AVAHO

The “Cancer Moonshot” is about to be relaunched.

In a White House briefing, President Joe Biden announced that he is “reigniting” the initiative he spearheaded when he was vice president during the Obama administration.

During the livestreamed event, the president discussed his plans to bring a “fierce sense of urgency” to the fight against cancer and better support patients with cancer and their families.

He emphasized that cancer is one of the truly bipartisan issues. There is strong support from both “sides of the aisle,” he said, and he sees it as an issue that can bring the country together.

“We can do this. I promise you, we can do this. For all those we lost, for all those we miss. We can end cancer as we know it,” he said. “This is a presidential White House priority.”

The aim is to reduce the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years.

One of the efforts will be directed to get people back to routine cancer screenings, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, with a special focus on ensuring equitable access.

There is also a proposal to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which would focus on driving cutting-edge innovation in health research.

Part of the plan is to assemble a “cancer cabinet” that includes 18 federal departments, agencies, and offices, including leaders from the departments of Health & Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, and Agriculture.

At present, there are few details about the new program or how it will be funded.

Presumably more will be revealed at the Cancer Moonshot Summit being planned, as well as on a planned new website where people can track its progress.
 

President priority

Cancer Moonshot began back in 2016, when during his last State of the Union Address, former President Barack Obama announced the ambitious initiative. A few days later, Obama asked Congress for $1 billion to send cancer to the moon, and he put Biden, then vice president, in charge of “mission control” in the remaining months of the administration.

The new initiative will be headed by Danielle Carnival, PhD, who serves in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and has been appointed as White House Cancer Moonshot coordinator.

At the briefing, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke about losing family members to cancer. The president spoke about his eldest son, Beau, who died from brain cancer when he was 46 years old, while Ms. Harris spoke about her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer researcher who died of colon cancer in 2009.
 

Accolades but a bit of caution

The president’s speech was applauded by many cancer groups, both professional organizations and patient advocacy groups.

Karen E. Knudsen, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, commended Mr. Biden for reigniting Cancer Moonshot.

“In 2022 alone, there will be an estimated 1.9 million people diagnosed with cancer and more than 600,000 people in the U.S. will die. Marshaling the resources of the federal government will be critical in our ability to reduce death and suffering from this disease,” she said.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology issued a press release, saying: “On behalf of radiation oncologists who treat people with cancer every day, we support the Biden-Harris administration’s move to drastically reduce the number of cancer deaths in the United States and improve the lives of people diagnosed with this disease.

“We believe the administration’s commitment to expand cancer prevention efforts and to increase equitable access to screenings and treatments will help mitigate some of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society added.

At the American Association for Cancer Research, Chief Executive Officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said she was thrilled to hear the announcement after the devastating interruptions in cancer research and patient care over the past 2 years.

“The reignited Cancer Moonshot will provide an important framework to help improve cancer prevention strategies, increase cancer screenings and early detection, reduce cancer disparities, and propel new lifesaving cures for patients with cancer,” she said.

However, increased funding from Congress will be needed for these goals to be achieved, she emphasized.

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

The “Cancer Moonshot” is about to be relaunched.

In a White House briefing, President Joe Biden announced that he is “reigniting” the initiative he spearheaded when he was vice president during the Obama administration.

During the livestreamed event, the president discussed his plans to bring a “fierce sense of urgency” to the fight against cancer and better support patients with cancer and their families.

He emphasized that cancer is one of the truly bipartisan issues. There is strong support from both “sides of the aisle,” he said, and he sees it as an issue that can bring the country together.

“We can do this. I promise you, we can do this. For all those we lost, for all those we miss. We can end cancer as we know it,” he said. “This is a presidential White House priority.”

The aim is to reduce the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years.

One of the efforts will be directed to get people back to routine cancer screenings, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, with a special focus on ensuring equitable access.

There is also a proposal to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which would focus on driving cutting-edge innovation in health research.

Part of the plan is to assemble a “cancer cabinet” that includes 18 federal departments, agencies, and offices, including leaders from the departments of Health & Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, and Agriculture.

At present, there are few details about the new program or how it will be funded.

Presumably more will be revealed at the Cancer Moonshot Summit being planned, as well as on a planned new website where people can track its progress.
 

President priority

Cancer Moonshot began back in 2016, when during his last State of the Union Address, former President Barack Obama announced the ambitious initiative. A few days later, Obama asked Congress for $1 billion to send cancer to the moon, and he put Biden, then vice president, in charge of “mission control” in the remaining months of the administration.

The new initiative will be headed by Danielle Carnival, PhD, who serves in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and has been appointed as White House Cancer Moonshot coordinator.

At the briefing, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke about losing family members to cancer. The president spoke about his eldest son, Beau, who died from brain cancer when he was 46 years old, while Ms. Harris spoke about her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer researcher who died of colon cancer in 2009.
 

Accolades but a bit of caution

The president’s speech was applauded by many cancer groups, both professional organizations and patient advocacy groups.

Karen E. Knudsen, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, commended Mr. Biden for reigniting Cancer Moonshot.

“In 2022 alone, there will be an estimated 1.9 million people diagnosed with cancer and more than 600,000 people in the U.S. will die. Marshaling the resources of the federal government will be critical in our ability to reduce death and suffering from this disease,” she said.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology issued a press release, saying: “On behalf of radiation oncologists who treat people with cancer every day, we support the Biden-Harris administration’s move to drastically reduce the number of cancer deaths in the United States and improve the lives of people diagnosed with this disease.

“We believe the administration’s commitment to expand cancer prevention efforts and to increase equitable access to screenings and treatments will help mitigate some of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society added.

At the American Association for Cancer Research, Chief Executive Officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said she was thrilled to hear the announcement after the devastating interruptions in cancer research and patient care over the past 2 years.

“The reignited Cancer Moonshot will provide an important framework to help improve cancer prevention strategies, increase cancer screenings and early detection, reduce cancer disparities, and propel new lifesaving cures for patients with cancer,” she said.

However, increased funding from Congress will be needed for these goals to be achieved, she emphasized.

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

The “Cancer Moonshot” is about to be relaunched.

In a White House briefing, President Joe Biden announced that he is “reigniting” the initiative he spearheaded when he was vice president during the Obama administration.

During the livestreamed event, the president discussed his plans to bring a “fierce sense of urgency” to the fight against cancer and better support patients with cancer and their families.

He emphasized that cancer is one of the truly bipartisan issues. There is strong support from both “sides of the aisle,” he said, and he sees it as an issue that can bring the country together.

“We can do this. I promise you, we can do this. For all those we lost, for all those we miss. We can end cancer as we know it,” he said. “This is a presidential White House priority.”

The aim is to reduce the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years.

One of the efforts will be directed to get people back to routine cancer screenings, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, with a special focus on ensuring equitable access.

There is also a proposal to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which would focus on driving cutting-edge innovation in health research.

Part of the plan is to assemble a “cancer cabinet” that includes 18 federal departments, agencies, and offices, including leaders from the departments of Health & Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, and Agriculture.

At present, there are few details about the new program or how it will be funded.

Presumably more will be revealed at the Cancer Moonshot Summit being planned, as well as on a planned new website where people can track its progress.
 

President priority

Cancer Moonshot began back in 2016, when during his last State of the Union Address, former President Barack Obama announced the ambitious initiative. A few days later, Obama asked Congress for $1 billion to send cancer to the moon, and he put Biden, then vice president, in charge of “mission control” in the remaining months of the administration.

The new initiative will be headed by Danielle Carnival, PhD, who serves in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and has been appointed as White House Cancer Moonshot coordinator.

At the briefing, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke about losing family members to cancer. The president spoke about his eldest son, Beau, who died from brain cancer when he was 46 years old, while Ms. Harris spoke about her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer researcher who died of colon cancer in 2009.
 

Accolades but a bit of caution

The president’s speech was applauded by many cancer groups, both professional organizations and patient advocacy groups.

Karen E. Knudsen, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, commended Mr. Biden for reigniting Cancer Moonshot.

“In 2022 alone, there will be an estimated 1.9 million people diagnosed with cancer and more than 600,000 people in the U.S. will die. Marshaling the resources of the federal government will be critical in our ability to reduce death and suffering from this disease,” she said.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology issued a press release, saying: “On behalf of radiation oncologists who treat people with cancer every day, we support the Biden-Harris administration’s move to drastically reduce the number of cancer deaths in the United States and improve the lives of people diagnosed with this disease.

“We believe the administration’s commitment to expand cancer prevention efforts and to increase equitable access to screenings and treatments will help mitigate some of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society added.

At the American Association for Cancer Research, Chief Executive Officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said she was thrilled to hear the announcement after the devastating interruptions in cancer research and patient care over the past 2 years.

“The reignited Cancer Moonshot will provide an important framework to help improve cancer prevention strategies, increase cancer screenings and early detection, reduce cancer disparities, and propel new lifesaving cures for patients with cancer,” she said.

However, increased funding from Congress will be needed for these goals to be achieved, she emphasized.

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

Catching all solid cancers before they metastasize could prevent 26% to 32% of cancer deaths in women and 18% to 24% in men within 10 years of diagnosis, researchers in Australia estimate.

Those figures translate to 2,064 to 2,677 fewer cancer deaths annually in the state of New South Wales between 2005 and 2014, the most recent period studied.

“While it is well established that diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage is ‘better,’ our study is unique in that it quantifies what that ‘better’ might look like in terms of how many deaths would be avoided within 10 years of diagnosis,” the authors write in an article published online Jan. 17 in the International Journal of Cancer. “By doing so, it is hoped that these results will provide continued motivation to develop more effective strategies to diagnose cancers at an earlier stage.”

Of course, achieving such a “stage-shift in practice is difficult,” study author Xue Qin Yu, PhD, of The Daffodil Centre in Sydney and colleagues, acknowledge. First, Dr. Yu and colleagues note, “diagnosis at an earlier stage can be challenging due to the nonspecific nature of many common symptoms which may not be recognized by either patients or doctors.” Plus, they add, a challenge for diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage “is the overall low uptake of screening.”

For their study, the researchers used data from a cohort of more than 716,000 people aged 15 to 89 years diagnosed with a solid cancer in New South Wales between 1985 and 2014 and followed through 2015.

To estimate how many deaths could be avoided if tumors were caught earlier, the authors looked at two scenarios. In scenario 1, they assumed all known cases of distant cancer were instead diagnosed at the regional stage, and in scenario 2, they assumed half of the cases were diagnosed as regional and half as localized disease.

Under the conservative scenario 1, about 18% of the observed cancer deaths in males and 26% in females could be avoided. In total, this corresponded to 21% of observed deaths.

Colorectal cancer topped the list of avoidable deaths in both men (27%) and women (33%), followed by prostate cancer in men (19%), breast cancer in women (18%), and melanoma in women (16%) and men (13%).

Under scenario 2, 24% of cancer deaths in males and 32% in females – or 28% overall – were avoidable.

The researchers caution that their study is limited by a high proportion of cases of unknown stage. Still, they say their findings are consistent with results from the United States indicating 15% to 25% of cancer-related deaths were potentially avoidable if tumors were detected before metastasizing.

“Given our study cohort was sourced from a population-based cancer registry with complete enumeration of cancers diagnosed during the study period, it is likely that our study findings, particularly in terms of the population rate of avoidable deaths, would be generalizable to other populations with similar characteristics,” Dr. Yu and colleagues write. “However, results may be different in countries that have a different mix of cancer types or distribution of stage at diagnosis.”

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

Catching all solid cancers before they metastasize could prevent 26% to 32% of cancer deaths in women and 18% to 24% in men within 10 years of diagnosis, researchers in Australia estimate.

Those figures translate to 2,064 to 2,677 fewer cancer deaths annually in the state of New South Wales between 2005 and 2014, the most recent period studied.

“While it is well established that diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage is ‘better,’ our study is unique in that it quantifies what that ‘better’ might look like in terms of how many deaths would be avoided within 10 years of diagnosis,” the authors write in an article published online Jan. 17 in the International Journal of Cancer. “By doing so, it is hoped that these results will provide continued motivation to develop more effective strategies to diagnose cancers at an earlier stage.”

Of course, achieving such a “stage-shift in practice is difficult,” study author Xue Qin Yu, PhD, of The Daffodil Centre in Sydney and colleagues, acknowledge. First, Dr. Yu and colleagues note, “diagnosis at an earlier stage can be challenging due to the nonspecific nature of many common symptoms which may not be recognized by either patients or doctors.” Plus, they add, a challenge for diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage “is the overall low uptake of screening.”

For their study, the researchers used data from a cohort of more than 716,000 people aged 15 to 89 years diagnosed with a solid cancer in New South Wales between 1985 and 2014 and followed through 2015.

To estimate how many deaths could be avoided if tumors were caught earlier, the authors looked at two scenarios. In scenario 1, they assumed all known cases of distant cancer were instead diagnosed at the regional stage, and in scenario 2, they assumed half of the cases were diagnosed as regional and half as localized disease.

Under the conservative scenario 1, about 18% of the observed cancer deaths in males and 26% in females could be avoided. In total, this corresponded to 21% of observed deaths.

Colorectal cancer topped the list of avoidable deaths in both men (27%) and women (33%), followed by prostate cancer in men (19%), breast cancer in women (18%), and melanoma in women (16%) and men (13%).

Under scenario 2, 24% of cancer deaths in males and 32% in females – or 28% overall – were avoidable.

The researchers caution that their study is limited by a high proportion of cases of unknown stage. Still, they say their findings are consistent with results from the United States indicating 15% to 25% of cancer-related deaths were potentially avoidable if tumors were detected before metastasizing.

“Given our study cohort was sourced from a population-based cancer registry with complete enumeration of cancers diagnosed during the study period, it is likely that our study findings, particularly in terms of the population rate of avoidable deaths, would be generalizable to other populations with similar characteristics,” Dr. Yu and colleagues write. “However, results may be different in countries that have a different mix of cancer types or distribution of stage at diagnosis.”

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

Catching all solid cancers before they metastasize could prevent 26% to 32% of cancer deaths in women and 18% to 24% in men within 10 years of diagnosis, researchers in Australia estimate.

Those figures translate to 2,064 to 2,677 fewer cancer deaths annually in the state of New South Wales between 2005 and 2014, the most recent period studied.

“While it is well established that diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage is ‘better,’ our study is unique in that it quantifies what that ‘better’ might look like in terms of how many deaths would be avoided within 10 years of diagnosis,” the authors write in an article published online Jan. 17 in the International Journal of Cancer. “By doing so, it is hoped that these results will provide continued motivation to develop more effective strategies to diagnose cancers at an earlier stage.”

Of course, achieving such a “stage-shift in practice is difficult,” study author Xue Qin Yu, PhD, of The Daffodil Centre in Sydney and colleagues, acknowledge. First, Dr. Yu and colleagues note, “diagnosis at an earlier stage can be challenging due to the nonspecific nature of many common symptoms which may not be recognized by either patients or doctors.” Plus, they add, a challenge for diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage “is the overall low uptake of screening.”

For their study, the researchers used data from a cohort of more than 716,000 people aged 15 to 89 years diagnosed with a solid cancer in New South Wales between 1985 and 2014 and followed through 2015.

To estimate how many deaths could be avoided if tumors were caught earlier, the authors looked at two scenarios. In scenario 1, they assumed all known cases of distant cancer were instead diagnosed at the regional stage, and in scenario 2, they assumed half of the cases were diagnosed as regional and half as localized disease.

Under the conservative scenario 1, about 18% of the observed cancer deaths in males and 26% in females could be avoided. In total, this corresponded to 21% of observed deaths.

Colorectal cancer topped the list of avoidable deaths in both men (27%) and women (33%), followed by prostate cancer in men (19%), breast cancer in women (18%), and melanoma in women (16%) and men (13%).

Under scenario 2, 24% of cancer deaths in males and 32% in females – or 28% overall – were avoidable.

The researchers caution that their study is limited by a high proportion of cases of unknown stage. Still, they say their findings are consistent with results from the United States indicating 15% to 25% of cancer-related deaths were potentially avoidable if tumors were detected before metastasizing.

“Given our study cohort was sourced from a population-based cancer registry with complete enumeration of cancers diagnosed during the study period, it is likely that our study findings, particularly in terms of the population rate of avoidable deaths, would be generalizable to other populations with similar characteristics,” Dr. Yu and colleagues write. “However, results may be different in countries that have a different mix of cancer types or distribution of stage at diagnosis.”

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

Breast cancer has replaced lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer-related death among Black women, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in Black men, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society (ACS).

Lung cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in both Black women and Black men.

These are among the key findings of the report, Cancer Statistics for African American/Black People 2022 – a triannual compilation of U.S. data on cancer incidence, mortality, survival, screening, and risk factors for Black people – and it marks a major shift as of 2019.

“African American/Black people have a disproportionately high cancer burden compared to other population groups. According to the report, the risk of cancer death for Black individuals remains 19% higher for men and 12% higher for women compared to White individuals,” the ACS says in a statement.

“The gap for breast cancer is more alarming,” it adds. “Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer than White women despite a lower risk of being diagnosed with the disease.”

The new report, published online on Feb. 10 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, also notes the following:

An estimated 224,080 new cancer cases and 73,680 cancer deaths will occur among Black people in 2022.

Over the past 5 data years, Black women had an 8% lower overall cancer incidence than White women but 12% higher mortality; Black men have 6% higher cancer incidence than White men but 19% higher cancer mortality.

Prostate cancer mortality among Black men decreased by 1.3% per year from 2015 to 2019 despite a 5% increase in the diagnosis of distant-stage prostate cancer annually since 2012, but the decline was slower than the 5% per year decline from 2010 to 2014.

The overall cancer mortality gap between Black and White people is narrowing. This is due to a steeper drop in prostate, lung, and other smoking-related cancers among Black people.

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates are 21% and 44% higher, respectively, in Black men in comparison with White men and 18% and 31% higher, respectively, in Black women in comparison with White women.

The reasons for the disparities are complex but “largely stem from less access to high-quality care and optimal treatment as a repercussion of long-standing institutional racism,” the report concludes.

“We must address structural racism as a public health issue to close the gaps and advance health equity,” Tawana Thomas-Johnson, senior vice president and chief diversity officer at the ACS, said in the press release.

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

Breast cancer has replaced lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer-related death among Black women, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in Black men, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society (ACS).

Lung cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in both Black women and Black men.

These are among the key findings of the report, Cancer Statistics for African American/Black People 2022 – a triannual compilation of U.S. data on cancer incidence, mortality, survival, screening, and risk factors for Black people – and it marks a major shift as of 2019.

“African American/Black people have a disproportionately high cancer burden compared to other population groups. According to the report, the risk of cancer death for Black individuals remains 19% higher for men and 12% higher for women compared to White individuals,” the ACS says in a statement.

“The gap for breast cancer is more alarming,” it adds. “Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer than White women despite a lower risk of being diagnosed with the disease.”

The new report, published online on Feb. 10 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, also notes the following:

An estimated 224,080 new cancer cases and 73,680 cancer deaths will occur among Black people in 2022.

Over the past 5 data years, Black women had an 8% lower overall cancer incidence than White women but 12% higher mortality; Black men have 6% higher cancer incidence than White men but 19% higher cancer mortality.

Prostate cancer mortality among Black men decreased by 1.3% per year from 2015 to 2019 despite a 5% increase in the diagnosis of distant-stage prostate cancer annually since 2012, but the decline was slower than the 5% per year decline from 2010 to 2014.

The overall cancer mortality gap between Black and White people is narrowing. This is due to a steeper drop in prostate, lung, and other smoking-related cancers among Black people.

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates are 21% and 44% higher, respectively, in Black men in comparison with White men and 18% and 31% higher, respectively, in Black women in comparison with White women.

The reasons for the disparities are complex but “largely stem from less access to high-quality care and optimal treatment as a repercussion of long-standing institutional racism,” the report concludes.

“We must address structural racism as a public health issue to close the gaps and advance health equity,” Tawana Thomas-Johnson, senior vice president and chief diversity officer at the ACS, said in the press release.

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

Breast cancer has replaced lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer-related death among Black women, but lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death in Black men, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society (ACS).

Lung cancer remains the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in both Black women and Black men.

These are among the key findings of the report, Cancer Statistics for African American/Black People 2022 – a triannual compilation of U.S. data on cancer incidence, mortality, survival, screening, and risk factors for Black people – and it marks a major shift as of 2019.

“African American/Black people have a disproportionately high cancer burden compared to other population groups. According to the report, the risk of cancer death for Black individuals remains 19% higher for men and 12% higher for women compared to White individuals,” the ACS says in a statement.

“The gap for breast cancer is more alarming,” it adds. “Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer than White women despite a lower risk of being diagnosed with the disease.”

The new report, published online on Feb. 10 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, also notes the following:

An estimated 224,080 new cancer cases and 73,680 cancer deaths will occur among Black people in 2022.

Over the past 5 data years, Black women had an 8% lower overall cancer incidence than White women but 12% higher mortality; Black men have 6% higher cancer incidence than White men but 19% higher cancer mortality.

Prostate cancer mortality among Black men decreased by 1.3% per year from 2015 to 2019 despite a 5% increase in the diagnosis of distant-stage prostate cancer annually since 2012, but the decline was slower than the 5% per year decline from 2010 to 2014.

The overall cancer mortality gap between Black and White people is narrowing. This is due to a steeper drop in prostate, lung, and other smoking-related cancers among Black people.

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates are 21% and 44% higher, respectively, in Black men in comparison with White men and 18% and 31% higher, respectively, in Black women in comparison with White women.

The reasons for the disparities are complex but “largely stem from less access to high-quality care and optimal treatment as a repercussion of long-standing institutional racism,” the report concludes.

“We must address structural racism as a public health issue to close the gaps and advance health equity,” Tawana Thomas-Johnson, senior vice president and chief diversity officer at the ACS, said in the press release.

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

Periodontal disease (PD) may increase the risk of sporadic colorectal cancer (CRC), findings from the population-based case-control COLDENT study suggest.

The rate of new CRC diagnoses among individuals in the study who had a history of PD was nearly 50% higher than in those with no such history, after adjustment for a host of medical and demographic factors, the investigators noted.

This isn’t the first time PD has been linked with extra-oral health outcomes, including gastrointestinal cancers. It has been shown to be associated with several major systemic diseases, such as cardiovascular, respiratory, chronic kidney, and metabolic diseases. Evidence also suggests a link between PD and Alzheimer’s disease.

However, prior studies that looked at the connection between PD and CRC have relied on secondary analyses of data from other studies and are limited by other methodologic shortcomings, noted the researchers, led by Amal Idrissi Janati, DDS, University of Montreal.

To better assess the etiologic role of PD in the development of CRC, Dr. Janati and colleagues analyzed 348 histologically confirmed cases of colon or rectal cancer diagnosed from January 2013 to December 2019 and compared them to 310 matched controls.

The rate of new CRC diagnoses among individuals with a history of PD was 1.4 times higher than among those with no PD history after adjustment for age and gender. It increased to 1.45 times higher when the researchers also adjusted for body mass index, education, income, diabetes, family history of CRC, regular use of aspirin and non-aspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and lifetime cumulative smoking, consumption of red and processed meats, alcohol consumption, and total physical activity score.

The findings were published online Jan. 26 in Cancer Causes and Control.

“Our results support the hypothesis of an association between PD and sporadic CRC risk,” the researchers said, adding that further epidemiologic studies are recommended.

They speculated that the “putative mechanism of PD and cancer association involves the spread of periodontal pathogens to extra-oral sites, dissemination of bacteria endotoxins, and release of inflammation products directly into the bloodstream.”

The chronic inflammation associated with PD “promotes carcinogenesis by induction of gene mutations, inhibition of apoptosis, stimulation of angiogenesis, cell proliferation, and epigenetic alterations,” they added.

The COLDENT study was supported by the Cancer Research Society. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Periodontal disease (PD) may increase the risk of sporadic colorectal cancer (CRC), findings from the population-based case-control COLDENT study suggest.

The rate of new CRC diagnoses among individuals in the study who had a history of PD was nearly 50% higher than in those with no such history, after adjustment for a host of medical and demographic factors, the investigators noted.

This isn’t the first time PD has been linked with extra-oral health outcomes, including gastrointestinal cancers. It has been shown to be associated with several major systemic diseases, such as cardiovascular, respiratory, chronic kidney, and metabolic diseases. Evidence also suggests a link between PD and Alzheimer’s disease.

However, prior studies that looked at the connection between PD and CRC have relied on secondary analyses of data from other studies and are limited by other methodologic shortcomings, noted the researchers, led by Amal Idrissi Janati, DDS, University of Montreal.

To better assess the etiologic role of PD in the development of CRC, Dr. Janati and colleagues analyzed 348 histologically confirmed cases of colon or rectal cancer diagnosed from January 2013 to December 2019 and compared them to 310 matched controls.

The rate of new CRC diagnoses among individuals with a history of PD was 1.4 times higher than among those with no PD history after adjustment for age and gender. It increased to 1.45 times higher when the researchers also adjusted for body mass index, education, income, diabetes, family history of CRC, regular use of aspirin and non-aspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and lifetime cumulative smoking, consumption of red and processed meats, alcohol consumption, and total physical activity score.

The findings were published online Jan. 26 in Cancer Causes and Control.

“Our results support the hypothesis of an association between PD and sporadic CRC risk,” the researchers said, adding that further epidemiologic studies are recommended.

They speculated that the “putative mechanism of PD and cancer association involves the spread of periodontal pathogens to extra-oral sites, dissemination of bacteria endotoxins, and release of inflammation products directly into the bloodstream.”

The chronic inflammation associated with PD “promotes carcinogenesis by induction of gene mutations, inhibition of apoptosis, stimulation of angiogenesis, cell proliferation, and epigenetic alterations,” they added.

The COLDENT study was supported by the Cancer Research Society. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Periodontal disease (PD) may increase the risk of sporadic colorectal cancer (CRC), findings from the population-based case-control COLDENT study suggest.

The rate of new CRC diagnoses among individuals in the study who had a history of PD was nearly 50% higher than in those with no such history, after adjustment for a host of medical and demographic factors, the investigators noted.

This isn’t the first time PD has been linked with extra-oral health outcomes, including gastrointestinal cancers. It has been shown to be associated with several major systemic diseases, such as cardiovascular, respiratory, chronic kidney, and metabolic diseases. Evidence also suggests a link between PD and Alzheimer’s disease.

However, prior studies that looked at the connection between PD and CRC have relied on secondary analyses of data from other studies and are limited by other methodologic shortcomings, noted the researchers, led by Amal Idrissi Janati, DDS, University of Montreal.

To better assess the etiologic role of PD in the development of CRC, Dr. Janati and colleagues analyzed 348 histologically confirmed cases of colon or rectal cancer diagnosed from January 2013 to December 2019 and compared them to 310 matched controls.

The rate of new CRC diagnoses among individuals with a history of PD was 1.4 times higher than among those with no PD history after adjustment for age and gender. It increased to 1.45 times higher when the researchers also adjusted for body mass index, education, income, diabetes, family history of CRC, regular use of aspirin and non-aspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and lifetime cumulative smoking, consumption of red and processed meats, alcohol consumption, and total physical activity score.

The findings were published online Jan. 26 in Cancer Causes and Control.

“Our results support the hypothesis of an association between PD and sporadic CRC risk,” the researchers said, adding that further epidemiologic studies are recommended.

They speculated that the “putative mechanism of PD and cancer association involves the spread of periodontal pathogens to extra-oral sites, dissemination of bacteria endotoxins, and release of inflammation products directly into the bloodstream.”

The chronic inflammation associated with PD “promotes carcinogenesis by induction of gene mutations, inhibition of apoptosis, stimulation of angiogenesis, cell proliferation, and epigenetic alterations,” they added.

The COLDENT study was supported by the Cancer Research Society. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) that signal hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common type of liver cancer, have been detected in saliva for the first time, according to results from a pilot study.

The findings were published online in PeerJ.

The small, noncoding RNAs regulate many cellular functions and affect cancer development and progression.

The discovery has the potential to offer a noninvasive alternative or complement to available detection tools – ultrasound and the blood biomarker alpha fetoprotein (AFP) – which lack sensitivity, said Daniel Rotroff, PhD, MSPH, senior author of the study and a researcher in the Department of Quantitative Health Sciences at the Cleveland Clinic.

“Right now, the current clinical tools are not adequate,” he told this news organization. “They miss approximately 40% to 50% of the patients who have HCC.”

Scientists are interested in finding better ways to detect liver cancer, the rates of which are growing rapidly. HCC represents 80% of all liver cancers.

“HCC and liver cancer are the fastest growing cancers in the United States,” Dr. Rotroff said. “They are the fifth and seventh leading cause of cancer death in men and women, respectively.”

Driving the growth are increases in hepatitis C, obesity, fatty liver disease, and alcoholism.

Nancy Reau, MD, the Richard B. Capps Chair of Hepatology and section chief, Hepatology, at Rush Medical College, Chicago, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that despite the study’s being relatively small in scale, the preliminary information it provides is nonetheless “really attractive.”

If larger studies confirm the results, the discovery could open up the possibility of patients mailing in saliva samples from their homes to screen for liver cancer.

The pandemic, she noted, highlighted the shortcomings of ultrasound in screening for liver cancer, as it required patients to come into a facility.

“You’d love to have a biomarker that was more accessible and accurate,” she said. “It would have lots of applicability where cancer surveillance is less available.”

Dr. Rotroff added that “we do know saliva samples can be stable at room temperature. It opens up possibilities to expand the net of being able to screen a wider number of patients.”
 

Differentiating HCC from cirrhosis

Investigators at the Cleveland Clinic performed small RNA sequencing in 20 patients with HCC and compared the findings to sequencing of 19 patients with cirrhosis.

Liver cirrhosis is the primary risk factor for developing HCC, so distinguishing patients with HCC from this cohort of high-risk patients serves as a proof of principle.

The sequencing showed that 4,565 precursor and mature miRNAs were detected in saliva and that 365 were significantly different between those with HCC compared to cirrhosis (false discovery rate, P < .05).

“Interestingly, 283 of these miRNAs were significantly downregulated in patients with HCC,” the authors write.

Machine learning found a combination of 10 miRNAs and covariates that accurately classified patients with HCC (area under the curve = 0.87).

The researchers note that miRNAs have been found in saliva and have shown potential as noninvasive biomarkers for a number of other cancers, including breast, oral, and lung cancers.

Additionally, Dr. Rotroff said, microRNAs have been shown to be altered in the tumor tissue of HCC, compared with the surrounding tissue.
 

Catching cancer early

Dr. Reau noted that a strength of the study is that it validated the biomarker in a diverse group of patients already diagnosed with liver cancer, including people with early-stage cancer, those who underwent transplantation, and those with recurrent cancer.

“Everyone searching for biomarkers is looking to make sure that the surveillance tool identifies the patient when it can pay off with early treatment,” Dr. Reau said.

“You don’t want to identify cancer when it’s bad, and you don’t have any options.

This is a little bit where AFP sometimes fails. Even if ultrasound isn’t that accurate, it still generally identifies people when they fit within curative guidelines.”

Dr. Rotroff also stressed the importance of detecting the cancers early, noting that the prognosis for patients with HCC before it has metastasized is greater than 4 years, but the prognosis drops to less than 1 year if it has metastasized.

Dr. Rotroff has an equity stake in Clarified Precision Medicine. He holds intellectual property related to the detection of HCC. Dr. Reau reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) that signal hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common type of liver cancer, have been detected in saliva for the first time, according to results from a pilot study.

The findings were published online in PeerJ.

The small, noncoding RNAs regulate many cellular functions and affect cancer development and progression.

The discovery has the potential to offer a noninvasive alternative or complement to available detection tools – ultrasound and the blood biomarker alpha fetoprotein (AFP) – which lack sensitivity, said Daniel Rotroff, PhD, MSPH, senior author of the study and a researcher in the Department of Quantitative Health Sciences at the Cleveland Clinic.

“Right now, the current clinical tools are not adequate,” he told this news organization. “They miss approximately 40% to 50% of the patients who have HCC.”

Scientists are interested in finding better ways to detect liver cancer, the rates of which are growing rapidly. HCC represents 80% of all liver cancers.

“HCC and liver cancer are the fastest growing cancers in the United States,” Dr. Rotroff said. “They are the fifth and seventh leading cause of cancer death in men and women, respectively.”

Driving the growth are increases in hepatitis C, obesity, fatty liver disease, and alcoholism.

Nancy Reau, MD, the Richard B. Capps Chair of Hepatology and section chief, Hepatology, at Rush Medical College, Chicago, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that despite the study’s being relatively small in scale, the preliminary information it provides is nonetheless “really attractive.”

If larger studies confirm the results, the discovery could open up the possibility of patients mailing in saliva samples from their homes to screen for liver cancer.

The pandemic, she noted, highlighted the shortcomings of ultrasound in screening for liver cancer, as it required patients to come into a facility.

“You’d love to have a biomarker that was more accessible and accurate,” she said. “It would have lots of applicability where cancer surveillance is less available.”

Dr. Rotroff added that “we do know saliva samples can be stable at room temperature. It opens up possibilities to expand the net of being able to screen a wider number of patients.”
 

Differentiating HCC from cirrhosis

Investigators at the Cleveland Clinic performed small RNA sequencing in 20 patients with HCC and compared the findings to sequencing of 19 patients with cirrhosis.

Liver cirrhosis is the primary risk factor for developing HCC, so distinguishing patients with HCC from this cohort of high-risk patients serves as a proof of principle.

The sequencing showed that 4,565 precursor and mature miRNAs were detected in saliva and that 365 were significantly different between those with HCC compared to cirrhosis (false discovery rate, P < .05).

“Interestingly, 283 of these miRNAs were significantly downregulated in patients with HCC,” the authors write.

Machine learning found a combination of 10 miRNAs and covariates that accurately classified patients with HCC (area under the curve = 0.87).

The researchers note that miRNAs have been found in saliva and have shown potential as noninvasive biomarkers for a number of other cancers, including breast, oral, and lung cancers.

Additionally, Dr. Rotroff said, microRNAs have been shown to be altered in the tumor tissue of HCC, compared with the surrounding tissue.
 

Catching cancer early

Dr. Reau noted that a strength of the study is that it validated the biomarker in a diverse group of patients already diagnosed with liver cancer, including people with early-stage cancer, those who underwent transplantation, and those with recurrent cancer.

“Everyone searching for biomarkers is looking to make sure that the surveillance tool identifies the patient when it can pay off with early treatment,” Dr. Reau said.

“You don’t want to identify cancer when it’s bad, and you don’t have any options.

This is a little bit where AFP sometimes fails. Even if ultrasound isn’t that accurate, it still generally identifies people when they fit within curative guidelines.”

Dr. Rotroff also stressed the importance of detecting the cancers early, noting that the prognosis for patients with HCC before it has metastasized is greater than 4 years, but the prognosis drops to less than 1 year if it has metastasized.

Dr. Rotroff has an equity stake in Clarified Precision Medicine. He holds intellectual property related to the detection of HCC. Dr. Reau reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) that signal hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common type of liver cancer, have been detected in saliva for the first time, according to results from a pilot study.

The findings were published online in PeerJ.

The small, noncoding RNAs regulate many cellular functions and affect cancer development and progression.

The discovery has the potential to offer a noninvasive alternative or complement to available detection tools – ultrasound and the blood biomarker alpha fetoprotein (AFP) – which lack sensitivity, said Daniel Rotroff, PhD, MSPH, senior author of the study and a researcher in the Department of Quantitative Health Sciences at the Cleveland Clinic.

“Right now, the current clinical tools are not adequate,” he told this news organization. “They miss approximately 40% to 50% of the patients who have HCC.”

Scientists are interested in finding better ways to detect liver cancer, the rates of which are growing rapidly. HCC represents 80% of all liver cancers.

“HCC and liver cancer are the fastest growing cancers in the United States,” Dr. Rotroff said. “They are the fifth and seventh leading cause of cancer death in men and women, respectively.”

Driving the growth are increases in hepatitis C, obesity, fatty liver disease, and alcoholism.

Nancy Reau, MD, the Richard B. Capps Chair of Hepatology and section chief, Hepatology, at Rush Medical College, Chicago, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that despite the study’s being relatively small in scale, the preliminary information it provides is nonetheless “really attractive.”

If larger studies confirm the results, the discovery could open up the possibility of patients mailing in saliva samples from their homes to screen for liver cancer.

The pandemic, she noted, highlighted the shortcomings of ultrasound in screening for liver cancer, as it required patients to come into a facility.

“You’d love to have a biomarker that was more accessible and accurate,” she said. “It would have lots of applicability where cancer surveillance is less available.”

Dr. Rotroff added that “we do know saliva samples can be stable at room temperature. It opens up possibilities to expand the net of being able to screen a wider number of patients.”
 

Differentiating HCC from cirrhosis

Investigators at the Cleveland Clinic performed small RNA sequencing in 20 patients with HCC and compared the findings to sequencing of 19 patients with cirrhosis.

Liver cirrhosis is the primary risk factor for developing HCC, so distinguishing patients with HCC from this cohort of high-risk patients serves as a proof of principle.

The sequencing showed that 4,565 precursor and mature miRNAs were detected in saliva and that 365 were significantly different between those with HCC compared to cirrhosis (false discovery rate, P < .05).

“Interestingly, 283 of these miRNAs were significantly downregulated in patients with HCC,” the authors write.

Machine learning found a combination of 10 miRNAs and covariates that accurately classified patients with HCC (area under the curve = 0.87).

The researchers note that miRNAs have been found in saliva and have shown potential as noninvasive biomarkers for a number of other cancers, including breast, oral, and lung cancers.

Additionally, Dr. Rotroff said, microRNAs have been shown to be altered in the tumor tissue of HCC, compared with the surrounding tissue.
 

Catching cancer early

Dr. Reau noted that a strength of the study is that it validated the biomarker in a diverse group of patients already diagnosed with liver cancer, including people with early-stage cancer, those who underwent transplantation, and those with recurrent cancer.

“Everyone searching for biomarkers is looking to make sure that the surveillance tool identifies the patient when it can pay off with early treatment,” Dr. Reau said.

“You don’t want to identify cancer when it’s bad, and you don’t have any options.

This is a little bit where AFP sometimes fails. Even if ultrasound isn’t that accurate, it still generally identifies people when they fit within curative guidelines.”

Dr. Rotroff also stressed the importance of detecting the cancers early, noting that the prognosis for patients with HCC before it has metastasized is greater than 4 years, but the prognosis drops to less than 1 year if it has metastasized.

Dr. Rotroff has an equity stake in Clarified Precision Medicine. He holds intellectual property related to the detection of HCC. Dr. Reau reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Early, permanent discontinuation of venetoclax in the treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is linked to shortened survival outcomes, but temporary interruption shows no impact on survival, underscoring the importance of preventing discontinuation.

“There’s not a lot of awareness about the fact that you’re probably better off not permanently discontinuing treatment,” Anthony R. Mato, first author of the research published in Haematologica, said in an interview.

Courtsey Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

“Instead, attempting dose reductions with later resumption to complete the planned schedule for treatment probably could improve outcomes,” said Dr. Mato, who is director of the CLL Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Venetoclax, a potent B-cell lymphoma-2 (BCL2) inhibitor, provides a novel, chemotherapy-free treatment option for first-line and r/r CLL. While its safety profile is manageable, treatment interruptions are very common, and premature discontinuations are reported in about a third of patients, often because of adverse events.

Lacking data on the effects of those interruptions on survival outcomes, Dr. Mato and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 MURANO trial. In this open-label study, treatment with six cycles of venetoclax in combination with rituximab followed by venetoclax once daily for a total of 2 years showed superior progression-free survival, compared with six cycles of bendamustine plus rituximab in patients with r/r CLL (P < .0001).

The current analysis involved 194 intention-to-treat patients from the trial’s venetoclax arm, among whom 140 (72%) completed 2 years of therapy, and 54 (28%) prematurely discontinued treatment. The most common reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (53.7%) and disease progression (22.2%).

Among those with early discontinuation for any reason except disease progression, the rate of progression-free survival was significantly inferior, compared with those who completed the treatment (hazard ratio, 5.98; P < .0001), as was the rate or discontinuation caused specifically by adverse events, which most commonly involved neutropenia or thrombocytopenia (HR, 5.82; P < .0001).

Those who discontinued had a mean duration of venetoclax therapy of 11.3 months, compared with 24.4 months for all patients. For each additional month of venetoclax therapy, there was a significantly lower risk of a progression-free survival event (P = .0263) and of an overall survival event (P < .0001).

The treatment interruption rate was much higher, at 69% (134), involving neutropenia in 43% (84) of instances and requiring dose reductions in 23% (45) of cases.

However, in contrast to permanent discontinuations, the temporary interruptions and dose reductions had no significant effect on progression-free or overall survival, regardless of the duration.

“Improved progression-free and overall survival were associated with greater cumulative venetoclax treatment exposure,” the authors wrote.

“The results of these analyses highlight the importance of appropriately managing treatment modifications to ensure optimal outcomes for patients receiving targeted treatment for CLL,” they said.

Key measures including “better supportive care, use of growth factors, and more aggressive strategies for dose reduction could potentially help to improve or decrease the number of patients discontinuing due to an adverse event,” Dr. Mato added.“We can’t say definitively because this is not a randomized study – it’s a retrospective analysis from a randomized study – but those measures likely could have a positive impact on patient outcomes.”

The study received support from Genentech and AbbVie. Dr. Mato reported consulting or other relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, DTRM, Genentech, Janssen, Loxo, PCYC, Sunesis, and TG Therapeutics.

Early, permanent discontinuation of venetoclax in the treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is linked to shortened survival outcomes, but temporary interruption shows no impact on survival, underscoring the importance of preventing discontinuation.

“There’s not a lot of awareness about the fact that you’re probably better off not permanently discontinuing treatment,” Anthony R. Mato, first author of the research published in Haematologica, said in an interview.

Courtsey Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

“Instead, attempting dose reductions with later resumption to complete the planned schedule for treatment probably could improve outcomes,” said Dr. Mato, who is director of the CLL Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Venetoclax, a potent B-cell lymphoma-2 (BCL2) inhibitor, provides a novel, chemotherapy-free treatment option for first-line and r/r CLL. While its safety profile is manageable, treatment interruptions are very common, and premature discontinuations are reported in about a third of patients, often because of adverse events.

Lacking data on the effects of those interruptions on survival outcomes, Dr. Mato and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 MURANO trial. In this open-label study, treatment with six cycles of venetoclax in combination with rituximab followed by venetoclax once daily for a total of 2 years showed superior progression-free survival, compared with six cycles of bendamustine plus rituximab in patients with r/r CLL (P < .0001).

The current analysis involved 194 intention-to-treat patients from the trial’s venetoclax arm, among whom 140 (72%) completed 2 years of therapy, and 54 (28%) prematurely discontinued treatment. The most common reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (53.7%) and disease progression (22.2%).

Among those with early discontinuation for any reason except disease progression, the rate of progression-free survival was significantly inferior, compared with those who completed the treatment (hazard ratio, 5.98; P < .0001), as was the rate or discontinuation caused specifically by adverse events, which most commonly involved neutropenia or thrombocytopenia (HR, 5.82; P < .0001).

Those who discontinued had a mean duration of venetoclax therapy of 11.3 months, compared with 24.4 months for all patients. For each additional month of venetoclax therapy, there was a significantly lower risk of a progression-free survival event (P = .0263) and of an overall survival event (P < .0001).

The treatment interruption rate was much higher, at 69% (134), involving neutropenia in 43% (84) of instances and requiring dose reductions in 23% (45) of cases.

However, in contrast to permanent discontinuations, the temporary interruptions and dose reductions had no significant effect on progression-free or overall survival, regardless of the duration.

“Improved progression-free and overall survival were associated with greater cumulative venetoclax treatment exposure,” the authors wrote.

“The results of these analyses highlight the importance of appropriately managing treatment modifications to ensure optimal outcomes for patients receiving targeted treatment for CLL,” they said.

Key measures including “better supportive care, use of growth factors, and more aggressive strategies for dose reduction could potentially help to improve or decrease the number of patients discontinuing due to an adverse event,” Dr. Mato added.“We can’t say definitively because this is not a randomized study – it’s a retrospective analysis from a randomized study – but those measures likely could have a positive impact on patient outcomes.”

The study received support from Genentech and AbbVie. Dr. Mato reported consulting or other relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, DTRM, Genentech, Janssen, Loxo, PCYC, Sunesis, and TG Therapeutics.

Early, permanent discontinuation of venetoclax in the treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is linked to shortened survival outcomes, but temporary interruption shows no impact on survival, underscoring the importance of preventing discontinuation.

“There’s not a lot of awareness about the fact that you’re probably better off not permanently discontinuing treatment,” Anthony R. Mato, first author of the research published in Haematologica, said in an interview.

Courtsey Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

“Instead, attempting dose reductions with later resumption to complete the planned schedule for treatment probably could improve outcomes,” said Dr. Mato, who is director of the CLL Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Venetoclax, a potent B-cell lymphoma-2 (BCL2) inhibitor, provides a novel, chemotherapy-free treatment option for first-line and r/r CLL. While its safety profile is manageable, treatment interruptions are very common, and premature discontinuations are reported in about a third of patients, often because of adverse events.

Lacking data on the effects of those interruptions on survival outcomes, Dr. Mato and colleagues conducted a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 MURANO trial. In this open-label study, treatment with six cycles of venetoclax in combination with rituximab followed by venetoclax once daily for a total of 2 years showed superior progression-free survival, compared with six cycles of bendamustine plus rituximab in patients with r/r CLL (P < .0001).

The current analysis involved 194 intention-to-treat patients from the trial’s venetoclax arm, among whom 140 (72%) completed 2 years of therapy, and 54 (28%) prematurely discontinued treatment. The most common reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (53.7%) and disease progression (22.2%).

Among those with early discontinuation for any reason except disease progression, the rate of progression-free survival was significantly inferior, compared with those who completed the treatment (hazard ratio, 5.98; P < .0001), as was the rate or discontinuation caused specifically by adverse events, which most commonly involved neutropenia or thrombocytopenia (HR, 5.82; P < .0001).

Those who discontinued had a mean duration of venetoclax therapy of 11.3 months, compared with 24.4 months for all patients. For each additional month of venetoclax therapy, there was a significantly lower risk of a progression-free survival event (P = .0263) and of an overall survival event (P < .0001).

The treatment interruption rate was much higher, at 69% (134), involving neutropenia in 43% (84) of instances and requiring dose reductions in 23% (45) of cases.

However, in contrast to permanent discontinuations, the temporary interruptions and dose reductions had no significant effect on progression-free or overall survival, regardless of the duration.

“Improved progression-free and overall survival were associated with greater cumulative venetoclax treatment exposure,” the authors wrote.

“The results of these analyses highlight the importance of appropriately managing treatment modifications to ensure optimal outcomes for patients receiving targeted treatment for CLL,” they said.

Key measures including “better supportive care, use of growth factors, and more aggressive strategies for dose reduction could potentially help to improve or decrease the number of patients discontinuing due to an adverse event,” Dr. Mato added.“We can’t say definitively because this is not a randomized study – it’s a retrospective analysis from a randomized study – but those measures likely could have a positive impact on patient outcomes.”

The study received support from Genentech and AbbVie. Dr. Mato reported consulting or other relationships with AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, DTRM, Genentech, Janssen, Loxo, PCYC, Sunesis, and TG Therapeutics.

Researchers have found a simple, low-cost way to get more adults to complete a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC).

In a randomized controlled trial, patients who received an electronic “primer” message through their patient portal before the test kit arrived in their mailbox were more apt to complete and return the test than peers who didn’t get the electronic message.

ChrisChrisW/iStock/Getty Images

Heads-up message boosts compliance

CRC screening rates in the United States remain well below the national benchmark of 80%, and COVID-19 hasn’t helped. As a result, multiple medical and professional societies have emphasized the use of a mailed FIT outreach program.

As part of the outreach program, researchers at UCLA Health developed an electronic primer message within the electronic patient portal to alert patients due for CRC screening that they would be receiving a FIT kit in the mail.

They tested the impact of the primer messages in a randomized controlled trial involving 2,339 adults (mean age, 59 years, 57.5% women). Out of these, 1,157 received the standard mailed FIT kit (control group) and 1,182 received the standard mailed FIT kit plus a primer message sent through their personal patient portal.

Adding the primer message significantly increased the FIT completion rate at 6 months by 5.5%, with rates of 37.6% in the intervention group versus 32.1% in the control group.

After adjusting for patient demographics, the primer (versus no primer) led to significantly increased odds of completing CRC screening (adjusted odds ratio: 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.53; P = .004).

The primer message also shortened the time to FIT screening by 3 days (35 days with the primer vs. 38 days without).

Dr. Goshgarian and Dr. Croymans believe the priming messages worked well in their patient population because at the beginning of the intervention they identified a potential lack of awareness of the incoming FIT kit mailer as a barrier to uptake.

“We believe patients were receiving the kits with minimal advanced warning and discarding it as a mistake or hesitant to complete it because they did not understand the value to them,” they told this news organization.

“Therefore, a priming message helped to bridge that gap and allowed patients to be aware of the incoming FIT kits, know why it was important to do the FIT kit, and ultimately led to increasing our FIT kit return rates and thus CRC screening,” they said.

The researchers caution that their findings may be more relevant to patient populations who are more engaged in their health or who are more technologically savvy. In the UCLA Health system, roughly 84% of patients have an activated patient portal.
 

‘Good enhancement’ for health care systems

Reached for comment, Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, NYU Langone Health, and first author of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2021 CRC screening guidelines, said the results are “interesting but not entirely surprising.”

“There’s literature supporting that a letter or notification prior to the FIT being mailed improves its uptake. Here, the authors applied it to their health care system in a quality improvement study and demonstrated it works,” Dr. Shaukat said.

“This is a good enhancement for health care systems where most of their patients are using or accessing their health chart portal,” added Dr. Shaukat.

“Caveats are that the generalizability is not known. It requires EHR [electronic health record] support tools and patients with access to a computer and enrolled and able to access their electronic chart, likely those with high literacy and English speaking.”

Funding for the study was provided by the UCLA Health Department of Medicine. Dr. Goshgarian, Dr. Croymans, and Dr. Shaukat have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have found a simple, low-cost way to get more adults to complete a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC).

In a randomized controlled trial, patients who received an electronic “primer” message through their patient portal before the test kit arrived in their mailbox were more apt to complete and return the test than peers who didn’t get the electronic message.

ChrisChrisW/iStock/Getty Images

Heads-up message boosts compliance

CRC screening rates in the United States remain well below the national benchmark of 80%, and COVID-19 hasn’t helped. As a result, multiple medical and professional societies have emphasized the use of a mailed FIT outreach program.

As part of the outreach program, researchers at UCLA Health developed an electronic primer message within the electronic patient portal to alert patients due for CRC screening that they would be receiving a FIT kit in the mail.

They tested the impact of the primer messages in a randomized controlled trial involving 2,339 adults (mean age, 59 years, 57.5% women). Out of these, 1,157 received the standard mailed FIT kit (control group) and 1,182 received the standard mailed FIT kit plus a primer message sent through their personal patient portal.

Adding the primer message significantly increased the FIT completion rate at 6 months by 5.5%, with rates of 37.6% in the intervention group versus 32.1% in the control group.

After adjusting for patient demographics, the primer (versus no primer) led to significantly increased odds of completing CRC screening (adjusted odds ratio: 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.53; P = .004).

The primer message also shortened the time to FIT screening by 3 days (35 days with the primer vs. 38 days without).

Dr. Goshgarian and Dr. Croymans believe the priming messages worked well in their patient population because at the beginning of the intervention they identified a potential lack of awareness of the incoming FIT kit mailer as a barrier to uptake.

“We believe patients were receiving the kits with minimal advanced warning and discarding it as a mistake or hesitant to complete it because they did not understand the value to them,” they told this news organization.

“Therefore, a priming message helped to bridge that gap and allowed patients to be aware of the incoming FIT kits, know why it was important to do the FIT kit, and ultimately led to increasing our FIT kit return rates and thus CRC screening,” they said.

The researchers caution that their findings may be more relevant to patient populations who are more engaged in their health or who are more technologically savvy. In the UCLA Health system, roughly 84% of patients have an activated patient portal.
 

‘Good enhancement’ for health care systems

Reached for comment, Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, NYU Langone Health, and first author of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2021 CRC screening guidelines, said the results are “interesting but not entirely surprising.”

“There’s literature supporting that a letter or notification prior to the FIT being mailed improves its uptake. Here, the authors applied it to their health care system in a quality improvement study and demonstrated it works,” Dr. Shaukat said.

“This is a good enhancement for health care systems where most of their patients are using or accessing their health chart portal,” added Dr. Shaukat.

“Caveats are that the generalizability is not known. It requires EHR [electronic health record] support tools and patients with access to a computer and enrolled and able to access their electronic chart, likely those with high literacy and English speaking.”

Funding for the study was provided by the UCLA Health Department of Medicine. Dr. Goshgarian, Dr. Croymans, and Dr. Shaukat have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have found a simple, low-cost way to get more adults to complete a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) to screen for colorectal cancer (CRC).

In a randomized controlled trial, patients who received an electronic “primer” message through their patient portal before the test kit arrived in their mailbox were more apt to complete and return the test than peers who didn’t get the electronic message.

ChrisChrisW/iStock/Getty Images

Heads-up message boosts compliance

CRC screening rates in the United States remain well below the national benchmark of 80%, and COVID-19 hasn’t helped. As a result, multiple medical and professional societies have emphasized the use of a mailed FIT outreach program.

As part of the outreach program, researchers at UCLA Health developed an electronic primer message within the electronic patient portal to alert patients due for CRC screening that they would be receiving a FIT kit in the mail.

They tested the impact of the primer messages in a randomized controlled trial involving 2,339 adults (mean age, 59 years, 57.5% women). Out of these, 1,157 received the standard mailed FIT kit (control group) and 1,182 received the standard mailed FIT kit plus a primer message sent through their personal patient portal.

Adding the primer message significantly increased the FIT completion rate at 6 months by 5.5%, with rates of 37.6% in the intervention group versus 32.1% in the control group.

After adjusting for patient demographics, the primer (versus no primer) led to significantly increased odds of completing CRC screening (adjusted odds ratio: 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.53; P = .004).

The primer message also shortened the time to FIT screening by 3 days (35 days with the primer vs. 38 days without).

Dr. Goshgarian and Dr. Croymans believe the priming messages worked well in their patient population because at the beginning of the intervention they identified a potential lack of awareness of the incoming FIT kit mailer as a barrier to uptake.

“We believe patients were receiving the kits with minimal advanced warning and discarding it as a mistake or hesitant to complete it because they did not understand the value to them,” they told this news organization.

“Therefore, a priming message helped to bridge that gap and allowed patients to be aware of the incoming FIT kits, know why it was important to do the FIT kit, and ultimately led to increasing our FIT kit return rates and thus CRC screening,” they said.

The researchers caution that their findings may be more relevant to patient populations who are more engaged in their health or who are more technologically savvy. In the UCLA Health system, roughly 84% of patients have an activated patient portal.
 

‘Good enhancement’ for health care systems

Reached for comment, Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, NYU Langone Health, and first author of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2021 CRC screening guidelines, said the results are “interesting but not entirely surprising.”

“There’s literature supporting that a letter or notification prior to the FIT being mailed improves its uptake. Here, the authors applied it to their health care system in a quality improvement study and demonstrated it works,” Dr. Shaukat said.

“This is a good enhancement for health care systems where most of their patients are using or accessing their health chart portal,” added Dr. Shaukat.

“Caveats are that the generalizability is not known. It requires EHR [electronic health record] support tools and patients with access to a computer and enrolled and able to access their electronic chart, likely those with high literacy and English speaking.”

Funding for the study was provided by the UCLA Health Department of Medicine. Dr. Goshgarian, Dr. Croymans, and Dr. Shaukat have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Imagine this: As a young girl, you decide you want to become a doctor when you grow up. You spend countless hours studying, researching, and volunteering to eventually make it into medical school. Four years later, you graduate top of your class and match into your first-choice residency program. You are so proud of yourself!

During your last year of residency, a pandemic takes the entire world by storm. You persevere through your last 14 months of residency that included additional time in the ICU, not seeing your colleagues, and interviewing for your new job all from your own living room. After all of this, you finally get to start doing what you have been waiting to do for the past decade: train with the brilliant minds in hematology and oncology.

All of a sudden, your female mentors and pillars of the oncology world start disappearing around you due to early retirement, new career opportunities, or deciding to leave clinical medicine all together. You start to question: If these incredible women have decided that the sacrifice this career requires is too much, then (1) How will I survive? and (2) Did I make a huge mistake in my career decision? Spoiler alert: This girl is me.

The World Health Organization defines burnout as a “syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance from one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy.”

We know that 33% of oncologists are feeling burned out right now, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021. Of the 51% of female physicians that are burned out, work-life balance has been identified as the biggest workplace concern to them. Research has shown that hours per week devoted to direct patient care is the dominant predictor of burnout for practicing oncologists. But in academic oncology, that is followed by grant deadlines, manuscript rejections, and the constant reminders that you are a new face in oncology, a specialty that was previously male-dominated.

In less than a year, we have had several key female oncologists leave our cancer center. While some made the decision to retire early, two of them chose to pivot their careers and leave clinical medicine to assist with drug development and clinical trials. Although this is extremely important work for cancer care, I was shocked to hear that these amazing and successful clinicians were choosing to remove all direct patient care from their practice, when for many of them, patient care was what motivated them to pursue medicine in the first place. They were loved by their patients, respected as researchers, and well known as educators within the division.

One shared that she no longer felt like she could be a good mother, wife, or daughter with what was currently being demanded of her to have a successful academic career. In hearing this news, I was saddened to have to say goodbye to a mentor of mine and immediately started second-guessing my career choice. I felt that my goal of having an impactful career and prosperous home life was not only unattainable but potentially unrealistic.

While we know that female physicians already experience a greater degree of burnout, the pandemic has only added fuel to the fire. This is especially true in cancer care. It has been estimated that new cancer diagnosis have decreased by as much as 23% since the beginning of the pandemic. This delay in diagnosis will lead to patients presenting with more advanced disease, busier clinic schedules, and worsened clinical outcomes for years to come. With no end in sight, I worry what this will mean for women currently in oncology, in addition to those in training or deciding if they should pursue this as a career.

Extrapolating evidence from prior epidemics, physicians are at increased risk for burnout due to immediate and long-term effects from this pandemic. We need to act now to not only continue addressing previously existing individual and organizational causes of burnout but also develop strategies to provide support for the COVID-19–specific impacts on oncologists’ well-being. An editorial published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology provides helpful suggestions on how to do this.

A recent cross-sectional survey found that 22% of academic female oncologists were likely or very likely to pursue a career outside of academia in the next 5 years. Losing these women would be detrimental to the field. This would mean a significant number of patients losing their long-term oncologists with whom they have years of care, trainees losing their professional and research mentors to guide and help mold them into successful independent practitioners and researchers, and arguably most important, little girls losing role models to show them that regardless of their gender, they can become an oncologist.Dr. Poterala is a current hematology and oncology fellow at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Imagine this: As a young girl, you decide you want to become a doctor when you grow up. You spend countless hours studying, researching, and volunteering to eventually make it into medical school. Four years later, you graduate top of your class and match into your first-choice residency program. You are so proud of yourself!

During your last year of residency, a pandemic takes the entire world by storm. You persevere through your last 14 months of residency that included additional time in the ICU, not seeing your colleagues, and interviewing for your new job all from your own living room. After all of this, you finally get to start doing what you have been waiting to do for the past decade: train with the brilliant minds in hematology and oncology.

All of a sudden, your female mentors and pillars of the oncology world start disappearing around you due to early retirement, new career opportunities, or deciding to leave clinical medicine all together. You start to question: If these incredible women have decided that the sacrifice this career requires is too much, then (1) How will I survive? and (2) Did I make a huge mistake in my career decision? Spoiler alert: This girl is me.

The World Health Organization defines burnout as a “syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance from one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy.”

We know that 33% of oncologists are feeling burned out right now, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021. Of the 51% of female physicians that are burned out, work-life balance has been identified as the biggest workplace concern to them. Research has shown that hours per week devoted to direct patient care is the dominant predictor of burnout for practicing oncologists. But in academic oncology, that is followed by grant deadlines, manuscript rejections, and the constant reminders that you are a new face in oncology, a specialty that was previously male-dominated.

In less than a year, we have had several key female oncologists leave our cancer center. While some made the decision to retire early, two of them chose to pivot their careers and leave clinical medicine to assist with drug development and clinical trials. Although this is extremely important work for cancer care, I was shocked to hear that these amazing and successful clinicians were choosing to remove all direct patient care from their practice, when for many of them, patient care was what motivated them to pursue medicine in the first place. They were loved by their patients, respected as researchers, and well known as educators within the division.

One shared that she no longer felt like she could be a good mother, wife, or daughter with what was currently being demanded of her to have a successful academic career. In hearing this news, I was saddened to have to say goodbye to a mentor of mine and immediately started second-guessing my career choice. I felt that my goal of having an impactful career and prosperous home life was not only unattainable but potentially unrealistic.

While we know that female physicians already experience a greater degree of burnout, the pandemic has only added fuel to the fire. This is especially true in cancer care. It has been estimated that new cancer diagnosis have decreased by as much as 23% since the beginning of the pandemic. This delay in diagnosis will lead to patients presenting with more advanced disease, busier clinic schedules, and worsened clinical outcomes for years to come. With no end in sight, I worry what this will mean for women currently in oncology, in addition to those in training or deciding if they should pursue this as a career.

Extrapolating evidence from prior epidemics, physicians are at increased risk for burnout due to immediate and long-term effects from this pandemic. We need to act now to not only continue addressing previously existing individual and organizational causes of burnout but also develop strategies to provide support for the COVID-19–specific impacts on oncologists’ well-being. An editorial published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology provides helpful suggestions on how to do this.

A recent cross-sectional survey found that 22% of academic female oncologists were likely or very likely to pursue a career outside of academia in the next 5 years. Losing these women would be detrimental to the field. This would mean a significant number of patients losing their long-term oncologists with whom they have years of care, trainees losing their professional and research mentors to guide and help mold them into successful independent practitioners and researchers, and arguably most important, little girls losing role models to show them that regardless of their gender, they can become an oncologist.Dr. Poterala is a current hematology and oncology fellow at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Imagine this: As a young girl, you decide you want to become a doctor when you grow up. You spend countless hours studying, researching, and volunteering to eventually make it into medical school. Four years later, you graduate top of your class and match into your first-choice residency program. You are so proud of yourself!

During your last year of residency, a pandemic takes the entire world by storm. You persevere through your last 14 months of residency that included additional time in the ICU, not seeing your colleagues, and interviewing for your new job all from your own living room. After all of this, you finally get to start doing what you have been waiting to do for the past decade: train with the brilliant minds in hematology and oncology.

All of a sudden, your female mentors and pillars of the oncology world start disappearing around you due to early retirement, new career opportunities, or deciding to leave clinical medicine all together. You start to question: If these incredible women have decided that the sacrifice this career requires is too much, then (1) How will I survive? and (2) Did I make a huge mistake in my career decision? Spoiler alert: This girl is me.

The World Health Organization defines burnout as a “syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by energy depletion or exhaustion, increased mental distance from one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy.”

We know that 33% of oncologists are feeling burned out right now, according to the Medscape National Physician Burnout & Suicide Report 2021. Of the 51% of female physicians that are burned out, work-life balance has been identified as the biggest workplace concern to them. Research has shown that hours per week devoted to direct patient care is the dominant predictor of burnout for practicing oncologists. But in academic oncology, that is followed by grant deadlines, manuscript rejections, and the constant reminders that you are a new face in oncology, a specialty that was previously male-dominated.

In less than a year, we have had several key female oncologists leave our cancer center. While some made the decision to retire early, two of them chose to pivot their careers and leave clinical medicine to assist with drug development and clinical trials. Although this is extremely important work for cancer care, I was shocked to hear that these amazing and successful clinicians were choosing to remove all direct patient care from their practice, when for many of them, patient care was what motivated them to pursue medicine in the first place. They were loved by their patients, respected as researchers, and well known as educators within the division.

One shared that she no longer felt like she could be a good mother, wife, or daughter with what was currently being demanded of her to have a successful academic career. In hearing this news, I was saddened to have to say goodbye to a mentor of mine and immediately started second-guessing my career choice. I felt that my goal of having an impactful career and prosperous home life was not only unattainable but potentially unrealistic.

While we know that female physicians already experience a greater degree of burnout, the pandemic has only added fuel to the fire. This is especially true in cancer care. It has been estimated that new cancer diagnosis have decreased by as much as 23% since the beginning of the pandemic. This delay in diagnosis will lead to patients presenting with more advanced disease, busier clinic schedules, and worsened clinical outcomes for years to come. With no end in sight, I worry what this will mean for women currently in oncology, in addition to those in training or deciding if they should pursue this as a career.

Extrapolating evidence from prior epidemics, physicians are at increased risk for burnout due to immediate and long-term effects from this pandemic. We need to act now to not only continue addressing previously existing individual and organizational causes of burnout but also develop strategies to provide support for the COVID-19–specific impacts on oncologists’ well-being. An editorial published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology provides helpful suggestions on how to do this.

A recent cross-sectional survey found that 22% of academic female oncologists were likely or very likely to pursue a career outside of academia in the next 5 years. Losing these women would be detrimental to the field. This would mean a significant number of patients losing their long-term oncologists with whom they have years of care, trainees losing their professional and research mentors to guide and help mold them into successful independent practitioners and researchers, and arguably most important, little girls losing role models to show them that regardless of their gender, they can become an oncologist.Dr. Poterala is a current hematology and oncology fellow at the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center, Madison. She disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

A relatively large number of late-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs) are detected during follow-up surveillance, yet no single patient- or protocol-specific factor appears to be significantly associated with detecting late-stage disease during this period, according to a new systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

The researchers, led by Ankit Chhoda, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., wrote in Gastroenterology that interval progression in high-risk individuals “highlights the need for improved follow-up methodology with higher accuracy to detect prognostically significant and treatable lesions.”

Individuals at high risk for PDAC are encouraged to undergo routine surveillance for the disease because early detection and resection of T1N0M0 PDAC and high-grade precursors may improve survival outcomes. According to Dr. Chhoda and colleagues, challenges of interval progression of cancers during the surveillance period for gastrointestinal malignancies have been well described in the general and at-risk patient populations. Previous studies, the authors explained, have not scrutinized the issues associated with late-stage PDACs detected during follow-up surveillance.

“Late-stage PDACs necessitate critical appraisal of current follow-up strategies to detect successful targets and perform timely resections,” the authors wrote. The researchers added that the diagnosis of late-stage PDACs during follow-up emphasizes the need for implementing “quality measures to avoid preventable causes, including surveillance adherence and diagnostic errors.”

To understand the incidence rates of late-stage PDACs during follow-up in high-risk individuals, Dr. Chhoda and researchers performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of data that included follow-up strategies for early PDAC detection among a high-risk population.

Outcomes of interest for the analysis included the overall diagnosis of advanced neoplasia as well as surveillance-detected/interval late-stage PDACs (T2–4N0M0/metastatic stage PDAC) during follow-up. The investigators defined surveillance-detected and interval late-stage PDACs as late-stage PDACs that were detected during surveillance and as those presenting symptomatically between visits, respectively.

The researchers also performed metaregression of the incidence rates of late-stage PDACs to examine the relationship with clinicoradiologic features in high-risk individuals.

A total of 13 studies on surveillance in 2,169 high-risk individuals were included in the systematic review, while 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Across studies, high-risk individuals were followed for over 7,302.72 patient-years for the purposes of detecting incident lesions or progression of preexisting pancreatic abnormalities.

In all high-risk individuals who underwent follow-up, the investigators identified a total yield of advanced neoplasia of 53. This total yield consisted of 7 high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasms, 7 high-grade intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, and 39 PDACs. According to the meta-analysis, the cumulative incidence of advanced neoplasia was 3.3 (95% confidence interval, 0.6-7.4; P < .001) per 1,000 patient-years. During follow-up, the cumulative incidence of surveillance-detected/interval late-stage PDACs was 1.7 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 0.2-4.0; P = .03).

In a separate analysis, the investigators sought to identify the relationship between the modality of follow-up imaging and late-stage PDAC incidence. Imaging modalities used during follow-up were mostly cross-sectional imaging, such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging with cholangiopancreatography (n = 4) or endoscopic ultrasound and cross-sectional modalities (n = 8).

The investigators found no significant associations between late-stage PDACs and surveillance imaging, baseline pancreatic morphology, study location, genetic background, gender, or age. Incidence of late-stage PDACs in studies with mostly cross-sectional imaging was 0.7 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 0.0-8.0). This incidence rate was lower than that reported with EUS and cross-sectional modalities (2.5 per 1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 0.6-5.4), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .2).

No significant difference was found during follow-up in the incidence of late-stage PDACs between high-risk individuals with baseline pancreatic abnormalities (0.0 no significant difference; 95% CI, 0.0-0.3) vs. high-risk individuals with normal baseline (0.9 per 1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 0.0-2.8) (P = .9).

Most studies included in the analysis did not report on diagnostic errors and surveillance adherence, the researchers wrote. Nonadherence to surveillance as well as delays in surveillance accounted for four late-stage PDACs, and surveillance cessation and/or delays were reported in 4 out of 19 high-risk individuals. There was limited information on symptoms, presentation timing, site of lesion, and surveillance adherence, which the investigators indicated prevented a formal meta-analysis.

In their summary, the study authors noted that in clinical practice there is a need for improved quality measures and adherence to surveillance programs to reduce the risk of diagnostic errors. The authors stated that evidence on the impact of these quality measures “on surveillance outcomes will not only improve quality of surveillance practices, but also enrich our communication with patients who undergo surveillance.”

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry, and the study did not receive any funding.

A relatively large number of late-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs) are detected during follow-up surveillance, yet no single patient- or protocol-specific factor appears to be significantly associated with detecting late-stage disease during this period, according to a new systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

The researchers, led by Ankit Chhoda, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., wrote in Gastroenterology that interval progression in high-risk individuals “highlights the need for improved follow-up methodology with higher accuracy to detect prognostically significant and treatable lesions.”

Individuals at high risk for PDAC are encouraged to undergo routine surveillance for the disease because early detection and resection of T1N0M0 PDAC and high-grade precursors may improve survival outcomes. According to Dr. Chhoda and colleagues, challenges of interval progression of cancers during the surveillance period for gastrointestinal malignancies have been well described in the general and at-risk patient populations. Previous studies, the authors explained, have not scrutinized the issues associated with late-stage PDACs detected during follow-up surveillance.

“Late-stage PDACs necessitate critical appraisal of current follow-up strategies to detect successful targets and perform timely resections,” the authors wrote. The researchers added that the diagnosis of late-stage PDACs during follow-up emphasizes the need for implementing “quality measures to avoid preventable causes, including surveillance adherence and diagnostic errors.”

To understand the incidence rates of late-stage PDACs during follow-up in high-risk individuals, Dr. Chhoda and researchers performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of data that included follow-up strategies for early PDAC detection among a high-risk population.

Outcomes of interest for the analysis included the overall diagnosis of advanced neoplasia as well as surveillance-detected/interval late-stage PDACs (T2–4N0M0/metastatic stage PDAC) during follow-up. The investigators defined surveillance-detected and interval late-stage PDACs as late-stage PDACs that were detected during surveillance and as those presenting symptomatically between visits, respectively.

The researchers also performed metaregression of the incidence rates of late-stage PDACs to examine the relationship with clinicoradiologic features in high-risk individuals.

A total of 13 studies on surveillance in 2,169 high-risk individuals were included in the systematic review, while 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Across studies, high-risk individuals were followed for over 7,302.72 patient-years for the purposes of detecting incident lesions or progression of preexisting pancreatic abnormalities.

In all high-risk individuals who underwent follow-up, the investigators identified a total yield of advanced neoplasia of 53. This total yield consisted of 7 high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasms, 7 high-grade intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, and 39 PDACs. According to the meta-analysis, the cumulative incidence of advanced neoplasia was 3.3 (95% confidence interval, 0.6-7.4; P < .001) per 1,000 patient-years. During follow-up, the cumulative incidence of surveillance-detected/interval late-stage PDACs was 1.7 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 0.2-4.0; P = .03).

In a separate analysis, the investigators sought to identify the relationship between the modality of follow-up imaging and late-stage PDAC incidence. Imaging modalities used during follow-up were mostly cross-sectional imaging, such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging with cholangiopancreatography (n = 4) or endoscopic ultrasound and cross-sectional modalities (n = 8).

The investigators found no significant associations between late-stage PDACs and surveillance imaging, baseline pancreatic morphology, study location, genetic background, gender, or age. Incidence of late-stage PDACs in studies with mostly cross-sectional imaging was 0.7 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 0.0-8.0). This incidence rate was lower than that reported with EUS and cross-sectional modalities (2.5 per 1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 0.6-5.4), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .2).

No significant difference was found during follow-up in the incidence of late-stage PDACs between high-risk individuals with baseline pancreatic abnormalities (0.0 no significant difference; 95% CI, 0.0-0.3) vs. high-risk individuals with normal baseline (0.9 per 1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 0.0-2.8) (P = .9).

Most studies included in the analysis did not report on diagnostic errors and surveillance adherence, the researchers wrote. Nonadherence to surveillance as well as delays in surveillance accounted for four late-stage PDACs, and surveillance cessation and/or delays were reported in 4 out of 19 high-risk individuals. There was limited information on symptoms, presentation timing, site of lesion, and surveillance adherence, which the investigators indicated prevented a formal meta-analysis.

In their summary, the study authors noted that in clinical practice there is a need for improved quality measures and adherence to surveillance programs to reduce the risk of diagnostic errors. The authors stated that evidence on the impact of these quality measures “on surveillance outcomes will not only improve quality of surveillance practices, but also enrich our communication with patients who undergo surveillance.”

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry, and the study did not receive any funding.

A relatively large number of late-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs) are detected during follow-up surveillance, yet no single patient- or protocol-specific factor appears to be significantly associated with detecting late-stage disease during this period, according to a new systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

The researchers, led by Ankit Chhoda, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., wrote in Gastroenterology that interval progression in high-risk individuals “highlights the need for improved follow-up methodology with higher accuracy to detect prognostically significant and treatable lesions.”

Individuals at high risk for PDAC are encouraged to undergo routine surveillance for the disease because early detection and resection of T1N0M0 PDAC and high-grade precursors may improve survival outcomes. According to Dr. Chhoda and colleagues, challenges of interval progression of cancers during the surveillance period for gastrointestinal malignancies have been well described in the general and at-risk patient populations. Previous studies, the authors explained, have not scrutinized the issues associated with late-stage PDACs detected during follow-up surveillance.

“Late-stage PDACs necessitate critical appraisal of current follow-up strategies to detect successful targets and perform timely resections,” the authors wrote. The researchers added that the diagnosis of late-stage PDACs during follow-up emphasizes the need for implementing “quality measures to avoid preventable causes, including surveillance adherence and diagnostic errors.”

To understand the incidence rates of late-stage PDACs during follow-up in high-risk individuals, Dr. Chhoda and researchers performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of data that included follow-up strategies for early PDAC detection among a high-risk population.

Outcomes of interest for the analysis included the overall diagnosis of advanced neoplasia as well as surveillance-detected/interval late-stage PDACs (T2–4N0M0/metastatic stage PDAC) during follow-up. The investigators defined surveillance-detected and interval late-stage PDACs as late-stage PDACs that were detected during surveillance and as those presenting symptomatically between visits, respectively.

The researchers also performed metaregression of the incidence rates of late-stage PDACs to examine the relationship with clinicoradiologic features in high-risk individuals.

A total of 13 studies on surveillance in 2,169 high-risk individuals were included in the systematic review, while 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Across studies, high-risk individuals were followed for over 7,302.72 patient-years for the purposes of detecting incident lesions or progression of preexisting pancreatic abnormalities.

In all high-risk individuals who underwent follow-up, the investigators identified a total yield of advanced neoplasia of 53. This total yield consisted of 7 high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasms, 7 high-grade intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, and 39 PDACs. According to the meta-analysis, the cumulative incidence of advanced neoplasia was 3.3 (95% confidence interval, 0.6-7.4; P < .001) per 1,000 patient-years. During follow-up, the cumulative incidence of surveillance-detected/interval late-stage PDACs was 1.7 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 0.2-4.0; P = .03).

In a separate analysis, the investigators sought to identify the relationship between the modality of follow-up imaging and late-stage PDAC incidence. Imaging modalities used during follow-up were mostly cross-sectional imaging, such as computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging with cholangiopancreatography (n = 4) or endoscopic ultrasound and cross-sectional modalities (n = 8).

The investigators found no significant associations between late-stage PDACs and surveillance imaging, baseline pancreatic morphology, study location, genetic background, gender, or age. Incidence of late-stage PDACs in studies with mostly cross-sectional imaging was 0.7 per 1,000 patient-years (95% CI, 0.0-8.0). This incidence rate was lower than that reported with EUS and cross-sectional modalities (2.5 per 1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 0.6-5.4), but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .2).

No significant difference was found during follow-up in the incidence of late-stage PDACs between high-risk individuals with baseline pancreatic abnormalities (0.0 no significant difference; 95% CI, 0.0-0.3) vs. high-risk individuals with normal baseline (0.9 per 1,000 patient-years; 95% CI, 0.0-2.8) (P = .9).

Most studies included in the analysis did not report on diagnostic errors and surveillance adherence, the researchers wrote. Nonadherence to surveillance as well as delays in surveillance accounted for four late-stage PDACs, and surveillance cessation and/or delays were reported in 4 out of 19 high-risk individuals. There was limited information on symptoms, presentation timing, site of lesion, and surveillance adherence, which the investigators indicated prevented a formal meta-analysis.

In their summary, the study authors noted that in clinical practice there is a need for improved quality measures and adherence to surveillance programs to reduce the risk of diagnostic errors. The authors stated that evidence on the impact of these quality measures “on surveillance outcomes will not only improve quality of surveillance practices, but also enrich our communication with patients who undergo surveillance.”

The researchers reported no conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry, and the study did not receive any funding.

Oncologists were less likely than many other specialists to be named in malpractice suits during 2021, notes the latest Medscape Malpractice Report.

Over a third (39%) of oncologists who were surveyed said that they had been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Oncologist Malpractice Report 2021.

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

This number is considerably lower than that reported by physicians across all specialties (51%), and it is also much lower than that reported by oncologists in past years. In the 2019 report, 54% of oncologists surveyed said they had been named in a malpractice suit, while in the 2017 report, the figure was 53%.

The dramatic decline in malpractice suits may have much to do with the COVID-19 pandemic, when oncology care was in a state of flux.

“Fewer people were seeking cancer care during the COVID pandemic, which might have impacted the number of lawsuits brought against oncologists,” says Paul Walker, a New York–based malpractice attorney at Walker Medical Law, who represents physicians and other healthcare professionals.

“Additionally, a fair number of people who died of COVID were also older,” he pointed out, and it is often older people who get cancer, so there were fewer older people who consulted an oncologist or were treated by one, he added.

However, the pandemic may be storing up trouble for future years. “Patient fears of contracting COVID-19 have led many to avoid seeking or resuming care, so delays in diagnosing new cancer cases could mean that more patients are diagnosed at a later stage of their disease, leading to potential adverse events and malpractice claims,” commented David L. Feldman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of The Doctors Company Group.

This latest 2021 Medscape Malpractice Report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. It included 106 oncologists. More than half of respondents (56%) had been in practice for more than 25 years, and 54% were aged 60 years or older. The survey was available from May 21 to August 28, 2021.

Similar to findings in previous years, complications from treatment/surgery were the most common reason for the lawsuits (31%). Failure to make a correct diagnosis or a delay in diagnosis was the second most common reason (23%), while 20% of patients sued because of a poor outcome or disease progression.
 

Surprise at being sued

Among the oncologists who reported involvement in a lawsuit in 2021, the majority (86%) said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit, which is similar to that of other physicians surveyed. However, fewer were surprised this year as compared to 2019 and 2017 (90% and 94%).

One reason for the surprise over the litigation was that it concerned a patient who had been treated a long time ago. One oncologist wrote that “the patient had not seen me for over 7 years and during that time, he did not call me with his new symptomatology. I was only named in the suit because I had previously been involved.”

Another common scenario reported by oncologists was being named in a lawsuit which was brought by another clinician’s patient. “I was the chairperson of the department, and one of the doctors in the practice was involved in the suit,” wrote one respondent. “I was named as an accomplice.”

More than half of surveyed oncologists said that they were able to identify the patient who bought the suit, and these figures are again comparable to those of other physicians. One oncologist commented that in the case he was involved with, the family did not understand or accept the nature of cancer and the different ways that a patient could die of complications. This patient had died of sepsis and pneumonia related to decubitus ulcers that were completely unrelated to her radiation therapy.

As in the case above, sometimes it is the family who filed the lawsuit, not the patient.

“The patient may even recognize that you did your best and be grateful for your skill and efforts, but the family can’t accept that grandma died of cancer and brings a lawsuit,” said Dennis Hursh, an attorney with Physicians Agreement Health Law in Pennsylvania.

When looking at outcomes of the lawsuit, 40% of oncologists were dismissed from the suit within the first few months, or the case was settled before going to trial. This trend is also consistent with the results from the 2019 and 2017 surveys. When the case did go to trial, 10% received a favorable verdict, which was the same in 2019.

“It seems that most of my clients end up being released from lawsuits, and many lawsuits are dismissed prior to proceeding to trial,” Mr. Hursh commented.
 

Murdering psychopath

Some oncologists weighed in on what they felt was the worst experience of being sued.

“Mental anguish, knowing that I did nothing wrong,” said one physician. Another reported that it was a feeling of being “inadequate and totally alone.”

Another oncologist commented that the “depositions from lawyers implied that I was worse than a murdering psychopath. My reputation was permanently damaged.”

However, the vast majority of oncologists (88%) did not believe that the lawsuit negatively affected their career, which was similar to physicians in general. That said, many did complain about the ongoing requirement to report the lawsuit to the credentialing committee, even if it was dismissed, and then having to pay increased malpractice premiums. “I still need to document this episode every single time I apply for any medical position, even more than 29 years after I was dismissed from the case,” said one respondent.

When asked if they would do anything differently, many oncologists (42%) said no, they would not have done anything differently. This is similar to the responses from physicians in general and with 2019 responses from oncologists. However, 15% of the respondents said that in retrospect, they would not have taken on that patient to begin with.

Some oncologists noted that they would have been more conscientious in relaying the information to the referring physician. Evan Lyman, an associate attorney at Voute, Lohrfink, McAndrew, Meisner & Roberts, LLP, in White Plains, N.Y., pointed out that a common reason for lawsuits is a slip-up of communication between the specialist and the referring physician.

Oncologists who had been sued have some insights to offer to colleagues, should they find themselves in a similar situation.

“Only answer with short and precise statements,” wrote one oncologist. “Attend all the depositions as much as you can; they are more likely to fabricate or exaggerate if you are not sitting in the room.”

Another physician said to base “everything on the medical record and do not answer hypothetical questions.”

“Document all interactions with patients as if a jury will be reading them, word by word,” said one respondent.

As for the public or patients, oncologists had this message: “malpractice suits should be rarely launched and only when gross errors can be absolutely proven.”

Another oncologist pointed out that communication is key. “Speak to the physicians against whom you have distrust. Lots of things could be cleared by good communication.”

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

Oncologists were less likely than many other specialists to be named in malpractice suits during 2021, notes the latest Medscape Malpractice Report.

Over a third (39%) of oncologists who were surveyed said that they had been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Oncologist Malpractice Report 2021.

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

This number is considerably lower than that reported by physicians across all specialties (51%), and it is also much lower than that reported by oncologists in past years. In the 2019 report, 54% of oncologists surveyed said they had been named in a malpractice suit, while in the 2017 report, the figure was 53%.

The dramatic decline in malpractice suits may have much to do with the COVID-19 pandemic, when oncology care was in a state of flux.

“Fewer people were seeking cancer care during the COVID pandemic, which might have impacted the number of lawsuits brought against oncologists,” says Paul Walker, a New York–based malpractice attorney at Walker Medical Law, who represents physicians and other healthcare professionals.

“Additionally, a fair number of people who died of COVID were also older,” he pointed out, and it is often older people who get cancer, so there were fewer older people who consulted an oncologist or were treated by one, he added.

However, the pandemic may be storing up trouble for future years. “Patient fears of contracting COVID-19 have led many to avoid seeking or resuming care, so delays in diagnosing new cancer cases could mean that more patients are diagnosed at a later stage of their disease, leading to potential adverse events and malpractice claims,” commented David L. Feldman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of The Doctors Company Group.

This latest 2021 Medscape Malpractice Report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. It included 106 oncologists. More than half of respondents (56%) had been in practice for more than 25 years, and 54% were aged 60 years or older. The survey was available from May 21 to August 28, 2021.

Similar to findings in previous years, complications from treatment/surgery were the most common reason for the lawsuits (31%). Failure to make a correct diagnosis or a delay in diagnosis was the second most common reason (23%), while 20% of patients sued because of a poor outcome or disease progression.
 

Surprise at being sued

Among the oncologists who reported involvement in a lawsuit in 2021, the majority (86%) said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit, which is similar to that of other physicians surveyed. However, fewer were surprised this year as compared to 2019 and 2017 (90% and 94%).

One reason for the surprise over the litigation was that it concerned a patient who had been treated a long time ago. One oncologist wrote that “the patient had not seen me for over 7 years and during that time, he did not call me with his new symptomatology. I was only named in the suit because I had previously been involved.”

Another common scenario reported by oncologists was being named in a lawsuit which was brought by another clinician’s patient. “I was the chairperson of the department, and one of the doctors in the practice was involved in the suit,” wrote one respondent. “I was named as an accomplice.”

More than half of surveyed oncologists said that they were able to identify the patient who bought the suit, and these figures are again comparable to those of other physicians. One oncologist commented that in the case he was involved with, the family did not understand or accept the nature of cancer and the different ways that a patient could die of complications. This patient had died of sepsis and pneumonia related to decubitus ulcers that were completely unrelated to her radiation therapy.

As in the case above, sometimes it is the family who filed the lawsuit, not the patient.

“The patient may even recognize that you did your best and be grateful for your skill and efforts, but the family can’t accept that grandma died of cancer and brings a lawsuit,” said Dennis Hursh, an attorney with Physicians Agreement Health Law in Pennsylvania.

When looking at outcomes of the lawsuit, 40% of oncologists were dismissed from the suit within the first few months, or the case was settled before going to trial. This trend is also consistent with the results from the 2019 and 2017 surveys. When the case did go to trial, 10% received a favorable verdict, which was the same in 2019.

“It seems that most of my clients end up being released from lawsuits, and many lawsuits are dismissed prior to proceeding to trial,” Mr. Hursh commented.
 

Murdering psychopath

Some oncologists weighed in on what they felt was the worst experience of being sued.

“Mental anguish, knowing that I did nothing wrong,” said one physician. Another reported that it was a feeling of being “inadequate and totally alone.”

Another oncologist commented that the “depositions from lawyers implied that I was worse than a murdering psychopath. My reputation was permanently damaged.”

However, the vast majority of oncologists (88%) did not believe that the lawsuit negatively affected their career, which was similar to physicians in general. That said, many did complain about the ongoing requirement to report the lawsuit to the credentialing committee, even if it was dismissed, and then having to pay increased malpractice premiums. “I still need to document this episode every single time I apply for any medical position, even more than 29 years after I was dismissed from the case,” said one respondent.

When asked if they would do anything differently, many oncologists (42%) said no, they would not have done anything differently. This is similar to the responses from physicians in general and with 2019 responses from oncologists. However, 15% of the respondents said that in retrospect, they would not have taken on that patient to begin with.

Some oncologists noted that they would have been more conscientious in relaying the information to the referring physician. Evan Lyman, an associate attorney at Voute, Lohrfink, McAndrew, Meisner & Roberts, LLP, in White Plains, N.Y., pointed out that a common reason for lawsuits is a slip-up of communication between the specialist and the referring physician.

Oncologists who had been sued have some insights to offer to colleagues, should they find themselves in a similar situation.

“Only answer with short and precise statements,” wrote one oncologist. “Attend all the depositions as much as you can; they are more likely to fabricate or exaggerate if you are not sitting in the room.”

Another physician said to base “everything on the medical record and do not answer hypothetical questions.”

“Document all interactions with patients as if a jury will be reading them, word by word,” said one respondent.

As for the public or patients, oncologists had this message: “malpractice suits should be rarely launched and only when gross errors can be absolutely proven.”

Another oncologist pointed out that communication is key. “Speak to the physicians against whom you have distrust. Lots of things could be cleared by good communication.”

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

Oncologists were less likely than many other specialists to be named in malpractice suits during 2021, notes the latest Medscape Malpractice Report.

Over a third (39%) of oncologists who were surveyed said that they had been named in at least one malpractice suit, according to the Medscape Oncologist Malpractice Report 2021.

Jupiterimages/ThinkStock

This number is considerably lower than that reported by physicians across all specialties (51%), and it is also much lower than that reported by oncologists in past years. In the 2019 report, 54% of oncologists surveyed said they had been named in a malpractice suit, while in the 2017 report, the figure was 53%.

The dramatic decline in malpractice suits may have much to do with the COVID-19 pandemic, when oncology care was in a state of flux.

“Fewer people were seeking cancer care during the COVID pandemic, which might have impacted the number of lawsuits brought against oncologists,” says Paul Walker, a New York–based malpractice attorney at Walker Medical Law, who represents physicians and other healthcare professionals.

“Additionally, a fair number of people who died of COVID were also older,” he pointed out, and it is often older people who get cancer, so there were fewer older people who consulted an oncologist or were treated by one, he added.

However, the pandemic may be storing up trouble for future years. “Patient fears of contracting COVID-19 have led many to avoid seeking or resuming care, so delays in diagnosing new cancer cases could mean that more patients are diagnosed at a later stage of their disease, leading to potential adverse events and malpractice claims,” commented David L. Feldman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of The Doctors Company Group.

This latest 2021 Medscape Malpractice Report was compiled from an online survey that included more than 4,300 physicians from 29 specialties. It included 106 oncologists. More than half of respondents (56%) had been in practice for more than 25 years, and 54% were aged 60 years or older. The survey was available from May 21 to August 28, 2021.

Similar to findings in previous years, complications from treatment/surgery were the most common reason for the lawsuits (31%). Failure to make a correct diagnosis or a delay in diagnosis was the second most common reason (23%), while 20% of patients sued because of a poor outcome or disease progression.
 

Surprise at being sued

Among the oncologists who reported involvement in a lawsuit in 2021, the majority (86%) said they were “very surprised” or “somewhat surprised” by the malpractice suit, which is similar to that of other physicians surveyed. However, fewer were surprised this year as compared to 2019 and 2017 (90% and 94%).

One reason for the surprise over the litigation was that it concerned a patient who had been treated a long time ago. One oncologist wrote that “the patient had not seen me for over 7 years and during that time, he did not call me with his new symptomatology. I was only named in the suit because I had previously been involved.”

Another common scenario reported by oncologists was being named in a lawsuit which was brought by another clinician’s patient. “I was the chairperson of the department, and one of the doctors in the practice was involved in the suit,” wrote one respondent. “I was named as an accomplice.”

More than half of surveyed oncologists said that they were able to identify the patient who bought the suit, and these figures are again comparable to those of other physicians. One oncologist commented that in the case he was involved with, the family did not understand or accept the nature of cancer and the different ways that a patient could die of complications. This patient had died of sepsis and pneumonia related to decubitus ulcers that were completely unrelated to her radiation therapy.

As in the case above, sometimes it is the family who filed the lawsuit, not the patient.

“The patient may even recognize that you did your best and be grateful for your skill and efforts, but the family can’t accept that grandma died of cancer and brings a lawsuit,” said Dennis Hursh, an attorney with Physicians Agreement Health Law in Pennsylvania.

When looking at outcomes of the lawsuit, 40% of oncologists were dismissed from the suit within the first few months, or the case was settled before going to trial. This trend is also consistent with the results from the 2019 and 2017 surveys. When the case did go to trial, 10% received a favorable verdict, which was the same in 2019.

“It seems that most of my clients end up being released from lawsuits, and many lawsuits are dismissed prior to proceeding to trial,” Mr. Hursh commented.
 

Murdering psychopath

Some oncologists weighed in on what they felt was the worst experience of being sued.

“Mental anguish, knowing that I did nothing wrong,” said one physician. Another reported that it was a feeling of being “inadequate and totally alone.”

Another oncologist commented that the “depositions from lawyers implied that I was worse than a murdering psychopath. My reputation was permanently damaged.”

However, the vast majority of oncologists (88%) did not believe that the lawsuit negatively affected their career, which was similar to physicians in general. That said, many did complain about the ongoing requirement to report the lawsuit to the credentialing committee, even if it was dismissed, and then having to pay increased malpractice premiums. “I still need to document this episode every single time I apply for any medical position, even more than 29 years after I was dismissed from the case,” said one respondent.

When asked if they would do anything differently, many oncologists (42%) said no, they would not have done anything differently. This is similar to the responses from physicians in general and with 2019 responses from oncologists. However, 15% of the respondents said that in retrospect, they would not have taken on that patient to begin with.

Some oncologists noted that they would have been more conscientious in relaying the information to the referring physician. Evan Lyman, an associate attorney at Voute, Lohrfink, McAndrew, Meisner & Roberts, LLP, in White Plains, N.Y., pointed out that a common reason for lawsuits is a slip-up of communication between the specialist and the referring physician.

Oncologists who had been sued have some insights to offer to colleagues, should they find themselves in a similar situation.

“Only answer with short and precise statements,” wrote one oncologist. “Attend all the depositions as much as you can; they are more likely to fabricate or exaggerate if you are not sitting in the room.”

Another physician said to base “everything on the medical record and do not answer hypothetical questions.”

“Document all interactions with patients as if a jury will be reading them, word by word,” said one respondent.

As for the public or patients, oncologists had this message: “malpractice suits should be rarely launched and only when gross errors can be absolutely proven.”

Another oncologist pointed out that communication is key. “Speak to the physicians against whom you have distrust. Lots of things could be cleared by good communication.”

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