgical lobectomy.

Otherwise, RFA is more typically reserved for benign nodules, recurrent PTC, or inoperable disease.
 

New meta-analysis

To investigate reported outcomes with RFA specifically in the treatment of microcarcinoma PTC, the authors, led by Sam P.J. van Dijk, BSc, of University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands), identified 15 studies published after 2016 involving 1,770 adult patients and 1,822 tumors who received RFA for the treatment of low-risk PTC microcarcinomas, defined as measuring 10 mm or less.

The studies were conducted in China and South Korea, where RFA is more commonly used in low-risk microcarcinoma PTC.

Patients were 77.9% women and a mean age of 45.4 years. The analysis excluded patients with pre-ablation lymph node or distant metastases, recurrence of disease, or extrathyroidal extension.

Of the 1,822 tumors treated with RFA, 49 required an additional RFA treatment and 1 tumor had two additional treatments.

With a mean follow-up of 33 months (range, 6-131 months), the primary outcome of the pooled rate of complete disappearance of microcarcinoma PTC on ultrasonography was 79%.

The overall rate of tumor progression was 1.5% (26 patients), and local residual microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.4% (7 tumors).

New microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.9% (15) of patients; 0.2% (4) developed lymph node metastases during follow-up, and no distant metastases were observed.

Minor complications occurred in 45 patients, and there were three major complications, including two voice changes that lasted more than 2 months and one cardiac arrhythmia.

“This study suggests that radiofrequency ablation is a safe and efficient method to treat selected low-risk papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid,” the researchers said.
 

Questions surrounding the 20% of patients who still had residual nodules

While the analysis did not include direct comparisons between RFA and lobectomy, Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted that, in general, “RFA appears to be associated with a lower complication rate compared with surgery, but also lower efficacy, with 21% of patients with residual nodules.”

The results raise the question of whether “all of the residual lesions are associated with persistent disease, and, if so, do they warrant further intervention?” she added.

To that point, the authors noted that only seven (0.4%) of the 21% of patients with persistent nodules showed residual microcarcinoma PTC cells after RFA, a fact that underscores that “the assessment of tumor response in patients with mPTC after RFA is complicated,” they wrote.

A key concern with assessing responses in RFA is that fine needle aspiration has been shown to have reduced diagnostic accuracy following treatment due to insufficient cellularity in the ablation area, the authors noted.

They add that core needle biopsy is believed to have higher accuracy.

While commenting that the analysis used the “best standards,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted the caveat that it provides “low- to moderate-quality evidence as it included either case series or retrospective cohort studies, characterized by an inherent bias associated with these study designs.”

And as the authors also acknowledge, possible overlap in the included cohorts “could mean that sample sizes might be smaller than reported,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska commented.

To further evaluate the pros and cons of RFA, the authors suggested that “future studies may focus on improving complete disappearance rates of the tumor volume, possibly with more advanced or longer RFA procedures.”
 

RFA an option for some patients

In the meantime, senior author Tessa M. van Ginhoven, MD, PhD, of the department of surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, suggests that, in addition to cases of local tumor growth, possible uses of RFA for micro-PTC could include situations of patient anxiety due to active surveillance.

“If active surveillance is appropriate for your population, but the patient is anxious and prefers lobectomy, one could envision RFA as a possible adjunct to active surveillance,” she told this news organization.

The authors and Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) shows efficacy as a potential noninvasive option for the treatment of low-risk microcarcinomas in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) when measures beyond active surveillance are warranted, results from a new review show.

“The results in the current study suggest that RFA could function as a useful alternative treatment strategy in which patients are treated minimally invasively with curative intentions,” reported the authors of the meta-analysis published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.

Commenting on the research, Joanna Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, MD, PhD, said the work offers useful evidence on the potential role for RFA in low-risk micro-PTC – with some notable caveats.

“I agree that RFA might be a good option for patients unwilling or unable to accept active surveillance and for patients who are at high surgical risk because of comorbid conditions,” she told this news organization.

However, “RFA for patients with an evidence of nodule growth requires more data to be analyzed and a longer follow-up period in lieu of the fact that 21% of nodules subjected to RFA did not disappear, based on the data the authors provide,” noted Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, who is acting chief of thyroid tumors and functional thyroid disorders at the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, in Bethesda, Md.  
 

When active surveillance isn’t enough

Microcarcinoma PTC, defined as measuring 10 mm or less, is highly common, making up approximately half of papillary thyroid cancers diagnosed in some countries, and the outcomes of those cancers are excellent, with disease-specific survival of more than 99% after 10 years.

Guidelines in the United States and Europe typically recommend surgery (lobectomy) as a standard treatment for thyroid cancer, however, with many of the low-risk microcarcinomas remaining indolent and never progressing to the point of requiring treatment over a person’s lifetime, some also recommend considering active surveillance, or watchful waiting, for those lower-risk cancers.

In situations such as evidence of tumor growth during active surveillance, some countries, particularly Asian countries, also suggest considering thermal ablation techniques, including RFA, as an alternative to surgery, with key benefits including lower costs and potentially a lower risk of complications, compared with surgical lobectomy.

Otherwise, RFA is more typically reserved for benign nodules, recurrent PTC, or inoperable disease.
 

New meta-analysis

To investigate reported outcomes with RFA specifically in the treatment of microcarcinoma PTC, the authors, led by Sam P.J. van Dijk, BSc, of University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands), identified 15 studies published after 2016 involving 1,770 adult patients and 1,822 tumors who received RFA for the treatment of low-risk PTC microcarcinomas, defined as measuring 10 mm or less.

The studies were conducted in China and South Korea, where RFA is more commonly used in low-risk microcarcinoma PTC.

Patients were 77.9% women and a mean age of 45.4 years. The analysis excluded patients with pre-ablation lymph node or distant metastases, recurrence of disease, or extrathyroidal extension.

Of the 1,822 tumors treated with RFA, 49 required an additional RFA treatment and 1 tumor had two additional treatments.

With a mean follow-up of 33 months (range, 6-131 months), the primary outcome of the pooled rate of complete disappearance of microcarcinoma PTC on ultrasonography was 79%.

The overall rate of tumor progression was 1.5% (26 patients), and local residual microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.4% (7 tumors).

New microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.9% (15) of patients; 0.2% (4) developed lymph node metastases during follow-up, and no distant metastases were observed.

Minor complications occurred in 45 patients, and there were three major complications, including two voice changes that lasted more than 2 months and one cardiac arrhythmia.

“This study suggests that radiofrequency ablation is a safe and efficient method to treat selected low-risk papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid,” the researchers said.
 

Questions surrounding the 20% of patients who still had residual nodules

While the analysis did not include direct comparisons between RFA and lobectomy, Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted that, in general, “RFA appears to be associated with a lower complication rate compared with surgery, but also lower efficacy, with 21% of patients with residual nodules.”

The results raise the question of whether “all of the residual lesions are associated with persistent disease, and, if so, do they warrant further intervention?” she added.

To that point, the authors noted that only seven (0.4%) of the 21% of patients with persistent nodules showed residual microcarcinoma PTC cells after RFA, a fact that underscores that “the assessment of tumor response in patients with mPTC after RFA is complicated,” they wrote.

A key concern with assessing responses in RFA is that fine needle aspiration has been shown to have reduced diagnostic accuracy following treatment due to insufficient cellularity in the ablation area, the authors noted.

They add that core needle biopsy is believed to have higher accuracy.

While commenting that the analysis used the “best standards,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted the caveat that it provides “low- to moderate-quality evidence as it included either case series or retrospective cohort studies, characterized by an inherent bias associated with these study designs.”

And as the authors also acknowledge, possible overlap in the included cohorts “could mean that sample sizes might be smaller than reported,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska commented.

To further evaluate the pros and cons of RFA, the authors suggested that “future studies may focus on improving complete disappearance rates of the tumor volume, possibly with more advanced or longer RFA procedures.”
 

RFA an option for some patients

In the meantime, senior author Tessa M. van Ginhoven, MD, PhD, of the department of surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, suggests that, in addition to cases of local tumor growth, possible uses of RFA for micro-PTC could include situations of patient anxiety due to active surveillance.

“If active surveillance is appropriate for your population, but the patient is anxious and prefers lobectomy, one could envision RFA as a possible adjunct to active surveillance,” she told this news organization.

The authors and Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) shows efficacy as a potential noninvasive option for the treatment of low-risk microcarcinomas in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) when measures beyond active surveillance are warranted, results from a new review show.

“The results in the current study suggest that RFA could function as a useful alternative treatment strategy in which patients are treated minimally invasively with curative intentions,” reported the authors of the meta-analysis published online in JAMA Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery.

Commenting on the research, Joanna Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, MD, PhD, said the work offers useful evidence on the potential role for RFA in low-risk micro-PTC – with some notable caveats.

“I agree that RFA might be a good option for patients unwilling or unable to accept active surveillance and for patients who are at high surgical risk because of comorbid conditions,” she told this news organization.

However, “RFA for patients with an evidence of nodule growth requires more data to be analyzed and a longer follow-up period in lieu of the fact that 21% of nodules subjected to RFA did not disappear, based on the data the authors provide,” noted Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska, who is acting chief of thyroid tumors and functional thyroid disorders at the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, in Bethesda, Md.  
 

When active surveillance isn’t enough

Microcarcinoma PTC, defined as measuring 10 mm or less, is highly common, making up approximately half of papillary thyroid cancers diagnosed in some countries, and the outcomes of those cancers are excellent, with disease-specific survival of more than 99% after 10 years.

Guidelines in the United States and Europe typically recommend surgery (lobectomy) as a standard treatment for thyroid cancer, however, with many of the low-risk microcarcinomas remaining indolent and never progressing to the point of requiring treatment over a person’s lifetime, some also recommend considering active surveillance, or watchful waiting, for those lower-risk cancers.

In situations such as evidence of tumor growth during active surveillance, some countries, particularly Asian countries, also suggest considering thermal ablation techniques, including RFA, as an alternative to surgery, with key benefits including lower costs and potentially a lower risk of complications, compared with surgical lobectomy.

Otherwise, RFA is more typically reserved for benign nodules, recurrent PTC, or inoperable disease.
 

New meta-analysis

To investigate reported outcomes with RFA specifically in the treatment of microcarcinoma PTC, the authors, led by Sam P.J. van Dijk, BSc, of University Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands), identified 15 studies published after 2016 involving 1,770 adult patients and 1,822 tumors who received RFA for the treatment of low-risk PTC microcarcinomas, defined as measuring 10 mm or less.

The studies were conducted in China and South Korea, where RFA is more commonly used in low-risk microcarcinoma PTC.

Patients were 77.9% women and a mean age of 45.4 years. The analysis excluded patients with pre-ablation lymph node or distant metastases, recurrence of disease, or extrathyroidal extension.

Of the 1,822 tumors treated with RFA, 49 required an additional RFA treatment and 1 tumor had two additional treatments.

With a mean follow-up of 33 months (range, 6-131 months), the primary outcome of the pooled rate of complete disappearance of microcarcinoma PTC on ultrasonography was 79%.

The overall rate of tumor progression was 1.5% (26 patients), and local residual microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.4% (7 tumors).

New microcarcinoma PTC occurred in 0.9% (15) of patients; 0.2% (4) developed lymph node metastases during follow-up, and no distant metastases were observed.

Minor complications occurred in 45 patients, and there were three major complications, including two voice changes that lasted more than 2 months and one cardiac arrhythmia.

“This study suggests that radiofrequency ablation is a safe and efficient method to treat selected low-risk papillary microcarcinoma of the thyroid,” the researchers said.
 

Questions surrounding the 20% of patients who still had residual nodules

While the analysis did not include direct comparisons between RFA and lobectomy, Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted that, in general, “RFA appears to be associated with a lower complication rate compared with surgery, but also lower efficacy, with 21% of patients with residual nodules.”

The results raise the question of whether “all of the residual lesions are associated with persistent disease, and, if so, do they warrant further intervention?” she added.

To that point, the authors noted that only seven (0.4%) of the 21% of patients with persistent nodules showed residual microcarcinoma PTC cells after RFA, a fact that underscores that “the assessment of tumor response in patients with mPTC after RFA is complicated,” they wrote.

A key concern with assessing responses in RFA is that fine needle aspiration has been shown to have reduced diagnostic accuracy following treatment due to insufficient cellularity in the ablation area, the authors noted.

They add that core needle biopsy is believed to have higher accuracy.

While commenting that the analysis used the “best standards,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska noted the caveat that it provides “low- to moderate-quality evidence as it included either case series or retrospective cohort studies, characterized by an inherent bias associated with these study designs.”

And as the authors also acknowledge, possible overlap in the included cohorts “could mean that sample sizes might be smaller than reported,” Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska commented.

To further evaluate the pros and cons of RFA, the authors suggested that “future studies may focus on improving complete disappearance rates of the tumor volume, possibly with more advanced or longer RFA procedures.”
 

RFA an option for some patients

In the meantime, senior author Tessa M. van Ginhoven, MD, PhD, of the department of surgical oncology and gastrointestinal surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, suggests that, in addition to cases of local tumor growth, possible uses of RFA for micro-PTC could include situations of patient anxiety due to active surveillance.

“If active surveillance is appropriate for your population, but the patient is anxious and prefers lobectomy, one could envision RFA as a possible adjunct to active surveillance,” she told this news organization.

The authors and Dr. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

There was a remarkable reduction in bowel and urinary side effects when MRI was used instead of CT to guide stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer, shows a study from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Among the first 100 men in the phase 3 MIRAGE trial (Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Guided Versus Computed Tomography–Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer), MRI guidance more than halved the incidence of grade 2 or higher physician-reported genitourinary toxicity within 90 days of the procedure, which fell from 47.1% with CT to 22.4% with MRI.

While 13.7% of men had gastrointestinal complications with CT guidance, there wasn’t a single case in the MRI arm. The findings were presented Feb. 17 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

The investigators thought they’d need 300 men to detect a safety difference, but the results are so strong that they’ve scaled back enrollment to 154. In the meantime, MRI-guided SBRT is now offered routinely to men with localized prostate cancer at UCLA.

“Our final results are expected later this year, but we are extremely optimistic by what we’re seeing, and hope this technology will soon begin to offer men undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer better outcomes,” said lead investigator Amar Upadhyaya Kishan, MD, a genitourinary oncology radiologist, in a UCLA press release.

The better outcomes are caused by the enhanced imaging capabilities of MRI, including real time tracking and automatic beam shutoff when the prostate moves too far outside of the treatment boundary, Dr. Kishan explained on Twitter.

Because of the extra precision, “we felt we could safely reduce the planning margins to only 2 mm” with MRI, down from 4 mm with CT. It translated to smaller treatment volumes and less collateral tissue damage, he said.

Across the first 100 subjects, 49 men were randomized to MRI-guided SBRT and 51 to SBRT with CT guidance. Their prostates and proximal seminal vesicles were dosed with 40 Gy of radiation in five fractions. Rectal spacing and nodal irradiation were at physician discretion.

Patients in the MRI arm also reported significantly fewer urinary symptoms, including urgency, incontinence, burning sensations, and bowel dysfunction, such as pain, diarrhea, and obstruction, among others, at 1 month with MRI guidance. The differences diminished at 3 months with adverse event management in the CT arm.

Lymph nodes were irradiated in 29% of men in the CT group versus 20% in the MRI arm, and 37% of the CT group versus 27% with MRI had rectal spacing.

Baseline gland size was a median of 39 mL in both groups. Baseline International Prostate Symptom Scores were a median of 8 points in the MRI group but 5 points in the CT arm.

The work was funded by UCLA, among others. Dr. Kishan has ownership interests in ViewRay, the company that makes the MRI-guiding technology used in the trial, and reported honoraria and research funding from the company.

There was a remarkable reduction in bowel and urinary side effects when MRI was used instead of CT to guide stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer, shows a study from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Among the first 100 men in the phase 3 MIRAGE trial (Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Guided Versus Computed Tomography–Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer), MRI guidance more than halved the incidence of grade 2 or higher physician-reported genitourinary toxicity within 90 days of the procedure, which fell from 47.1% with CT to 22.4% with MRI.

While 13.7% of men had gastrointestinal complications with CT guidance, there wasn’t a single case in the MRI arm. The findings were presented Feb. 17 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

The investigators thought they’d need 300 men to detect a safety difference, but the results are so strong that they’ve scaled back enrollment to 154. In the meantime, MRI-guided SBRT is now offered routinely to men with localized prostate cancer at UCLA.

“Our final results are expected later this year, but we are extremely optimistic by what we’re seeing, and hope this technology will soon begin to offer men undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer better outcomes,” said lead investigator Amar Upadhyaya Kishan, MD, a genitourinary oncology radiologist, in a UCLA press release.

The better outcomes are caused by the enhanced imaging capabilities of MRI, including real time tracking and automatic beam shutoff when the prostate moves too far outside of the treatment boundary, Dr. Kishan explained on Twitter.

Because of the extra precision, “we felt we could safely reduce the planning margins to only 2 mm” with MRI, down from 4 mm with CT. It translated to smaller treatment volumes and less collateral tissue damage, he said.

Across the first 100 subjects, 49 men were randomized to MRI-guided SBRT and 51 to SBRT with CT guidance. Their prostates and proximal seminal vesicles were dosed with 40 Gy of radiation in five fractions. Rectal spacing and nodal irradiation were at physician discretion.

Patients in the MRI arm also reported significantly fewer urinary symptoms, including urgency, incontinence, burning sensations, and bowel dysfunction, such as pain, diarrhea, and obstruction, among others, at 1 month with MRI guidance. The differences diminished at 3 months with adverse event management in the CT arm.

Lymph nodes were irradiated in 29% of men in the CT group versus 20% in the MRI arm, and 37% of the CT group versus 27% with MRI had rectal spacing.

Baseline gland size was a median of 39 mL in both groups. Baseline International Prostate Symptom Scores were a median of 8 points in the MRI group but 5 points in the CT arm.

The work was funded by UCLA, among others. Dr. Kishan has ownership interests in ViewRay, the company that makes the MRI-guiding technology used in the trial, and reported honoraria and research funding from the company.

There was a remarkable reduction in bowel and urinary side effects when MRI was used instead of CT to guide stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer, shows a study from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Among the first 100 men in the phase 3 MIRAGE trial (Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Guided Versus Computed Tomography–Guided Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer), MRI guidance more than halved the incidence of grade 2 or higher physician-reported genitourinary toxicity within 90 days of the procedure, which fell from 47.1% with CT to 22.4% with MRI.

While 13.7% of men had gastrointestinal complications with CT guidance, there wasn’t a single case in the MRI arm. The findings were presented Feb. 17 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Genitourinary Cancers Symposium.

The investigators thought they’d need 300 men to detect a safety difference, but the results are so strong that they’ve scaled back enrollment to 154. In the meantime, MRI-guided SBRT is now offered routinely to men with localized prostate cancer at UCLA.

“Our final results are expected later this year, but we are extremely optimistic by what we’re seeing, and hope this technology will soon begin to offer men undergoing radiotherapy for prostate cancer better outcomes,” said lead investigator Amar Upadhyaya Kishan, MD, a genitourinary oncology radiologist, in a UCLA press release.

The better outcomes are caused by the enhanced imaging capabilities of MRI, including real time tracking and automatic beam shutoff when the prostate moves too far outside of the treatment boundary, Dr. Kishan explained on Twitter.

Because of the extra precision, “we felt we could safely reduce the planning margins to only 2 mm” with MRI, down from 4 mm with CT. It translated to smaller treatment volumes and less collateral tissue damage, he said.

Across the first 100 subjects, 49 men were randomized to MRI-guided SBRT and 51 to SBRT with CT guidance. Their prostates and proximal seminal vesicles were dosed with 40 Gy of radiation in five fractions. Rectal spacing and nodal irradiation were at physician discretion.

Patients in the MRI arm also reported significantly fewer urinary symptoms, including urgency, incontinence, burning sensations, and bowel dysfunction, such as pain, diarrhea, and obstruction, among others, at 1 month with MRI guidance. The differences diminished at 3 months with adverse event management in the CT arm.

Lymph nodes were irradiated in 29% of men in the CT group versus 20% in the MRI arm, and 37% of the CT group versus 27% with MRI had rectal spacing.

Baseline gland size was a median of 39 mL in both groups. Baseline International Prostate Symptom Scores were a median of 8 points in the MRI group but 5 points in the CT arm.

The work was funded by UCLA, among others. Dr. Kishan has ownership interests in ViewRay, the company that makes the MRI-guiding technology used in the trial, and reported honoraria and research funding from the company.

Women with early-stage breast cancer who are poorly represented in clinical trials have worse survival than their well-represented peers, according to a real-world analysis.

The study shows that more than half of women with early breast cancer are not well represented in clinical trials because of age, comorbidities, or race, yet they receive therapies based on the results of these trials.

“The most interesting finding is that patients with comorbidities resulting in lab abnormalities that would typically exclude them from receiving medication on a trial are still frequently receiving these medications and have an almost threefold higher mortality,” Gabrielle Rocque, MD, with the division of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization.

“We need to do a deeper dive to better understand what is driving this mortality difference and test specific medications in patients with these conditions to understand the optimal treatment for this population,” Dr. Rocque added.

The study was published Feb. 1 in JCO Oncology Practice.

Many patient groups are not well represented in clinical trials, including patients of color, older patients, and those with comorbidities, and it remains unclear how treatment outcomes may differ among these patients, compared with those who are well represented in trials.

To investigate, Dr. Rocque and colleagues looked at 11,770 women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2005 and 2015 in the American Society of Clinical Oncology CancerLinQ database.

White women between 45 and 69 years of age with no comorbid conditions were considered well represented and made up 48% of the cohort.

Non-White women and/or those younger than 45 years or older than 70 were considered under represented and made up 45% of the cohort. The unrepresented group (7%) included women with comorbidities – such as liver disease, renal insufficiency, thrombocytopenia, anemia, or uncontrolled diabetes – or concurrent cancer.

The majority of the women received a high-intensity chemotherapy regimen, including 58% of unrepresented, 66% of underrepresented, and 63% of well-represented patients.

Compared with well-represented women, unrepresented women had a higher risk of death at 5 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.71; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-3.52).

Overall, the team found no significant increase in the risk of death at 5 years in underrepresented vs. well-represented women (aHR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.98-1.45). However, that risk varied with age. Among underrepresented women, those aged 70 and older had more than a twofold higher risk of 5-year mortality (aHR, 2.21), while those younger than 45 had a lower risk of 5-year mortality (aHR, 0.63), compared with those aged 45-69 years.

For three cancer subtypes, unrepresented patients had a greater than twofold higher risk of 5-year mortality, compared with well-represented patients (aHR, 2.50 for HER2-positive disease; aHR, 2.54 for HR-positive/HER2-negative disease; and aHR, 2.75 for triple-negative disease).

Underrepresented patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease had a 38% increased risk of 5-year mortality, compared with their well-represented peers (aHR, 1.38). However, there were no significant differences in 5-year mortality for underrepresented vs. well-represented patients with HER2-positive or triple-negative subtypes.
 

Risky business?

This analysis shows that unrepresented populations receive common treatment regimens at a similar rate as well-represented patients, the researchers note.

“By excluding patients with differing clinical conditions from trials but including them in the population to which drugs can be disseminated, one runs the risk of inadvertently causing injury,” the authors caution.

“To inform the practice of evidence-based medicine in an equitable manner, our findings support a need to both expand clinical trial inclusion criteria and report on clinical trial outcomes by clinical and demographic characteristics,” Dr. Rocque and colleagues conclude.

Charles Shapiro, MD, professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is not surprised by the findings of this study.

“We know that clinical trials are too restrictive and include only a selected population largely without comorbidities, but in the real world, people have comorbidities,” Dr. Shapiro, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.

The study “starkly illustrates” the poorer survival of populations not represented in clinical trials.

“It could be that we need to change clinical trials, maybe ask fewer questions or maybe ask more important questions and loosen the eligibility up, because in the real world, there are people with comorbidities and people who are over 70,” Dr. Shapiro stated.

Are strides being made to change that? “Not really,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.

The study was supported by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the American Cancer Society. Dr. Rocque has served as a consultant or advisor for Pfizer; has received research funding from Carevive Systems, Genentech, and Pfizer; and has received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Carevive. Dr. Shapiro has financial relationships with UptoDate, 2nd MD, and Anthenum.

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

Women with early-stage breast cancer who are poorly represented in clinical trials have worse survival than their well-represented peers, according to a real-world analysis.

The study shows that more than half of women with early breast cancer are not well represented in clinical trials because of age, comorbidities, or race, yet they receive therapies based on the results of these trials.

“The most interesting finding is that patients with comorbidities resulting in lab abnormalities that would typically exclude them from receiving medication on a trial are still frequently receiving these medications and have an almost threefold higher mortality,” Gabrielle Rocque, MD, with the division of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization.

“We need to do a deeper dive to better understand what is driving this mortality difference and test specific medications in patients with these conditions to understand the optimal treatment for this population,” Dr. Rocque added.

The study was published Feb. 1 in JCO Oncology Practice.

Many patient groups are not well represented in clinical trials, including patients of color, older patients, and those with comorbidities, and it remains unclear how treatment outcomes may differ among these patients, compared with those who are well represented in trials.

To investigate, Dr. Rocque and colleagues looked at 11,770 women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2005 and 2015 in the American Society of Clinical Oncology CancerLinQ database.

White women between 45 and 69 years of age with no comorbid conditions were considered well represented and made up 48% of the cohort.

Non-White women and/or those younger than 45 years or older than 70 were considered under represented and made up 45% of the cohort. The unrepresented group (7%) included women with comorbidities – such as liver disease, renal insufficiency, thrombocytopenia, anemia, or uncontrolled diabetes – or concurrent cancer.

The majority of the women received a high-intensity chemotherapy regimen, including 58% of unrepresented, 66% of underrepresented, and 63% of well-represented patients.

Compared with well-represented women, unrepresented women had a higher risk of death at 5 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.71; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-3.52).

Overall, the team found no significant increase in the risk of death at 5 years in underrepresented vs. well-represented women (aHR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.98-1.45). However, that risk varied with age. Among underrepresented women, those aged 70 and older had more than a twofold higher risk of 5-year mortality (aHR, 2.21), while those younger than 45 had a lower risk of 5-year mortality (aHR, 0.63), compared with those aged 45-69 years.

For three cancer subtypes, unrepresented patients had a greater than twofold higher risk of 5-year mortality, compared with well-represented patients (aHR, 2.50 for HER2-positive disease; aHR, 2.54 for HR-positive/HER2-negative disease; and aHR, 2.75 for triple-negative disease).

Underrepresented patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease had a 38% increased risk of 5-year mortality, compared with their well-represented peers (aHR, 1.38). However, there were no significant differences in 5-year mortality for underrepresented vs. well-represented patients with HER2-positive or triple-negative subtypes.
 

Risky business?

This analysis shows that unrepresented populations receive common treatment regimens at a similar rate as well-represented patients, the researchers note.

“By excluding patients with differing clinical conditions from trials but including them in the population to which drugs can be disseminated, one runs the risk of inadvertently causing injury,” the authors caution.

“To inform the practice of evidence-based medicine in an equitable manner, our findings support a need to both expand clinical trial inclusion criteria and report on clinical trial outcomes by clinical and demographic characteristics,” Dr. Rocque and colleagues conclude.

Charles Shapiro, MD, professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is not surprised by the findings of this study.

“We know that clinical trials are too restrictive and include only a selected population largely without comorbidities, but in the real world, people have comorbidities,” Dr. Shapiro, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.

The study “starkly illustrates” the poorer survival of populations not represented in clinical trials.

“It could be that we need to change clinical trials, maybe ask fewer questions or maybe ask more important questions and loosen the eligibility up, because in the real world, there are people with comorbidities and people who are over 70,” Dr. Shapiro stated.

Are strides being made to change that? “Not really,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.

The study was supported by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the American Cancer Society. Dr. Rocque has served as a consultant or advisor for Pfizer; has received research funding from Carevive Systems, Genentech, and Pfizer; and has received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Carevive. Dr. Shapiro has financial relationships with UptoDate, 2nd MD, and Anthenum.

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

Women with early-stage breast cancer who are poorly represented in clinical trials have worse survival than their well-represented peers, according to a real-world analysis.

The study shows that more than half of women with early breast cancer are not well represented in clinical trials because of age, comorbidities, or race, yet they receive therapies based on the results of these trials.

“The most interesting finding is that patients with comorbidities resulting in lab abnormalities that would typically exclude them from receiving medication on a trial are still frequently receiving these medications and have an almost threefold higher mortality,” Gabrielle Rocque, MD, with the division of hematology and oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, told this news organization.

“We need to do a deeper dive to better understand what is driving this mortality difference and test specific medications in patients with these conditions to understand the optimal treatment for this population,” Dr. Rocque added.

The study was published Feb. 1 in JCO Oncology Practice.

Many patient groups are not well represented in clinical trials, including patients of color, older patients, and those with comorbidities, and it remains unclear how treatment outcomes may differ among these patients, compared with those who are well represented in trials.

To investigate, Dr. Rocque and colleagues looked at 11,770 women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2005 and 2015 in the American Society of Clinical Oncology CancerLinQ database.

White women between 45 and 69 years of age with no comorbid conditions were considered well represented and made up 48% of the cohort.

Non-White women and/or those younger than 45 years or older than 70 were considered under represented and made up 45% of the cohort. The unrepresented group (7%) included women with comorbidities – such as liver disease, renal insufficiency, thrombocytopenia, anemia, or uncontrolled diabetes – or concurrent cancer.

The majority of the women received a high-intensity chemotherapy regimen, including 58% of unrepresented, 66% of underrepresented, and 63% of well-represented patients.

Compared with well-represented women, unrepresented women had a higher risk of death at 5 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.71; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-3.52).

Overall, the team found no significant increase in the risk of death at 5 years in underrepresented vs. well-represented women (aHR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.98-1.45). However, that risk varied with age. Among underrepresented women, those aged 70 and older had more than a twofold higher risk of 5-year mortality (aHR, 2.21), while those younger than 45 had a lower risk of 5-year mortality (aHR, 0.63), compared with those aged 45-69 years.

For three cancer subtypes, unrepresented patients had a greater than twofold higher risk of 5-year mortality, compared with well-represented patients (aHR, 2.50 for HER2-positive disease; aHR, 2.54 for HR-positive/HER2-negative disease; and aHR, 2.75 for triple-negative disease).

Underrepresented patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease had a 38% increased risk of 5-year mortality, compared with their well-represented peers (aHR, 1.38). However, there were no significant differences in 5-year mortality for underrepresented vs. well-represented patients with HER2-positive or triple-negative subtypes.
 

Risky business?

This analysis shows that unrepresented populations receive common treatment regimens at a similar rate as well-represented patients, the researchers note.

“By excluding patients with differing clinical conditions from trials but including them in the population to which drugs can be disseminated, one runs the risk of inadvertently causing injury,” the authors caution.

“To inform the practice of evidence-based medicine in an equitable manner, our findings support a need to both expand clinical trial inclusion criteria and report on clinical trial outcomes by clinical and demographic characteristics,” Dr. Rocque and colleagues conclude.

Charles Shapiro, MD, professor of medicine, hematology, and medical oncology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, is not surprised by the findings of this study.

“We know that clinical trials are too restrictive and include only a selected population largely without comorbidities, but in the real world, people have comorbidities,” Dr. Shapiro, who was not involved in the research, told this news organization.

The study “starkly illustrates” the poorer survival of populations not represented in clinical trials.

“It could be that we need to change clinical trials, maybe ask fewer questions or maybe ask more important questions and loosen the eligibility up, because in the real world, there are people with comorbidities and people who are over 70,” Dr. Shapiro stated.

Are strides being made to change that? “Not really,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.

The study was supported by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the American Cancer Society. Dr. Rocque has served as a consultant or advisor for Pfizer; has received research funding from Carevive Systems, Genentech, and Pfizer; and has received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Carevive. Dr. Shapiro has financial relationships with UptoDate, 2nd MD, and Anthenum.

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

Twitter was all abuzz over an exchange that occurred Feb. 17 during the question-and-answer discussion that followed oral abstract presentations at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, held in San Francisco and also online. One of the panelists was accused of being less than professional in handling questions from the floor.

It began with a tweet from Sumanta Pal, MD, of the City of Hope, when he called out the behavior, although he did not identify the perpetrator.

“Yesterday we saw some reprehensible behavior emanating from the @ASCO #GU22 podium, with a well known investigator insulting (in a manner deeply imbued w microaggressions) an esteemed colleague at the mic. It’s a teachable moment & the lesson is simple: be kind to ur colleagues.”

It was not immediately clear what had occurred, and several people asked him to identify the people involved. One physician responded, “If it was bad enough to infer and share on Twitter, name the name.”

But even without details, the post provoked a reaction.

Erika Hamilton, MD, wrote, “I am not aware of this incident, but I always wonder ... if someone would do that from the podium, what would they/have they done and said when they didn’t think everyone was watching?”

Another tweet questioned why there were no codes of conduct in place, so that situations like this one wouldn’t happen.

“[It is] about time professional societies had codes of conduct in place for invited speakers, moderators of sessions etc,” wrote Deborah Verran, MD. “Then if it is breached the individual concerned is not invited back. This kind of incident also needs to be mentioned as part of the conference feedback process.”

As the number of clinicians chiming in increased, it soon became apparent that others were aware of the incident, and one posted a video clip, putting the mystery to rest.
 

Moderator quips, ‘Behave ... children’

The exchange occurred immediately following the oral abstract presentations on prostate cancer on Feb. 17. Two of these abstracts featured new data from large clinical trials investigating the use of PARP inhibitors in metastatic prostate cancer, which had slightly different results, leading to some debate. The PROpel trial with olaparib showed a benefit in all patients, irrespective of gene mutation status, but the MAGNITUDE trial with niraparib showed a benefit only in patients with gene alterations, and especially in those with BRCA1/2 mutations.

The invited discussant, Celestia Higano, MD, from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, compared and contrasted the two trials and the differing results.

During the question-and-answer session that followed, Neeraj Agarwal, MD, from the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, directed a question to Fred Saad, MD, who had presented the results of the PROpel trial.*

“As a practicing oncologist, I am very intrigued by the different results of the MAGNITUDE and PROpel trials. I am trying to figure out what do I do in my practice,” Dr. Agarwal began.

He continued on, explaining that he didn’t think that olaparib and niraparib were that different from one another for the two studies to have such differing results, when both of the drugs were given in combination with abiraterone.

The inclusion criteria for PROpel stipulated that patients undergo testing by ctDNA to determine if they were biomarker positive or not, but he pointed out that it is possible for testing to miss patients who might otherwise be positive for homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations. He posed the question, could some of the patients deemed biomarker negative in fact have been positive but whose status was not detected by ctDNA testing?

At that point, Dr. Higano interrupted him before he had completed his question and asked, “Can I make a comment? Were you listening to my discussion?”

She then continued, pointing out that “you can’t talk about comparing olaparib and niraparib – these two trials had two very different populations.”

She emphasized that this was about the combinations in the populations being studied and not about olaparib and niraparib. “I clearly wasn’t very clear,” she said.

Dr. Agarwal then repeated that he wanted to know what to do with his patients and asked again about the accuracy of ctDNA testing.

“That’s a good question,” Dr. Higano said, “But the other comments you made weren’t.”

At that point, the moderator chimed in. “Let’s all calm down ... children.”

After a brief applause following the moderator’s comment, Dr. Saad then addressed the question.

When the video clip of this exchange was posted, a flood of tweets poured in, supporting Dr. Pal’s initial summation of the situation.

Alison Birtle, MD, tweeted, “I’m even more appalled having seen this exchange. Unacceptable. You don’t humiliate either the speaker or the delegate and the questions were entirely valid in my opinion. Basically what do I do tomorrow with these data so why ask were you listening. That’s just rude.”

Jason Kovac, MD, tweeted: “It’s absolutely not a proper way to behave. Whether it’s behind the scenes or to your face. You can hear the arrogance from everyone including the moderator with his children comment. This is the true face of medicine.”

Jarey Wang, MD, PhD, however, liked the moderator’s input. “Love it. ‘Let’s all calm down children.’ Good for the moderator.”

Several of the physicians who commented thought that the issue should have been addressed at the time it happened. Don S. Dizon, MD, wrote, “Calling out microagressions as they occur is so important. And very difficult. Agree, the teachable moment must be met with bravery. But it should happen in real time too.”

After 2 days of bantering on Twitter, with the thread growing increasingly longer and with the vast majority of posts supporting Dr. Pal’s initial assessment, Dr. Higano finally entered the discussion and defended her comments: “What you do not know is that the questioner and I are good colleagues,” she tweeted. “I have been involved in two of his academic promotions. My main concern was his comment re: how the two trials could have ‘so different results with the same combination.’ I sought to rectify wrong message.”

There were no direct replies to Dr. Higano’s tweet.

Perhaps the line to draw under this affair is the tweet from Simon Kim, MD, MPH, who wrote: “We can do better!”

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

Correction, 2/24/22: Dr. Fred Saad's name was misstated in an earlier version of this article.

Twitter was all abuzz over an exchange that occurred Feb. 17 during the question-and-answer discussion that followed oral abstract presentations at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, held in San Francisco and also online. One of the panelists was accused of being less than professional in handling questions from the floor.

It began with a tweet from Sumanta Pal, MD, of the City of Hope, when he called out the behavior, although he did not identify the perpetrator.

“Yesterday we saw some reprehensible behavior emanating from the @ASCO #GU22 podium, with a well known investigator insulting (in a manner deeply imbued w microaggressions) an esteemed colleague at the mic. It’s a teachable moment & the lesson is simple: be kind to ur colleagues.”

It was not immediately clear what had occurred, and several people asked him to identify the people involved. One physician responded, “If it was bad enough to infer and share on Twitter, name the name.”

But even without details, the post provoked a reaction.

Erika Hamilton, MD, wrote, “I am not aware of this incident, but I always wonder ... if someone would do that from the podium, what would they/have they done and said when they didn’t think everyone was watching?”

Another tweet questioned why there were no codes of conduct in place, so that situations like this one wouldn’t happen.

“[It is] about time professional societies had codes of conduct in place for invited speakers, moderators of sessions etc,” wrote Deborah Verran, MD. “Then if it is breached the individual concerned is not invited back. This kind of incident also needs to be mentioned as part of the conference feedback process.”

As the number of clinicians chiming in increased, it soon became apparent that others were aware of the incident, and one posted a video clip, putting the mystery to rest.
 

Moderator quips, ‘Behave ... children’

The exchange occurred immediately following the oral abstract presentations on prostate cancer on Feb. 17. Two of these abstracts featured new data from large clinical trials investigating the use of PARP inhibitors in metastatic prostate cancer, which had slightly different results, leading to some debate. The PROpel trial with olaparib showed a benefit in all patients, irrespective of gene mutation status, but the MAGNITUDE trial with niraparib showed a benefit only in patients with gene alterations, and especially in those with BRCA1/2 mutations.

The invited discussant, Celestia Higano, MD, from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, compared and contrasted the two trials and the differing results.

During the question-and-answer session that followed, Neeraj Agarwal, MD, from the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, directed a question to Fred Saad, MD, who had presented the results of the PROpel trial.*

“As a practicing oncologist, I am very intrigued by the different results of the MAGNITUDE and PROpel trials. I am trying to figure out what do I do in my practice,” Dr. Agarwal began.

He continued on, explaining that he didn’t think that olaparib and niraparib were that different from one another for the two studies to have such differing results, when both of the drugs were given in combination with abiraterone.

The inclusion criteria for PROpel stipulated that patients undergo testing by ctDNA to determine if they were biomarker positive or not, but he pointed out that it is possible for testing to miss patients who might otherwise be positive for homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations. He posed the question, could some of the patients deemed biomarker negative in fact have been positive but whose status was not detected by ctDNA testing?

At that point, Dr. Higano interrupted him before he had completed his question and asked, “Can I make a comment? Were you listening to my discussion?”

She then continued, pointing out that “you can’t talk about comparing olaparib and niraparib – these two trials had two very different populations.”

She emphasized that this was about the combinations in the populations being studied and not about olaparib and niraparib. “I clearly wasn’t very clear,” she said.

Dr. Agarwal then repeated that he wanted to know what to do with his patients and asked again about the accuracy of ctDNA testing.

“That’s a good question,” Dr. Higano said, “But the other comments you made weren’t.”

At that point, the moderator chimed in. “Let’s all calm down ... children.”

After a brief applause following the moderator’s comment, Dr. Saad then addressed the question.

When the video clip of this exchange was posted, a flood of tweets poured in, supporting Dr. Pal’s initial summation of the situation.

Alison Birtle, MD, tweeted, “I’m even more appalled having seen this exchange. Unacceptable. You don’t humiliate either the speaker or the delegate and the questions were entirely valid in my opinion. Basically what do I do tomorrow with these data so why ask were you listening. That’s just rude.”

Jason Kovac, MD, tweeted: “It’s absolutely not a proper way to behave. Whether it’s behind the scenes or to your face. You can hear the arrogance from everyone including the moderator with his children comment. This is the true face of medicine.”

Jarey Wang, MD, PhD, however, liked the moderator’s input. “Love it. ‘Let’s all calm down children.’ Good for the moderator.”

Several of the physicians who commented thought that the issue should have been addressed at the time it happened. Don S. Dizon, MD, wrote, “Calling out microagressions as they occur is so important. And very difficult. Agree, the teachable moment must be met with bravery. But it should happen in real time too.”

After 2 days of bantering on Twitter, with the thread growing increasingly longer and with the vast majority of posts supporting Dr. Pal’s initial assessment, Dr. Higano finally entered the discussion and defended her comments: “What you do not know is that the questioner and I are good colleagues,” she tweeted. “I have been involved in two of his academic promotions. My main concern was his comment re: how the two trials could have ‘so different results with the same combination.’ I sought to rectify wrong message.”

There were no direct replies to Dr. Higano’s tweet.

Perhaps the line to draw under this affair is the tweet from Simon Kim, MD, MPH, who wrote: “We can do better!”

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

Correction, 2/24/22: Dr. Fred Saad's name was misstated in an earlier version of this article.

Twitter was all abuzz over an exchange that occurred Feb. 17 during the question-and-answer discussion that followed oral abstract presentations at the ASCO Genitourinary Cancers Symposium, held in San Francisco and also online. One of the panelists was accused of being less than professional in handling questions from the floor.

It began with a tweet from Sumanta Pal, MD, of the City of Hope, when he called out the behavior, although he did not identify the perpetrator.

“Yesterday we saw some reprehensible behavior emanating from the @ASCO #GU22 podium, with a well known investigator insulting (in a manner deeply imbued w microaggressions) an esteemed colleague at the mic. It’s a teachable moment & the lesson is simple: be kind to ur colleagues.”

It was not immediately clear what had occurred, and several people asked him to identify the people involved. One physician responded, “If it was bad enough to infer and share on Twitter, name the name.”

But even without details, the post provoked a reaction.

Erika Hamilton, MD, wrote, “I am not aware of this incident, but I always wonder ... if someone would do that from the podium, what would they/have they done and said when they didn’t think everyone was watching?”

Another tweet questioned why there were no codes of conduct in place, so that situations like this one wouldn’t happen.

“[It is] about time professional societies had codes of conduct in place for invited speakers, moderators of sessions etc,” wrote Deborah Verran, MD. “Then if it is breached the individual concerned is not invited back. This kind of incident also needs to be mentioned as part of the conference feedback process.”

As the number of clinicians chiming in increased, it soon became apparent that others were aware of the incident, and one posted a video clip, putting the mystery to rest.
 

Moderator quips, ‘Behave ... children’

The exchange occurred immediately following the oral abstract presentations on prostate cancer on Feb. 17. Two of these abstracts featured new data from large clinical trials investigating the use of PARP inhibitors in metastatic prostate cancer, which had slightly different results, leading to some debate. The PROpel trial with olaparib showed a benefit in all patients, irrespective of gene mutation status, but the MAGNITUDE trial with niraparib showed a benefit only in patients with gene alterations, and especially in those with BRCA1/2 mutations.

The invited discussant, Celestia Higano, MD, from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, compared and contrasted the two trials and the differing results.

During the question-and-answer session that followed, Neeraj Agarwal, MD, from the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, directed a question to Fred Saad, MD, who had presented the results of the PROpel trial.*

“As a practicing oncologist, I am very intrigued by the different results of the MAGNITUDE and PROpel trials. I am trying to figure out what do I do in my practice,” Dr. Agarwal began.

He continued on, explaining that he didn’t think that olaparib and niraparib were that different from one another for the two studies to have such differing results, when both of the drugs were given in combination with abiraterone.

The inclusion criteria for PROpel stipulated that patients undergo testing by ctDNA to determine if they were biomarker positive or not, but he pointed out that it is possible for testing to miss patients who might otherwise be positive for homologous recombination repair (HRR) gene alterations. He posed the question, could some of the patients deemed biomarker negative in fact have been positive but whose status was not detected by ctDNA testing?

At that point, Dr. Higano interrupted him before he had completed his question and asked, “Can I make a comment? Were you listening to my discussion?”

She then continued, pointing out that “you can’t talk about comparing olaparib and niraparib – these two trials had two very different populations.”

She emphasized that this was about the combinations in the populations being studied and not about olaparib and niraparib. “I clearly wasn’t very clear,” she said.

Dr. Agarwal then repeated that he wanted to know what to do with his patients and asked again about the accuracy of ctDNA testing.

“That’s a good question,” Dr. Higano said, “But the other comments you made weren’t.”

At that point, the moderator chimed in. “Let’s all calm down ... children.”

After a brief applause following the moderator’s comment, Dr. Saad then addressed the question.

When the video clip of this exchange was posted, a flood of tweets poured in, supporting Dr. Pal’s initial summation of the situation.

Alison Birtle, MD, tweeted, “I’m even more appalled having seen this exchange. Unacceptable. You don’t humiliate either the speaker or the delegate and the questions were entirely valid in my opinion. Basically what do I do tomorrow with these data so why ask were you listening. That’s just rude.”

Jason Kovac, MD, tweeted: “It’s absolutely not a proper way to behave. Whether it’s behind the scenes or to your face. You can hear the arrogance from everyone including the moderator with his children comment. This is the true face of medicine.”

Jarey Wang, MD, PhD, however, liked the moderator’s input. “Love it. ‘Let’s all calm down children.’ Good for the moderator.”

Several of the physicians who commented thought that the issue should have been addressed at the time it happened. Don S. Dizon, MD, wrote, “Calling out microagressions as they occur is so important. And very difficult. Agree, the teachable moment must be met with bravery. But it should happen in real time too.”

After 2 days of bantering on Twitter, with the thread growing increasingly longer and with the vast majority of posts supporting Dr. Pal’s initial assessment, Dr. Higano finally entered the discussion and defended her comments: “What you do not know is that the questioner and I are good colleagues,” she tweeted. “I have been involved in two of his academic promotions. My main concern was his comment re: how the two trials could have ‘so different results with the same combination.’ I sought to rectify wrong message.”

There were no direct replies to Dr. Higano’s tweet.

Perhaps the line to draw under this affair is the tweet from Simon Kim, MD, MPH, who wrote: “We can do better!”

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

Correction, 2/24/22: Dr. Fred Saad's name was misstated in an earlier version of this article.