AVAHO

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

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

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

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

Sociodemographic factors influence on rates and reasons for overdue screening

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study authors and commentator disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

Sociodemographic factors influence on rates and reasons for overdue screening

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study authors and commentator disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

Sociodemographic factors influence on rates and reasons for overdue screening

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study authors and commentator disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 

Patterns are changing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survival at 5 years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the authors are employed by the ACS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 

Patterns are changing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survival at 5 years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the authors are employed by the ACS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 

Patterns are changing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survival at 5 years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the authors are employed by the ACS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

Pradeep Bansal considered the five capsules he was about to swallow. Together they made up a 25-mg dose of a substance that, in another setting, could have landed him in federal prison.

The substance was psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms. To be more exact, it was a synthetic form of psilocybin called COMP360, made to pharmaceutical standards by a company called COMPASS Pathways. He was taking it as part of an Food and Drug Administration–approved clinical study on mental health therapy for people with cancer.

Dr. Bansal, a New York gastroenterologist, was far more comfortable giving medical treatment than receiving it. But he was getting used to it.

He had already been through surgery and a number of other treatments to address the physical aspects of his cancer. The psilocybin was to address the mental aspects – the crushing anxiety and depression that had stuck with him after his diagnosis.

Dr. Bansal did not arrive at this moment lightly.

“I was extremely skeptical going into this process,” said Dr. Bansal, who during a long medical career had looked with distrust and even disdain at alternative therapies.

“I don’t have much patience for holistic medicine, homeopathy, acupuncture, or alternative medicines with claims of spiritual upliftment or altered states of mind.”

But Bansal had done his homework on psilocybin and was impressed.

People with late-stage cancer and other serious health conditions who got psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy had “significant decreases” in anxiety and depression as long as 12 months after the treatment, according to studies published in 2011, 2014, and 2016.

One study from Johns Hopkins University tracked the effects of a single guided dose of psilocybin in terminal cancer patients with anxiety and depression. More than 80% had a “significant decrease” in symptoms – even 6 months after treatment – with more than 60% of the group remaining in the normal mood range.

For the study Dr. Bansal joined, there had been weeks of screening and consultation and preparation in a strictly controlled scientific trial.

And yet, even with all that he had learned, even with his psychiatrist-guide by his side, he was afraid. Afraid of what he might experience under the powerful effects of psilocybin. And afraid that this was all a misguided waste of time – that his mental angst would still be there when it was all over.

He knew that psilocybin, like other psychedelic substances, could take you on a “trip” – could remove you, at least for a time, from normal conscious experience.

Maybe he would feel “funny,” he thought. Maybe he would have some hallucinations. But how would that change the reality of his cancer? How would it lift the black dread and anxiety he felt about his future?
 

Stuck in a dark place

Dr. Bansal had first noticed blood in his urine – a lot of it – in September 2019. 

Two months later, doctors diagnosed cancer in his right kidney. He would need surgery to remove the kidney and surrounding lymph nodes (an operation called radical nephrectomy).

It was a shock, said Dr. Bansal. But the diagnosis and the surgery happened so quickly that he hardly had time to think. And treatment results seemed good. The cancer was only in stage I and the CT scans showed no signs of cancer after surgery.

“We were so relieved. Everyone was so happy,” Dr. Bansal said. “They didn’t even give me chemotherapy after surgery because it seemed so early.”

But a routine scan in June 2020 revealed more cancer in his lung. Within a couple of months, it was in his bladder too.

“It was devastating,” Dr. Bansal said. “I went from thinking I was healthy again to stage IV cancer.”

As doctors scheduled surgery to remove part of his lung, Dr. Bansal started on painful immunotherapy (BCG therapy) for his bladder.

At this point, from a psychological standpoint, Dr. Bansal was reeling. As a doctor, he knew all too well the meaning of stage IV cancer.

With two adult children and a grandchild on the way, Dr. Bansal had been looking forward to retirement with his wife of almost 40 years. “Suddenly, I wasn’t sure I was going to last that long,” Bansal recalled. “I was in a very dark place. I was very anxious, very depressed from lack of sleep.”

He saw a therapist about his cancer diagnosis and maintained his regular meditation practice at home. He hired a personal trainer and tried to focus on any good news that he got about his treatment.

Those things helped, but not enough.

The basic facts were inescapable. His cancer might end everything. He couldn’t stop thinking about it. And then he couldn’t stop thinking about how he couldn’t stop thinking about it.

If the worst happened, he didn’t want to spend his last days in a state of such relentless existential angst. And it wasn’t just for himself. He wanted to be strong and mentally present for his family and his loved ones and his patients.

As he searched for something to ease his mental anguish, Dr. Bansal recalled some psychedelic research on end-of-life anxiety and depression that he’d read about in Michael Pollan’s book on psychedelics, “How to Change Your Mind” (New York, Penguin Press, 2018).

The studies were small and the research was new, but Dr. Bansal was impressed enough with the results to take a chance. He called a lead researcher of one of the studies, a fellow New York doctor, and eventually found himself accepted into a new study.
 

Starting the journey

By the time Dr. Bansal arrived at the Bill Richards Center for Healing at the Aquilino Cancer Center in Rockville, Md., he had already been through weeks of screening.

The main requirements for the study were a cancer diagnosis and a measurable level of depression. But study participants also had to be physically fit enough to handle the medication, and psychologically free from a personal or family history of psychosis or schizophrenia. (The study also required participants to slowly wean themselves from medications like SSRIs for depression or antianxiety medications under the strict supervision of a qualified doctor.)

Dr. Bansal’s week of treatment began almost immediately on arrival at Aquilino. Everything was carefully choreographed but not rushed. From Monday to Wednesday, doctors followed his physical health with exams, ECGs, and blood work. And most importantly, they began to prepare him for the “dosing session” on Thursday when he would take the psilocybin.

This is the careful crafting of “set and setting” stressed in so many psychedelic therapies. “Set” refers to your mindset going into the drug experience. “Setting” is the space and people around you when the drug sends you into an altered state of consciousness.

Dr. Bansal met several times with at least three therapists in the days leading up to his dosing. He attended 4-plus hours of therapist-led group sessions with other people who would get a dosing on the same day. Together, they talked about what to expect during the experience and what to do in the face of fear or panic. 

He connected with a therapist who would be his personal guide. Dr. Bansal’s therapist was a military psychiatrist with over 30 years’ experience.

“He was there with me from day 1, and so we established a relationship,” Dr. Bansal said.

“He asked me a lot of personal background history – you know, my religious convictions, aspirations, all those things.”

“Trust and let go,” was a kind of mantra for the treatment repeated by his guide and other doctors.

For Dr. Bansal, a doctor and scientist accustomed to using hard facts rather than touchy-feely slogans to navigate the care of patients, it was an adjustment, to say the least.

But he did his best to set aside his doubts and embrace the journey he was about to take.
 

The day of the trip

Thursday morning finally arrived. The setting of the dosing room was warm and welcoming, more like a cozy home study than a hospital room.

This matters more than you might think. First, because it’s important that you feel safe, open, and comfortable enough to let go and enter into a therapeutic process. But also because though rare, it’s possible – especially with psilocybin – for people to lose track of where they are and what they’re doing and put themselves or others in danger.

The dose, 25 mg, had been carefully calibrated to induce a psychedelic experience sufficient for therapy. Much less than that, say 10 mg, isn’t enough for most people to enter this state. A double dose, 50 mg, though not physically unsafe, may leave you too incoherent to have the useful insights key to therapeutic value.

A doctor, the lead investigator of the study, brought the five capsules into the room in an intricately carved crucible with a small ceremonial cup that held the water with which to take it.

“It was very solemn,” Dr. Bansal said. “He sat down with me in a very calming way.”

The doctor said: “Don’t worry about it. Just trust and let go.”

And that’s just what he did.

Dr. Bansal swallowed the capsules and lay down. The doctor quietly left the room so that Dr. Bansal and his psychiatrist guide could begin their session together.

Special eye shades kept him in the pitch dark whether his eyes were open or closed. Headphones streamed a curated musical playlist – much of it Western classical like Strauss, Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven – but also modern electronica and other music from cultures around the globe.

Dr. Bansal would remain here, with his therapist-guide by his side, in largely this same position, for the next 7-and-a-half hours.

It took about 45 minutes for the medication to kick in.
 

The investigator

The doctor who brought the capsules into the dosing room was Manish Agrawal, MD, codirector of clinical research at the Aquilino Cancer Center and lead investigator of the study.

Dr. Agrawal trained at the National Cancer Institute and practiced for many years as an oncologist before developing an interest in psychedelic therapies. It was his work with cancer patients that drew him to psychedelics in the first place.

He had seen too many of his patients mentally wrecked by a cancer diagnosis, and he often felt helpless to comfort them.

“You take care of the physical aspects of the cancer, right? You talk about side effects and recommend another scan to look for recurrence.”

“But what about the psychological effects?”

They can be very serious and too often go ignored, said Dr. Agrawal. Your plans for the future suddenly become moot. You may be concerned about your ability to work or worried about the pain and suffering and financial strain that might be ahead for both you and your family. And to top it all off, you’re staring into the face of your own mortality.

So it’s no wonder, said Dr. Agrawal, that many people develop clinical levels of anxiety and depression after a cancer diagnosis.

Like Dr. Bansal, Dr. Agrawal had been impressed by early studies on psilocybin-assisted therapies for end-of-life anxiety and depression. He had tried other approaches – support groups, one-on-one therapy, religious counselors, psychiatrist-prescribed medication – but he was never really happy with the results.

To Dr. Agrawal, psilocybin-assisted therapy was the first thing that looked like it could really make a difference.

And so after his psychedelic certification at the California Institute of Integral Studies, Dr. Agrawal was determined to change his approach.

The result was the Bill Richards Center for Healing at Aquilino Cancer Center, built specifically to study psychedelic-assisted therapies for psychological distress in people with cancer. The mission of the center is to help develop safe, FDA-approved psychedelic therapies for the mental health of cancer patients, and, once approved, provide a state-of-the-art facility and staff to administer those treatments.
 

A trip into the unknown

Back in the dosing room, Dr. Bansal was starting to feel the effects of the medication. As the psilocybin kicked in, spectacular images swirled.

“It was as if a million stained glass windows had suddenly come to life and were dancing in front of my vision,” Dr. Bansal said.

There were moving landscapes and intricate swirling patterns and massive stages in the sky where he saw orchestras playing the music he was hearing.

Dr. Bansal saw himself being crushed by a huge machine and buried, dead, in the Earth. He died and returned to life several times, glided over the top of New York City with the skyscrapers just below him, and took in the vision of the entire universe.

“I saw this expanse of the sky that was limitless. And there was this prehistoric reptile creature that spanned galaxies in the sky ahead of me who was dying. I said: ‘My God, the universe is dying,’ but then after a few moments, the universe came to life again in a burst of stars exploding.”

All the while, Dr. Bansal said, he was well aware that it was simply his mind creating these images, thoughts, and ideas. He knew he was in a safe room wearing eyeshades and headphones.

And yet, he says, it felt true. “The images and feelings are so powerful that you cannot help but believe they are in some way a part of reality.”

“At one point, I saw this giant Ferris wheel coming towards me and it was full of giant crabs, clicking and clacking their pincers. And my brain told me: ‘That’s my cancer!’ ”

Dr. Bansal was terrified. But he and his therapist had arranged a system of signals before the session. “If I was feeling afraid, I would hold his hand and if I had other issues, I would raise my hand. If I was feeling good, I would give him a thumbs up.”

Dr. Bansal reached out to his therapist and grasped his hand. “I said, ‘My cancer is coming at me!’ ”

His therapist was clear about what to do: Stand firm and walk toward it.

“That’s what they tell you: If you see anything frightening, you face it. And that’s the whole point of this exercise. And so, I stood and walked forward, and it just blew off in a puff of smoke.”
 

A state of peace

Around 3 hours into the experience, Dr. Bansal started to feel an immense sense of peace, happiness, and even comfort.

“I felt like I was watching a movie or a multidimensional slideshow. I was also a part of the movie. I felt like I could tell my mind what I wanted to see, and it would show it to me. It’s almost like you can mold your own visions. It was mystical.”

After about 8 hours, as the effects of the drug wore off, Dr. Bansal removed his eyeshades and headphones. He was completely drained.

“Even though I was lying down on my back for 7 hours, I felt like I had been run over by a truck. I was exhausted beyond belief physically and mentally.”

This was partly because of the fact that he hadn’t eaten much during the session. But mostly, said Dr. Bansal, it was because of the searing emotional intensity of the experience.
 

After the journey

It’s hard to put into words, said Dr. Bansal, what this treatment has done for his life. He feels as if he has stumbled onto something very precious that had been right in front of him all along. He wrote of his change in perspective almost obsessively in his journal in the days and weeks after treatment. One passage reads:

“It seems that, as time is passing on, I’m becoming more relaxed and hopeful, more calm, and at peace. Family has become even more important to me now. Money, politics, material gains, alcohol, seem less important.”

And yet there was nothing “easy” about the experience. In fact, in some ways the experience demanded more from him. “I feel I need to be more compassionate and considerate – less irritable and angry, more understanding of others’ needs. I feel I need to be a better human being, a better patient, a better father, and a better doctor for my patients.”

The experience, he said, gave him something far more important than mere ease. It gave him a sense of meaning.

From his journal:

“I died, and I was reborn. If I survived this, then I can face anything and anybody in the cosmic scheme. I can become part of it.

“How many sorrows in the universe? My cancer is nothing. Life does not end with the end of life. What was will be again. Eternally.”

That’s not an unusual response, according to the namesake of the Bill Richards Center for Healing. Bill Richards, PhD, has worked in the world of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy since 1963.

A psychologist with decades of experience, Dr. Richards and colleagues figure that, with few possible exceptions, he has helped treat more people with psychedelic therapies than anyone alive in Western medicine today. At Aquilino, he works directly with patients and oversees the therapy protocol that goes along with the psilocybin dosing sessions.

“It’s inspiring,” Dr. Richards said.

“You meet someone who’s very depressed and scared and isolating from family and having all kinds of physical complaints. And a few days later, you talk to the same person and they have a whole new lease on life.”

And the positive effects can extend deep into the family system, he said.

After psilocybin treatment, said Dr. Richards, the person with cancer can become a kind of social worker for the family. They’re often far better able to talk about death and loss and even money and family issues than their loved ones. It’s not uncommon after treatment to see the resolution of years-old resentments or grievances that have dogged a family for many years.

Plus, said Dr. Richards, the cancer patient often ends up as a kind model to other family members for how to approach death. “They can demonstrate how to live fully – right to the last breath – which is a real gift because those relatives and loved ones have to die someday too, you know.”

At 80 years old, Dr. Richards is still in active practice and hopes to spend the rest of his days working with people in end-of-life care.
 

After the experience

Psychedelic-assisted therapy does not end with the dosing session. Integration sessions, where you discuss what happened during the dosing session, are a key part of most treatments.

The goal is to help participants absorb and “integrate” their experience. It typically happens over two or more sessions of 60-90 minutes with a therapist. In some cases, the therapist may invite a significant other to join in the integration process.

Dr. Agrawal’s trial at the Bill Richards center added something new: group therapy. Not only did Dr. Bansal meet with his therapist, he also met with a group of three other people in the trial who had their dosing the same day.

The point, said Dr. Agrawal, is to try and determine the effect of the group on the therapy. After their private dosing sessions, they come back together to discuss their experiences.

“After the psilocybin, they feel like they’ve been to war together,” Dr. Agrawal said. “There is this profound openness and connection. They feel able to share things with each other that they wouldn’t with other people.”

It will take some time to figure out how the group affects the overall outcome, but Dr. Bansal thinks it was integral to the success of his treatment.

In fact, he continues to meet regularly with his therapy group, even though it’s long since past the requirements of the study.
 

Pradeep 2.0

Dr. Bansal still has tough days with his cancer. Recently, immunotherapy treatment for his bladder caused side effects – pain, bleeding, fever, and chills – for most of the night. He felt like he was “passing razor blades” when he peed.

“And yet it was somehow okay,” he said. “It was only pain.”

“It’s as if there is a part of me that is watching myself objectively, going through the painful process of treatments saying: ‘It’s all right. I will be with you through this journey, through this experience. Don’t worry.’”

Months after taking that one dose, Dr. Bansal still calls it as “the single most powerful experience of my life.”

The change in his mental outlook, Dr. Bansal said, was profound, particularly in regard to his cancer.

“I understood that I still had cancer and that it could kill me in a few weeks, or months, or years. But my perspective had shifted.”

Dr. Bansal was as surprised as anyone. “Had somebody told me going into this that I would come out a transformed being or a person with a completely different perspective on life, I would never have believed it.”

He even named his new outlook. “I call it Pradeep 2.0.”

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

Pradeep Bansal considered the five capsules he was about to swallow. Together they made up a 25-mg dose of a substance that, in another setting, could have landed him in federal prison.

The substance was psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms. To be more exact, it was a synthetic form of psilocybin called COMP360, made to pharmaceutical standards by a company called COMPASS Pathways. He was taking it as part of an Food and Drug Administration–approved clinical study on mental health therapy for people with cancer.

Dr. Bansal, a New York gastroenterologist, was far more comfortable giving medical treatment than receiving it. But he was getting used to it.

He had already been through surgery and a number of other treatments to address the physical aspects of his cancer. The psilocybin was to address the mental aspects – the crushing anxiety and depression that had stuck with him after his diagnosis.

Dr. Bansal did not arrive at this moment lightly.

“I was extremely skeptical going into this process,” said Dr. Bansal, who during a long medical career had looked with distrust and even disdain at alternative therapies.

“I don’t have much patience for holistic medicine, homeopathy, acupuncture, or alternative medicines with claims of spiritual upliftment or altered states of mind.”

But Bansal had done his homework on psilocybin and was impressed.

People with late-stage cancer and other serious health conditions who got psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy had “significant decreases” in anxiety and depression as long as 12 months after the treatment, according to studies published in 2011, 2014, and 2016.

One study from Johns Hopkins University tracked the effects of a single guided dose of psilocybin in terminal cancer patients with anxiety and depression. More than 80% had a “significant decrease” in symptoms – even 6 months after treatment – with more than 60% of the group remaining in the normal mood range.

For the study Dr. Bansal joined, there had been weeks of screening and consultation and preparation in a strictly controlled scientific trial.

And yet, even with all that he had learned, even with his psychiatrist-guide by his side, he was afraid. Afraid of what he might experience under the powerful effects of psilocybin. And afraid that this was all a misguided waste of time – that his mental angst would still be there when it was all over.

He knew that psilocybin, like other psychedelic substances, could take you on a “trip” – could remove you, at least for a time, from normal conscious experience.

Maybe he would feel “funny,” he thought. Maybe he would have some hallucinations. But how would that change the reality of his cancer? How would it lift the black dread and anxiety he felt about his future?
 

Stuck in a dark place

Dr. Bansal had first noticed blood in his urine – a lot of it – in September 2019. 

Two months later, doctors diagnosed cancer in his right kidney. He would need surgery to remove the kidney and surrounding lymph nodes (an operation called radical nephrectomy).

It was a shock, said Dr. Bansal. But the diagnosis and the surgery happened so quickly that he hardly had time to think. And treatment results seemed good. The cancer was only in stage I and the CT scans showed no signs of cancer after surgery.

“We were so relieved. Everyone was so happy,” Dr. Bansal said. “They didn’t even give me chemotherapy after surgery because it seemed so early.”

But a routine scan in June 2020 revealed more cancer in his lung. Within a couple of months, it was in his bladder too.

“It was devastating,” Dr. Bansal said. “I went from thinking I was healthy again to stage IV cancer.”

As doctors scheduled surgery to remove part of his lung, Dr. Bansal started on painful immunotherapy (BCG therapy) for his bladder.

At this point, from a psychological standpoint, Dr. Bansal was reeling. As a doctor, he knew all too well the meaning of stage IV cancer.

With two adult children and a grandchild on the way, Dr. Bansal had been looking forward to retirement with his wife of almost 40 years. “Suddenly, I wasn’t sure I was going to last that long,” Bansal recalled. “I was in a very dark place. I was very anxious, very depressed from lack of sleep.”

He saw a therapist about his cancer diagnosis and maintained his regular meditation practice at home. He hired a personal trainer and tried to focus on any good news that he got about his treatment.

Those things helped, but not enough.

The basic facts were inescapable. His cancer might end everything. He couldn’t stop thinking about it. And then he couldn’t stop thinking about how he couldn’t stop thinking about it.

If the worst happened, he didn’t want to spend his last days in a state of such relentless existential angst. And it wasn’t just for himself. He wanted to be strong and mentally present for his family and his loved ones and his patients.

As he searched for something to ease his mental anguish, Dr. Bansal recalled some psychedelic research on end-of-life anxiety and depression that he’d read about in Michael Pollan’s book on psychedelics, “How to Change Your Mind” (New York, Penguin Press, 2018).

The studies were small and the research was new, but Dr. Bansal was impressed enough with the results to take a chance. He called a lead researcher of one of the studies, a fellow New York doctor, and eventually found himself accepted into a new study.
 

Starting the journey

By the time Dr. Bansal arrived at the Bill Richards Center for Healing at the Aquilino Cancer Center in Rockville, Md., he had already been through weeks of screening.

The main requirements for the study were a cancer diagnosis and a measurable level of depression. But study participants also had to be physically fit enough to handle the medication, and psychologically free from a personal or family history of psychosis or schizophrenia. (The study also required participants to slowly wean themselves from medications like SSRIs for depression or antianxiety medications under the strict supervision of a qualified doctor.)

Dr. Bansal’s week of treatment began almost immediately on arrival at Aquilino. Everything was carefully choreographed but not rushed. From Monday to Wednesday, doctors followed his physical health with exams, ECGs, and blood work. And most importantly, they began to prepare him for the “dosing session” on Thursday when he would take the psilocybin.

This is the careful crafting of “set and setting” stressed in so many psychedelic therapies. “Set” refers to your mindset going into the drug experience. “Setting” is the space and people around you when the drug sends you into an altered state of consciousness.

Dr. Bansal met several times with at least three therapists in the days leading up to his dosing. He attended 4-plus hours of therapist-led group sessions with other people who would get a dosing on the same day. Together, they talked about what to expect during the experience and what to do in the face of fear or panic. 

He connected with a therapist who would be his personal guide. Dr. Bansal’s therapist was a military psychiatrist with over 30 years’ experience.

“He was there with me from day 1, and so we established a relationship,” Dr. Bansal said.

“He asked me a lot of personal background history – you know, my religious convictions, aspirations, all those things.”

“Trust and let go,” was a kind of mantra for the treatment repeated by his guide and other doctors.

For Dr. Bansal, a doctor and scientist accustomed to using hard facts rather than touchy-feely slogans to navigate the care of patients, it was an adjustment, to say the least.

But he did his best to set aside his doubts and embrace the journey he was about to take.
 

The day of the trip

Thursday morning finally arrived. The setting of the dosing room was warm and welcoming, more like a cozy home study than a hospital room.

This matters more than you might think. First, because it’s important that you feel safe, open, and comfortable enough to let go and enter into a therapeutic process. But also because though rare, it’s possible – especially with psilocybin – for people to lose track of where they are and what they’re doing and put themselves or others in danger.

The dose, 25 mg, had been carefully calibrated to induce a psychedelic experience sufficient for therapy. Much less than that, say 10 mg, isn’t enough for most people to enter this state. A double dose, 50 mg, though not physically unsafe, may leave you too incoherent to have the useful insights key to therapeutic value.

A doctor, the lead investigator of the study, brought the five capsules into the room in an intricately carved crucible with a small ceremonial cup that held the water with which to take it.

“It was very solemn,” Dr. Bansal said. “He sat down with me in a very calming way.”

The doctor said: “Don’t worry about it. Just trust and let go.”

And that’s just what he did.

Dr. Bansal swallowed the capsules and lay down. The doctor quietly left the room so that Dr. Bansal and his psychiatrist guide could begin their session together.

Special eye shades kept him in the pitch dark whether his eyes were open or closed. Headphones streamed a curated musical playlist – much of it Western classical like Strauss, Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven – but also modern electronica and other music from cultures around the globe.

Dr. Bansal would remain here, with his therapist-guide by his side, in largely this same position, for the next 7-and-a-half hours.

It took about 45 minutes for the medication to kick in.
 

The investigator

The doctor who brought the capsules into the dosing room was Manish Agrawal, MD, codirector of clinical research at the Aquilino Cancer Center and lead investigator of the study.

Dr. Agrawal trained at the National Cancer Institute and practiced for many years as an oncologist before developing an interest in psychedelic therapies. It was his work with cancer patients that drew him to psychedelics in the first place.

He had seen too many of his patients mentally wrecked by a cancer diagnosis, and he often felt helpless to comfort them.

“You take care of the physical aspects of the cancer, right? You talk about side effects and recommend another scan to look for recurrence.”

“But what about the psychological effects?”

They can be very serious and too often go ignored, said Dr. Agrawal. Your plans for the future suddenly become moot. You may be concerned about your ability to work or worried about the pain and suffering and financial strain that might be ahead for both you and your family. And to top it all off, you’re staring into the face of your own mortality.

So it’s no wonder, said Dr. Agrawal, that many people develop clinical levels of anxiety and depression after a cancer diagnosis.

Like Dr. Bansal, Dr. Agrawal had been impressed by early studies on psilocybin-assisted therapies for end-of-life anxiety and depression. He had tried other approaches – support groups, one-on-one therapy, religious counselors, psychiatrist-prescribed medication – but he was never really happy with the results.

To Dr. Agrawal, psilocybin-assisted therapy was the first thing that looked like it could really make a difference.

And so after his psychedelic certification at the California Institute of Integral Studies, Dr. Agrawal was determined to change his approach.

The result was the Bill Richards Center for Healing at Aquilino Cancer Center, built specifically to study psychedelic-assisted therapies for psychological distress in people with cancer. The mission of the center is to help develop safe, FDA-approved psychedelic therapies for the mental health of cancer patients, and, once approved, provide a state-of-the-art facility and staff to administer those treatments.
 

A trip into the unknown

Back in the dosing room, Dr. Bansal was starting to feel the effects of the medication. As the psilocybin kicked in, spectacular images swirled.

“It was as if a million stained glass windows had suddenly come to life and were dancing in front of my vision,” Dr. Bansal said.

There were moving landscapes and intricate swirling patterns and massive stages in the sky where he saw orchestras playing the music he was hearing.

Dr. Bansal saw himself being crushed by a huge machine and buried, dead, in the Earth. He died and returned to life several times, glided over the top of New York City with the skyscrapers just below him, and took in the vision of the entire universe.

“I saw this expanse of the sky that was limitless. And there was this prehistoric reptile creature that spanned galaxies in the sky ahead of me who was dying. I said: ‘My God, the universe is dying,’ but then after a few moments, the universe came to life again in a burst of stars exploding.”

All the while, Dr. Bansal said, he was well aware that it was simply his mind creating these images, thoughts, and ideas. He knew he was in a safe room wearing eyeshades and headphones.

And yet, he says, it felt true. “The images and feelings are so powerful that you cannot help but believe they are in some way a part of reality.”

“At one point, I saw this giant Ferris wheel coming towards me and it was full of giant crabs, clicking and clacking their pincers. And my brain told me: ‘That’s my cancer!’ ”

Dr. Bansal was terrified. But he and his therapist had arranged a system of signals before the session. “If I was feeling afraid, I would hold his hand and if I had other issues, I would raise my hand. If I was feeling good, I would give him a thumbs up.”

Dr. Bansal reached out to his therapist and grasped his hand. “I said, ‘My cancer is coming at me!’ ”

His therapist was clear about what to do: Stand firm and walk toward it.

“That’s what they tell you: If you see anything frightening, you face it. And that’s the whole point of this exercise. And so, I stood and walked forward, and it just blew off in a puff of smoke.”
 

A state of peace

Around 3 hours into the experience, Dr. Bansal started to feel an immense sense of peace, happiness, and even comfort.

“I felt like I was watching a movie or a multidimensional slideshow. I was also a part of the movie. I felt like I could tell my mind what I wanted to see, and it would show it to me. It’s almost like you can mold your own visions. It was mystical.”

After about 8 hours, as the effects of the drug wore off, Dr. Bansal removed his eyeshades and headphones. He was completely drained.

“Even though I was lying down on my back for 7 hours, I felt like I had been run over by a truck. I was exhausted beyond belief physically and mentally.”

This was partly because of the fact that he hadn’t eaten much during the session. But mostly, said Dr. Bansal, it was because of the searing emotional intensity of the experience.
 

After the journey

It’s hard to put into words, said Dr. Bansal, what this treatment has done for his life. He feels as if he has stumbled onto something very precious that had been right in front of him all along. He wrote of his change in perspective almost obsessively in his journal in the days and weeks after treatment. One passage reads:

“It seems that, as time is passing on, I’m becoming more relaxed and hopeful, more calm, and at peace. Family has become even more important to me now. Money, politics, material gains, alcohol, seem less important.”

And yet there was nothing “easy” about the experience. In fact, in some ways the experience demanded more from him. “I feel I need to be more compassionate and considerate – less irritable and angry, more understanding of others’ needs. I feel I need to be a better human being, a better patient, a better father, and a better doctor for my patients.”

The experience, he said, gave him something far more important than mere ease. It gave him a sense of meaning.

From his journal:

“I died, and I was reborn. If I survived this, then I can face anything and anybody in the cosmic scheme. I can become part of it.

“How many sorrows in the universe? My cancer is nothing. Life does not end with the end of life. What was will be again. Eternally.”

That’s not an unusual response, according to the namesake of the Bill Richards Center for Healing. Bill Richards, PhD, has worked in the world of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy since 1963.

A psychologist with decades of experience, Dr. Richards and colleagues figure that, with few possible exceptions, he has helped treat more people with psychedelic therapies than anyone alive in Western medicine today. At Aquilino, he works directly with patients and oversees the therapy protocol that goes along with the psilocybin dosing sessions.

“It’s inspiring,” Dr. Richards said.

“You meet someone who’s very depressed and scared and isolating from family and having all kinds of physical complaints. And a few days later, you talk to the same person and they have a whole new lease on life.”

And the positive effects can extend deep into the family system, he said.

After psilocybin treatment, said Dr. Richards, the person with cancer can become a kind of social worker for the family. They’re often far better able to talk about death and loss and even money and family issues than their loved ones. It’s not uncommon after treatment to see the resolution of years-old resentments or grievances that have dogged a family for many years.

Plus, said Dr. Richards, the cancer patient often ends up as a kind model to other family members for how to approach death. “They can demonstrate how to live fully – right to the last breath – which is a real gift because those relatives and loved ones have to die someday too, you know.”

At 80 years old, Dr. Richards is still in active practice and hopes to spend the rest of his days working with people in end-of-life care.
 

After the experience

Psychedelic-assisted therapy does not end with the dosing session. Integration sessions, where you discuss what happened during the dosing session, are a key part of most treatments.

The goal is to help participants absorb and “integrate” their experience. It typically happens over two or more sessions of 60-90 minutes with a therapist. In some cases, the therapist may invite a significant other to join in the integration process.

Dr. Agrawal’s trial at the Bill Richards center added something new: group therapy. Not only did Dr. Bansal meet with his therapist, he also met with a group of three other people in the trial who had their dosing the same day.

The point, said Dr. Agrawal, is to try and determine the effect of the group on the therapy. After their private dosing sessions, they come back together to discuss their experiences.

“After the psilocybin, they feel like they’ve been to war together,” Dr. Agrawal said. “There is this profound openness and connection. They feel able to share things with each other that they wouldn’t with other people.”

It will take some time to figure out how the group affects the overall outcome, but Dr. Bansal thinks it was integral to the success of his treatment.

In fact, he continues to meet regularly with his therapy group, even though it’s long since past the requirements of the study.
 

Pradeep 2.0

Dr. Bansal still has tough days with his cancer. Recently, immunotherapy treatment for his bladder caused side effects – pain, bleeding, fever, and chills – for most of the night. He felt like he was “passing razor blades” when he peed.

“And yet it was somehow okay,” he said. “It was only pain.”

“It’s as if there is a part of me that is watching myself objectively, going through the painful process of treatments saying: ‘It’s all right. I will be with you through this journey, through this experience. Don’t worry.’”

Months after taking that one dose, Dr. Bansal still calls it as “the single most powerful experience of my life.”

The change in his mental outlook, Dr. Bansal said, was profound, particularly in regard to his cancer.

“I understood that I still had cancer and that it could kill me in a few weeks, or months, or years. But my perspective had shifted.”

Dr. Bansal was as surprised as anyone. “Had somebody told me going into this that I would come out a transformed being or a person with a completely different perspective on life, I would never have believed it.”

He even named his new outlook. “I call it Pradeep 2.0.”

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

Pradeep Bansal considered the five capsules he was about to swallow. Together they made up a 25-mg dose of a substance that, in another setting, could have landed him in federal prison.

The substance was psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms. To be more exact, it was a synthetic form of psilocybin called COMP360, made to pharmaceutical standards by a company called COMPASS Pathways. He was taking it as part of an Food and Drug Administration–approved clinical study on mental health therapy for people with cancer.

Dr. Bansal, a New York gastroenterologist, was far more comfortable giving medical treatment than receiving it. But he was getting used to it.

He had already been through surgery and a number of other treatments to address the physical aspects of his cancer. The psilocybin was to address the mental aspects – the crushing anxiety and depression that had stuck with him after his diagnosis.

Dr. Bansal did not arrive at this moment lightly.

“I was extremely skeptical going into this process,” said Dr. Bansal, who during a long medical career had looked with distrust and even disdain at alternative therapies.

“I don’t have much patience for holistic medicine, homeopathy, acupuncture, or alternative medicines with claims of spiritual upliftment or altered states of mind.”

But Bansal had done his homework on psilocybin and was impressed.

People with late-stage cancer and other serious health conditions who got psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy had “significant decreases” in anxiety and depression as long as 12 months after the treatment, according to studies published in 2011, 2014, and 2016.

One study from Johns Hopkins University tracked the effects of a single guided dose of psilocybin in terminal cancer patients with anxiety and depression. More than 80% had a “significant decrease” in symptoms – even 6 months after treatment – with more than 60% of the group remaining in the normal mood range.

For the study Dr. Bansal joined, there had been weeks of screening and consultation and preparation in a strictly controlled scientific trial.

And yet, even with all that he had learned, even with his psychiatrist-guide by his side, he was afraid. Afraid of what he might experience under the powerful effects of psilocybin. And afraid that this was all a misguided waste of time – that his mental angst would still be there when it was all over.

He knew that psilocybin, like other psychedelic substances, could take you on a “trip” – could remove you, at least for a time, from normal conscious experience.

Maybe he would feel “funny,” he thought. Maybe he would have some hallucinations. But how would that change the reality of his cancer? How would it lift the black dread and anxiety he felt about his future?
 

Stuck in a dark place

Dr. Bansal had first noticed blood in his urine – a lot of it – in September 2019. 

Two months later, doctors diagnosed cancer in his right kidney. He would need surgery to remove the kidney and surrounding lymph nodes (an operation called radical nephrectomy).

It was a shock, said Dr. Bansal. But the diagnosis and the surgery happened so quickly that he hardly had time to think. And treatment results seemed good. The cancer was only in stage I and the CT scans showed no signs of cancer after surgery.

“We were so relieved. Everyone was so happy,” Dr. Bansal said. “They didn’t even give me chemotherapy after surgery because it seemed so early.”

But a routine scan in June 2020 revealed more cancer in his lung. Within a couple of months, it was in his bladder too.

“It was devastating,” Dr. Bansal said. “I went from thinking I was healthy again to stage IV cancer.”

As doctors scheduled surgery to remove part of his lung, Dr. Bansal started on painful immunotherapy (BCG therapy) for his bladder.

At this point, from a psychological standpoint, Dr. Bansal was reeling. As a doctor, he knew all too well the meaning of stage IV cancer.

With two adult children and a grandchild on the way, Dr. Bansal had been looking forward to retirement with his wife of almost 40 years. “Suddenly, I wasn’t sure I was going to last that long,” Bansal recalled. “I was in a very dark place. I was very anxious, very depressed from lack of sleep.”

He saw a therapist about his cancer diagnosis and maintained his regular meditation practice at home. He hired a personal trainer and tried to focus on any good news that he got about his treatment.

Those things helped, but not enough.

The basic facts were inescapable. His cancer might end everything. He couldn’t stop thinking about it. And then he couldn’t stop thinking about how he couldn’t stop thinking about it.

If the worst happened, he didn’t want to spend his last days in a state of such relentless existential angst. And it wasn’t just for himself. He wanted to be strong and mentally present for his family and his loved ones and his patients.

As he searched for something to ease his mental anguish, Dr. Bansal recalled some psychedelic research on end-of-life anxiety and depression that he’d read about in Michael Pollan’s book on psychedelics, “How to Change Your Mind” (New York, Penguin Press, 2018).

The studies were small and the research was new, but Dr. Bansal was impressed enough with the results to take a chance. He called a lead researcher of one of the studies, a fellow New York doctor, and eventually found himself accepted into a new study.
 

Starting the journey

By the time Dr. Bansal arrived at the Bill Richards Center for Healing at the Aquilino Cancer Center in Rockville, Md., he had already been through weeks of screening.

The main requirements for the study were a cancer diagnosis and a measurable level of depression. But study participants also had to be physically fit enough to handle the medication, and psychologically free from a personal or family history of psychosis or schizophrenia. (The study also required participants to slowly wean themselves from medications like SSRIs for depression or antianxiety medications under the strict supervision of a qualified doctor.)

Dr. Bansal’s week of treatment began almost immediately on arrival at Aquilino. Everything was carefully choreographed but not rushed. From Monday to Wednesday, doctors followed his physical health with exams, ECGs, and blood work. And most importantly, they began to prepare him for the “dosing session” on Thursday when he would take the psilocybin.

This is the careful crafting of “set and setting” stressed in so many psychedelic therapies. “Set” refers to your mindset going into the drug experience. “Setting” is the space and people around you when the drug sends you into an altered state of consciousness.

Dr. Bansal met several times with at least three therapists in the days leading up to his dosing. He attended 4-plus hours of therapist-led group sessions with other people who would get a dosing on the same day. Together, they talked about what to expect during the experience and what to do in the face of fear or panic. 

He connected with a therapist who would be his personal guide. Dr. Bansal’s therapist was a military psychiatrist with over 30 years’ experience.

“He was there with me from day 1, and so we established a relationship,” Dr. Bansal said.

“He asked me a lot of personal background history – you know, my religious convictions, aspirations, all those things.”

“Trust and let go,” was a kind of mantra for the treatment repeated by his guide and other doctors.

For Dr. Bansal, a doctor and scientist accustomed to using hard facts rather than touchy-feely slogans to navigate the care of patients, it was an adjustment, to say the least.

But he did his best to set aside his doubts and embrace the journey he was about to take.
 

The day of the trip

Thursday morning finally arrived. The setting of the dosing room was warm and welcoming, more like a cozy home study than a hospital room.

This matters more than you might think. First, because it’s important that you feel safe, open, and comfortable enough to let go and enter into a therapeutic process. But also because though rare, it’s possible – especially with psilocybin – for people to lose track of where they are and what they’re doing and put themselves or others in danger.

The dose, 25 mg, had been carefully calibrated to induce a psychedelic experience sufficient for therapy. Much less than that, say 10 mg, isn’t enough for most people to enter this state. A double dose, 50 mg, though not physically unsafe, may leave you too incoherent to have the useful insights key to therapeutic value.

A doctor, the lead investigator of the study, brought the five capsules into the room in an intricately carved crucible with a small ceremonial cup that held the water with which to take it.

“It was very solemn,” Dr. Bansal said. “He sat down with me in a very calming way.”

The doctor said: “Don’t worry about it. Just trust and let go.”

And that’s just what he did.

Dr. Bansal swallowed the capsules and lay down. The doctor quietly left the room so that Dr. Bansal and his psychiatrist guide could begin their session together.

Special eye shades kept him in the pitch dark whether his eyes were open or closed. Headphones streamed a curated musical playlist – much of it Western classical like Strauss, Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven – but also modern electronica and other music from cultures around the globe.

Dr. Bansal would remain here, with his therapist-guide by his side, in largely this same position, for the next 7-and-a-half hours.

It took about 45 minutes for the medication to kick in.
 

The investigator

The doctor who brought the capsules into the dosing room was Manish Agrawal, MD, codirector of clinical research at the Aquilino Cancer Center and lead investigator of the study.

Dr. Agrawal trained at the National Cancer Institute and practiced for many years as an oncologist before developing an interest in psychedelic therapies. It was his work with cancer patients that drew him to psychedelics in the first place.

He had seen too many of his patients mentally wrecked by a cancer diagnosis, and he often felt helpless to comfort them.

“You take care of the physical aspects of the cancer, right? You talk about side effects and recommend another scan to look for recurrence.”

“But what about the psychological effects?”

They can be very serious and too often go ignored, said Dr. Agrawal. Your plans for the future suddenly become moot. You may be concerned about your ability to work or worried about the pain and suffering and financial strain that might be ahead for both you and your family. And to top it all off, you’re staring into the face of your own mortality.

So it’s no wonder, said Dr. Agrawal, that many people develop clinical levels of anxiety and depression after a cancer diagnosis.

Like Dr. Bansal, Dr. Agrawal had been impressed by early studies on psilocybin-assisted therapies for end-of-life anxiety and depression. He had tried other approaches – support groups, one-on-one therapy, religious counselors, psychiatrist-prescribed medication – but he was never really happy with the results.

To Dr. Agrawal, psilocybin-assisted therapy was the first thing that looked like it could really make a difference.

And so after his psychedelic certification at the California Institute of Integral Studies, Dr. Agrawal was determined to change his approach.

The result was the Bill Richards Center for Healing at Aquilino Cancer Center, built specifically to study psychedelic-assisted therapies for psychological distress in people with cancer. The mission of the center is to help develop safe, FDA-approved psychedelic therapies for the mental health of cancer patients, and, once approved, provide a state-of-the-art facility and staff to administer those treatments.
 

A trip into the unknown

Back in the dosing room, Dr. Bansal was starting to feel the effects of the medication. As the psilocybin kicked in, spectacular images swirled.

“It was as if a million stained glass windows had suddenly come to life and were dancing in front of my vision,” Dr. Bansal said.

There were moving landscapes and intricate swirling patterns and massive stages in the sky where he saw orchestras playing the music he was hearing.

Dr. Bansal saw himself being crushed by a huge machine and buried, dead, in the Earth. He died and returned to life several times, glided over the top of New York City with the skyscrapers just below him, and took in the vision of the entire universe.

“I saw this expanse of the sky that was limitless. And there was this prehistoric reptile creature that spanned galaxies in the sky ahead of me who was dying. I said: ‘My God, the universe is dying,’ but then after a few moments, the universe came to life again in a burst of stars exploding.”

All the while, Dr. Bansal said, he was well aware that it was simply his mind creating these images, thoughts, and ideas. He knew he was in a safe room wearing eyeshades and headphones.

And yet, he says, it felt true. “The images and feelings are so powerful that you cannot help but believe they are in some way a part of reality.”

“At one point, I saw this giant Ferris wheel coming towards me and it was full of giant crabs, clicking and clacking their pincers. And my brain told me: ‘That’s my cancer!’ ”

Dr. Bansal was terrified. But he and his therapist had arranged a system of signals before the session. “If I was feeling afraid, I would hold his hand and if I had other issues, I would raise my hand. If I was feeling good, I would give him a thumbs up.”

Dr. Bansal reached out to his therapist and grasped his hand. “I said, ‘My cancer is coming at me!’ ”

His therapist was clear about what to do: Stand firm and walk toward it.

“That’s what they tell you: If you see anything frightening, you face it. And that’s the whole point of this exercise. And so, I stood and walked forward, and it just blew off in a puff of smoke.”
 

A state of peace

Around 3 hours into the experience, Dr. Bansal started to feel an immense sense of peace, happiness, and even comfort.

“I felt like I was watching a movie or a multidimensional slideshow. I was also a part of the movie. I felt like I could tell my mind what I wanted to see, and it would show it to me. It’s almost like you can mold your own visions. It was mystical.”

After about 8 hours, as the effects of the drug wore off, Dr. Bansal removed his eyeshades and headphones. He was completely drained.

“Even though I was lying down on my back for 7 hours, I felt like I had been run over by a truck. I was exhausted beyond belief physically and mentally.”

This was partly because of the fact that he hadn’t eaten much during the session. But mostly, said Dr. Bansal, it was because of the searing emotional intensity of the experience.
 

After the journey

It’s hard to put into words, said Dr. Bansal, what this treatment has done for his life. He feels as if he has stumbled onto something very precious that had been right in front of him all along. He wrote of his change in perspective almost obsessively in his journal in the days and weeks after treatment. One passage reads:

“It seems that, as time is passing on, I’m becoming more relaxed and hopeful, more calm, and at peace. Family has become even more important to me now. Money, politics, material gains, alcohol, seem less important.”

And yet there was nothing “easy” about the experience. In fact, in some ways the experience demanded more from him. “I feel I need to be more compassionate and considerate – less irritable and angry, more understanding of others’ needs. I feel I need to be a better human being, a better patient, a better father, and a better doctor for my patients.”

The experience, he said, gave him something far more important than mere ease. It gave him a sense of meaning.

From his journal:

“I died, and I was reborn. If I survived this, then I can face anything and anybody in the cosmic scheme. I can become part of it.

“How many sorrows in the universe? My cancer is nothing. Life does not end with the end of life. What was will be again. Eternally.”

That’s not an unusual response, according to the namesake of the Bill Richards Center for Healing. Bill Richards, PhD, has worked in the world of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy since 1963.

A psychologist with decades of experience, Dr. Richards and colleagues figure that, with few possible exceptions, he has helped treat more people with psychedelic therapies than anyone alive in Western medicine today. At Aquilino, he works directly with patients and oversees the therapy protocol that goes along with the psilocybin dosing sessions.

“It’s inspiring,” Dr. Richards said.

“You meet someone who’s very depressed and scared and isolating from family and having all kinds of physical complaints. And a few days later, you talk to the same person and they have a whole new lease on life.”

And the positive effects can extend deep into the family system, he said.

After psilocybin treatment, said Dr. Richards, the person with cancer can become a kind of social worker for the family. They’re often far better able to talk about death and loss and even money and family issues than their loved ones. It’s not uncommon after treatment to see the resolution of years-old resentments or grievances that have dogged a family for many years.

Plus, said Dr. Richards, the cancer patient often ends up as a kind model to other family members for how to approach death. “They can demonstrate how to live fully – right to the last breath – which is a real gift because those relatives and loved ones have to die someday too, you know.”

At 80 years old, Dr. Richards is still in active practice and hopes to spend the rest of his days working with people in end-of-life care.
 

After the experience

Psychedelic-assisted therapy does not end with the dosing session. Integration sessions, where you discuss what happened during the dosing session, are a key part of most treatments.

The goal is to help participants absorb and “integrate” their experience. It typically happens over two or more sessions of 60-90 minutes with a therapist. In some cases, the therapist may invite a significant other to join in the integration process.

Dr. Agrawal’s trial at the Bill Richards center added something new: group therapy. Not only did Dr. Bansal meet with his therapist, he also met with a group of three other people in the trial who had their dosing the same day.

The point, said Dr. Agrawal, is to try and determine the effect of the group on the therapy. After their private dosing sessions, they come back together to discuss their experiences.

“After the psilocybin, they feel like they’ve been to war together,” Dr. Agrawal said. “There is this profound openness and connection. They feel able to share things with each other that they wouldn’t with other people.”

It will take some time to figure out how the group affects the overall outcome, but Dr. Bansal thinks it was integral to the success of his treatment.

In fact, he continues to meet regularly with his therapy group, even though it’s long since past the requirements of the study.
 

Pradeep 2.0

Dr. Bansal still has tough days with his cancer. Recently, immunotherapy treatment for his bladder caused side effects – pain, bleeding, fever, and chills – for most of the night. He felt like he was “passing razor blades” when he peed.

“And yet it was somehow okay,” he said. “It was only pain.”

“It’s as if there is a part of me that is watching myself objectively, going through the painful process of treatments saying: ‘It’s all right. I will be with you through this journey, through this experience. Don’t worry.’”

Months after taking that one dose, Dr. Bansal still calls it as “the single most powerful experience of my life.”

The change in his mental outlook, Dr. Bansal said, was profound, particularly in regard to his cancer.

“I understood that I still had cancer and that it could kill me in a few weeks, or months, or years. But my perspective had shifted.”

Dr. Bansal was as surprised as anyone. “Had somebody told me going into this that I would come out a transformed being or a person with a completely different perspective on life, I would never have believed it.”

He even named his new outlook. “I call it Pradeep 2.0.”

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

The antidepressant bupropion failed to improve sexual dysfunction in female cancer survivors, according to new findings published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) as a measurement tool, investigators found that desire scores were not significantly different for participants who received bupropion versus a placebo over the 9-week study period.

“Sexual health is a complex phenomenon and [our results suggest that] no one intervention is going to solve the broader issue,” lead author Debra Barton, RN, PhD, FAAN, professor in the School of Nursing at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.

Sexual dysfunction is common among cancer survivors and experienced across multiple cancer types and stages of disease. Research shows that as many as 70% of female cancer survivors report loss of desire, compared with up to one-third of the general population.

Common sexual concerns among female cancer survivors include low desire, arousal issues, lack of appropriate lubrication, difficulty in achieving orgasm, and pain with penetrative sexual activity. Additionally, these women may experience significant overlap of symptoms, and often encounter multiple sexual issues that are exacerbated by a range of cancer treatments.

“It’s a huge problem,” Maryam B. Lustberg, MD, MPH, from Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Despite the prevalence of sexual dysfunction among cancer survivors, effective treatments remain elusive. Preliminary evidence suggests that bupropion, already approved for seasonal affective disorder, major depressive disorder, and smoking cessation, may also enhance libido.

Dr. Barton and colleagues conducted this phase 2 trial to determine whether bupropion can improve sexual desire in female cancer survivors without undesirable side effects.

In the study, Dr. Barton and colleagues compared two dose levels of extended-release bupropion in a cohort of 230 postmenopausal women diagnosed with breast or gynecologic cancer and low baseline FSFI desire scores (<3.3), who had completed definitive cancer therapy.

Participants were randomized to receive either 150 mg (79 patients) or 300 mg (74 patients) once daily of extended-release bupropion, or placebo (77 patients).

Barton and colleagues then evaluated whether sexual desire significantly improved over the 9-week study period comparing the bupropion arms and the placebo group.

Overall, the authors found no significant differences (mean between-arm change for 150 mg once daily and placebo of 0.02; P = .93; mean between-arm change for 300 mg once daily and placebo of –0.02; P = .92). Mean scores at 9 weeks on the desire subscale were 2.17, 2.27, and 2.30 for 150 mg, 300 mg, and the placebo group, respectively.

In addition, none of the subscales – which included arousal, lubrication, and orgasm – or the total score showed a significant difference between arms at either 5 or 9 weeks.

Bupropion did, however, appear to be well tolerated. No grade 4-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred. In the 150-mg bupropion arm, two patients (2.6%) experienced a grade 3 event (insomnia and headache) and one patient in the 300-mg bupropion arm (1.4%) and placebo arm (1.3%) experienced a grade 3 event related to treatment (hypertension and headache, respectively).

In the accompanying editorial, Dr. Lustberg and colleagues “applaud the authors for conducting a study in this population of cancer survivors,” noting that “evidenced-based approaches have not been extensively studied.”

Dr. Lustberg and colleagues also commented that other randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating sexual desire disorder assessed outcomes using additional metrics, such as the Female Sexual Distress Scale–Revised questionnaire, which measures distress related to sexual dysfunction and low desire, in particular.

“The use of specific validated instruments for libido in place of the FSFI might have helped determine the effect of the study intervention in this reported trial,” they wrote.

Overall, according to Dr. Lustberg and colleagues, the negative results of this study indicate that a multidisciplinary clinical approach may be needed.

“As much as we would like to have one intervention that addresses this prominent issue, the evidence strongly suggests that cancer-related sexual problems may need an integrative biopsychosocial model that intervenes on biologic, psychologic, interpersonal, and social-cultural factors, not just on one factor, such as libido,” they wrote. “Such work may require access to multidisciplinary care with specialists in women’s health, pelvic floor rehabilitation, and psychosocial oncology.”

Dr. Barton said she has been developing a multicomponent approach to addressing sexual health in female cancer survivors.

However, she noted, “there is still much we do not fully understand about the broader impact of the degree of hormone deprivation in the population of female cancer survivors. A better understanding would provide clearer targets for interventions.” 

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Barton has disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Lustberg reported receiving honoraria from Novartis and Biotheranostics; consulting or advising with PledPharma, Disarm Therapeutics, Pfizer; and other relationships with Cynosure/Hologic.

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

The antidepressant bupropion failed to improve sexual dysfunction in female cancer survivors, according to new findings published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) as a measurement tool, investigators found that desire scores were not significantly different for participants who received bupropion versus a placebo over the 9-week study period.

“Sexual health is a complex phenomenon and [our results suggest that] no one intervention is going to solve the broader issue,” lead author Debra Barton, RN, PhD, FAAN, professor in the School of Nursing at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.

Sexual dysfunction is common among cancer survivors and experienced across multiple cancer types and stages of disease. Research shows that as many as 70% of female cancer survivors report loss of desire, compared with up to one-third of the general population.

Common sexual concerns among female cancer survivors include low desire, arousal issues, lack of appropriate lubrication, difficulty in achieving orgasm, and pain with penetrative sexual activity. Additionally, these women may experience significant overlap of symptoms, and often encounter multiple sexual issues that are exacerbated by a range of cancer treatments.

“It’s a huge problem,” Maryam B. Lustberg, MD, MPH, from Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Despite the prevalence of sexual dysfunction among cancer survivors, effective treatments remain elusive. Preliminary evidence suggests that bupropion, already approved for seasonal affective disorder, major depressive disorder, and smoking cessation, may also enhance libido.

Dr. Barton and colleagues conducted this phase 2 trial to determine whether bupropion can improve sexual desire in female cancer survivors without undesirable side effects.

In the study, Dr. Barton and colleagues compared two dose levels of extended-release bupropion in a cohort of 230 postmenopausal women diagnosed with breast or gynecologic cancer and low baseline FSFI desire scores (<3.3), who had completed definitive cancer therapy.

Participants were randomized to receive either 150 mg (79 patients) or 300 mg (74 patients) once daily of extended-release bupropion, or placebo (77 patients).

Barton and colleagues then evaluated whether sexual desire significantly improved over the 9-week study period comparing the bupropion arms and the placebo group.

Overall, the authors found no significant differences (mean between-arm change for 150 mg once daily and placebo of 0.02; P = .93; mean between-arm change for 300 mg once daily and placebo of –0.02; P = .92). Mean scores at 9 weeks on the desire subscale were 2.17, 2.27, and 2.30 for 150 mg, 300 mg, and the placebo group, respectively.

In addition, none of the subscales – which included arousal, lubrication, and orgasm – or the total score showed a significant difference between arms at either 5 or 9 weeks.

Bupropion did, however, appear to be well tolerated. No grade 4-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred. In the 150-mg bupropion arm, two patients (2.6%) experienced a grade 3 event (insomnia and headache) and one patient in the 300-mg bupropion arm (1.4%) and placebo arm (1.3%) experienced a grade 3 event related to treatment (hypertension and headache, respectively).

In the accompanying editorial, Dr. Lustberg and colleagues “applaud the authors for conducting a study in this population of cancer survivors,” noting that “evidenced-based approaches have not been extensively studied.”

Dr. Lustberg and colleagues also commented that other randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating sexual desire disorder assessed outcomes using additional metrics, such as the Female Sexual Distress Scale–Revised questionnaire, which measures distress related to sexual dysfunction and low desire, in particular.

“The use of specific validated instruments for libido in place of the FSFI might have helped determine the effect of the study intervention in this reported trial,” they wrote.

Overall, according to Dr. Lustberg and colleagues, the negative results of this study indicate that a multidisciplinary clinical approach may be needed.

“As much as we would like to have one intervention that addresses this prominent issue, the evidence strongly suggests that cancer-related sexual problems may need an integrative biopsychosocial model that intervenes on biologic, psychologic, interpersonal, and social-cultural factors, not just on one factor, such as libido,” they wrote. “Such work may require access to multidisciplinary care with specialists in women’s health, pelvic floor rehabilitation, and psychosocial oncology.”

Dr. Barton said she has been developing a multicomponent approach to addressing sexual health in female cancer survivors.

However, she noted, “there is still much we do not fully understand about the broader impact of the degree of hormone deprivation in the population of female cancer survivors. A better understanding would provide clearer targets for interventions.” 

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Barton has disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Lustberg reported receiving honoraria from Novartis and Biotheranostics; consulting or advising with PledPharma, Disarm Therapeutics, Pfizer; and other relationships with Cynosure/Hologic.

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

The antidepressant bupropion failed to improve sexual dysfunction in female cancer survivors, according to new findings published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) as a measurement tool, investigators found that desire scores were not significantly different for participants who received bupropion versus a placebo over the 9-week study period.

“Sexual health is a complex phenomenon and [our results suggest that] no one intervention is going to solve the broader issue,” lead author Debra Barton, RN, PhD, FAAN, professor in the School of Nursing at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.

Sexual dysfunction is common among cancer survivors and experienced across multiple cancer types and stages of disease. Research shows that as many as 70% of female cancer survivors report loss of desire, compared with up to one-third of the general population.

Common sexual concerns among female cancer survivors include low desire, arousal issues, lack of appropriate lubrication, difficulty in achieving orgasm, and pain with penetrative sexual activity. Additionally, these women may experience significant overlap of symptoms, and often encounter multiple sexual issues that are exacerbated by a range of cancer treatments.

“It’s a huge problem,” Maryam B. Lustberg, MD, MPH, from Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Despite the prevalence of sexual dysfunction among cancer survivors, effective treatments remain elusive. Preliminary evidence suggests that bupropion, already approved for seasonal affective disorder, major depressive disorder, and smoking cessation, may also enhance libido.

Dr. Barton and colleagues conducted this phase 2 trial to determine whether bupropion can improve sexual desire in female cancer survivors without undesirable side effects.

In the study, Dr. Barton and colleagues compared two dose levels of extended-release bupropion in a cohort of 230 postmenopausal women diagnosed with breast or gynecologic cancer and low baseline FSFI desire scores (<3.3), who had completed definitive cancer therapy.

Participants were randomized to receive either 150 mg (79 patients) or 300 mg (74 patients) once daily of extended-release bupropion, or placebo (77 patients).

Barton and colleagues then evaluated whether sexual desire significantly improved over the 9-week study period comparing the bupropion arms and the placebo group.

Overall, the authors found no significant differences (mean between-arm change for 150 mg once daily and placebo of 0.02; P = .93; mean between-arm change for 300 mg once daily and placebo of –0.02; P = .92). Mean scores at 9 weeks on the desire subscale were 2.17, 2.27, and 2.30 for 150 mg, 300 mg, and the placebo group, respectively.

In addition, none of the subscales – which included arousal, lubrication, and orgasm – or the total score showed a significant difference between arms at either 5 or 9 weeks.

Bupropion did, however, appear to be well tolerated. No grade 4-5 treatment-related adverse events occurred. In the 150-mg bupropion arm, two patients (2.6%) experienced a grade 3 event (insomnia and headache) and one patient in the 300-mg bupropion arm (1.4%) and placebo arm (1.3%) experienced a grade 3 event related to treatment (hypertension and headache, respectively).

In the accompanying editorial, Dr. Lustberg and colleagues “applaud the authors for conducting a study in this population of cancer survivors,” noting that “evidenced-based approaches have not been extensively studied.”

Dr. Lustberg and colleagues also commented that other randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating sexual desire disorder assessed outcomes using additional metrics, such as the Female Sexual Distress Scale–Revised questionnaire, which measures distress related to sexual dysfunction and low desire, in particular.

“The use of specific validated instruments for libido in place of the FSFI might have helped determine the effect of the study intervention in this reported trial,” they wrote.

Overall, according to Dr. Lustberg and colleagues, the negative results of this study indicate that a multidisciplinary clinical approach may be needed.

“As much as we would like to have one intervention that addresses this prominent issue, the evidence strongly suggests that cancer-related sexual problems may need an integrative biopsychosocial model that intervenes on biologic, psychologic, interpersonal, and social-cultural factors, not just on one factor, such as libido,” they wrote. “Such work may require access to multidisciplinary care with specialists in women’s health, pelvic floor rehabilitation, and psychosocial oncology.”

Dr. Barton said she has been developing a multicomponent approach to addressing sexual health in female cancer survivors.

However, she noted, “there is still much we do not fully understand about the broader impact of the degree of hormone deprivation in the population of female cancer survivors. A better understanding would provide clearer targets for interventions.” 

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Dr. Barton has disclosed research funding from Merck. Dr. Lustberg reported receiving honoraria from Novartis and Biotheranostics; consulting or advising with PledPharma, Disarm Therapeutics, Pfizer; and other relationships with Cynosure/Hologic.

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

A soon-to-be medical student and former oncology ward volunteer has received a $10,000 scholarship for her education recently after tipping off a Vancouver Canucks staff member about a cancerous mole on the back of his neck during a National Hockey League game in Seattle this past October.

Sitting immediately behind the visiting team’s bench, Nadia Popovici wrote a large-font message on her cell phone and tapped the protective glass to get the attention of Brian Hamilton, assistant equipment manager for the Canucks.

“The mole on the back of your neck is possibly cancerous. Please go see a doctor!” read the message.

Mr. Hamilton acted on the tip and was eventually diagnosed with a malignant stage II melanoma, according to a report in the Seattle Times.

As noted in a Medscape Q&A, “ABCDE” is the acronym that indicates the visible, physical characteristics suggestive of melanoma. ABCDE stands for asymmetry, irregular border, color variations (especially red, white, and blue tones in a brown or black lesion), diameter greater than 6 mm, and elevated surface. The lesions may itch, bleed, ulcerate, or develop satellites.

The Canucks returned to Seattle recently for another game against the Seattle Kraken, and the visiting team posted a note on social media from Mr. Hamilton seeking the identity of the good Samaritan.

“... the message you showed me on your cell phone will forever be etched into my brain and has made a true life-changing difference for me and my family,” wrote Mr. Hamilton.

Within hours, Ms. Popovici’s mother, whose family has season tickets to the Seattle team’s games, responded to the message.

Ms. Popovici and Mr. Hamilton met up again at the Jan. 1 game, where Ms. Popovici was rewarded with a $10,000 medical school scholarship in a surprise announcement, shared on Twitter and liked more than 42,000 times.

“She didn’t take me out of a burning car like the big stories, but she took me out of a slow fire. And the words out of the doctor’s mouth were, if I ignored that for 4-5 years, I wouldn’t be here,” Mr. Hamilton said at a news conference on Jan. 1.

Ms. Popovici says she has been accepted to several medical schools and will start school in the fall, according to a press release from the National Hockey League.

More money for medical school may be on the way for Ms. Popovici after a GoFundMe page was started. With a goal of $25,000, the fund had received just over $2,500 as of Jan. 4.

“The teams made a kind gesture of giving her 10K, but I think we can do better!” Josh Doxey, a sales manager from Lehi, Utah, wrote on the page he created for Ms. Popovici.

Mr. Doxey told this news organization, “I started the GoFundMe thinking it would be a nice gesture especially for someone going into health care after 2 crazy years of COVID ... I have gotten in touch with her and her mother, and have been chatting with both. They both seem incredibly kind, grateful, and humble.”

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

A soon-to-be medical student and former oncology ward volunteer has received a $10,000 scholarship for her education recently after tipping off a Vancouver Canucks staff member about a cancerous mole on the back of his neck during a National Hockey League game in Seattle this past October.

Sitting immediately behind the visiting team’s bench, Nadia Popovici wrote a large-font message on her cell phone and tapped the protective glass to get the attention of Brian Hamilton, assistant equipment manager for the Canucks.

“The mole on the back of your neck is possibly cancerous. Please go see a doctor!” read the message.

Mr. Hamilton acted on the tip and was eventually diagnosed with a malignant stage II melanoma, according to a report in the Seattle Times.

As noted in a Medscape Q&A, “ABCDE” is the acronym that indicates the visible, physical characteristics suggestive of melanoma. ABCDE stands for asymmetry, irregular border, color variations (especially red, white, and blue tones in a brown or black lesion), diameter greater than 6 mm, and elevated surface. The lesions may itch, bleed, ulcerate, or develop satellites.

The Canucks returned to Seattle recently for another game against the Seattle Kraken, and the visiting team posted a note on social media from Mr. Hamilton seeking the identity of the good Samaritan.

“... the message you showed me on your cell phone will forever be etched into my brain and has made a true life-changing difference for me and my family,” wrote Mr. Hamilton.

Within hours, Ms. Popovici’s mother, whose family has season tickets to the Seattle team’s games, responded to the message.

Ms. Popovici and Mr. Hamilton met up again at the Jan. 1 game, where Ms. Popovici was rewarded with a $10,000 medical school scholarship in a surprise announcement, shared on Twitter and liked more than 42,000 times.

“She didn’t take me out of a burning car like the big stories, but she took me out of a slow fire. And the words out of the doctor’s mouth were, if I ignored that for 4-5 years, I wouldn’t be here,” Mr. Hamilton said at a news conference on Jan. 1.

Ms. Popovici says she has been accepted to several medical schools and will start school in the fall, according to a press release from the National Hockey League.

More money for medical school may be on the way for Ms. Popovici after a GoFundMe page was started. With a goal of $25,000, the fund had received just over $2,500 as of Jan. 4.

“The teams made a kind gesture of giving her 10K, but I think we can do better!” Josh Doxey, a sales manager from Lehi, Utah, wrote on the page he created for Ms. Popovici.

Mr. Doxey told this news organization, “I started the GoFundMe thinking it would be a nice gesture especially for someone going into health care after 2 crazy years of COVID ... I have gotten in touch with her and her mother, and have been chatting with both. They both seem incredibly kind, grateful, and humble.”

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

A soon-to-be medical student and former oncology ward volunteer has received a $10,000 scholarship for her education recently after tipping off a Vancouver Canucks staff member about a cancerous mole on the back of his neck during a National Hockey League game in Seattle this past October.

Sitting immediately behind the visiting team’s bench, Nadia Popovici wrote a large-font message on her cell phone and tapped the protective glass to get the attention of Brian Hamilton, assistant equipment manager for the Canucks.

“The mole on the back of your neck is possibly cancerous. Please go see a doctor!” read the message.

Mr. Hamilton acted on the tip and was eventually diagnosed with a malignant stage II melanoma, according to a report in the Seattle Times.

As noted in a Medscape Q&A, “ABCDE” is the acronym that indicates the visible, physical characteristics suggestive of melanoma. ABCDE stands for asymmetry, irregular border, color variations (especially red, white, and blue tones in a brown or black lesion), diameter greater than 6 mm, and elevated surface. The lesions may itch, bleed, ulcerate, or develop satellites.

The Canucks returned to Seattle recently for another game against the Seattle Kraken, and the visiting team posted a note on social media from Mr. Hamilton seeking the identity of the good Samaritan.

“... the message you showed me on your cell phone will forever be etched into my brain and has made a true life-changing difference for me and my family,” wrote Mr. Hamilton.

Within hours, Ms. Popovici’s mother, whose family has season tickets to the Seattle team’s games, responded to the message.

Ms. Popovici and Mr. Hamilton met up again at the Jan. 1 game, where Ms. Popovici was rewarded with a $10,000 medical school scholarship in a surprise announcement, shared on Twitter and liked more than 42,000 times.

“She didn’t take me out of a burning car like the big stories, but she took me out of a slow fire. And the words out of the doctor’s mouth were, if I ignored that for 4-5 years, I wouldn’t be here,” Mr. Hamilton said at a news conference on Jan. 1.

Ms. Popovici says she has been accepted to several medical schools and will start school in the fall, according to a press release from the National Hockey League.

More money for medical school may be on the way for Ms. Popovici after a GoFundMe page was started. With a goal of $25,000, the fund had received just over $2,500 as of Jan. 4.

“The teams made a kind gesture of giving her 10K, but I think we can do better!” Josh Doxey, a sales manager from Lehi, Utah, wrote on the page he created for Ms. Popovici.

Mr. Doxey told this news organization, “I started the GoFundMe thinking it would be a nice gesture especially for someone going into health care after 2 crazy years of COVID ... I have gotten in touch with her and her mother, and have been chatting with both. They both seem incredibly kind, grateful, and humble.”

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