AVAHO

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

In patients with advanced cancer who are prescribed immune checkpoint inhibitors, comedications must be carefully assessed before patients start ICI therapy, most notably proton pump inhibitors, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and psychotropic drugs.

“Our results confirm the detrimental impact on oncological outcomes of antibiotics and glucocorticoids at a dosage ≥10 mg/day when given within 1 month before or after ICI onset,” Marie Kostine, MD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, and colleagues wrote in the European Journal of Cancer. “Moreover, we show that other comedications may significantly alter the antitumoral response of ICI, such as proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, aspirin, and insulin, whereas others seem to have no impact.”

While immune checkpoint inhibitors are transforming the treatment of advanced cancers, gut microbiota composition is an important determinant of response to ICIs. Antibiotic treatments are known to alter the gut microbiota. Other drugs, such as proton pump inhibitors, antidiabetic agents, aspirin, NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, immunomodulators, psychotropic drugs, and analgesics, have been associated with changes in microbiome composition. Since many patients with advanced cancer are exposed to such drugs, this study looked at the possible influence of these comedications on the antitumor effect and safety of ICIs.

The observational study included 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with ICIs between May 2015 and September 2017. Comedications given within 1 month before or 1 month after the first administration of an ICI were reviewed from medical records. Psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors, ACE inhibitors and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), glucocorticoids, antibiotics, statins, and morphine were the most prescribed comedications.

Baseline use of antibiotics, glucocorticoids greater than 10 mg/day, proton pump inhibitors, psychotropic drugs, morphine, and insulin was associated with decreased overall survival and tumor response. However, the coadministration of statins, ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs, NSAIDs, aspirin, and oral diabetes drugs did not impact patient outcomes. Additionally, treatments that altered the response to ICIs were associated with a decreased incidence of immune-related adverse events.

“These results suggest some practical advice in a patient candidate to ICIs,” the authors wrote. “First, antibiotic treatment should be limited to documented infections,” and “withdrawal of proton pump inhibitors and psychotropic drugs should be considered.

“Regarding baseline glucocorticoids use, the cutoff of 10 mg/day should be respected, considering the deleterious effect of higher dosage. Moreover, because of the lack of impact of inhaled or topical glucocorticoids, local routes should be preferred,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, our study brings reassuring data regarding the use of glucocorticoids for the management of immune-related adverse events, which did not alter ICI efficacy, confirming previous reports.”

The authors noted that the observational nature of the study does not allow any causal conclusion, adding that it remains unknown whether the effect of comedications “on cancer outcomes is thoroughly mediated by changes in microbiota or other immunomodulatory properties.”

Along with the retrospective design, study limitations included reporting bias and missing data on baseline comedications, specific prognostic factors and cancer outcomes.

The authors noted no conflicts of interest.

Can treatment or removal of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) reduce the likelihood of developing anal cancer in people living with HIV (PLHIV)?

“In theory, looking for and treating high-grade disease (like we know works in the cervix) is a potential way to prevent anal cancer in high-risk individuals,” Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Anal Neoplasia Clinic, told this news organization. “But we’ve never had any direct evidence that it worked,” he said.

Initial findings from ANCHOR – the first randomized trial to demonstrate that anal cancer can be prevented in high-risk, HIV-infected patients – promise to change that paradigm and may even portend a new standard of care.

Undoubtedly, this is welcome news for the HIV community, who are not only at increased risk for anal HSIL overall, but among whom anal cancer cases have been rising over the past decade. This is especially true for women who are expected to bear a large portion of overall burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated anal squamous cell carcinoma over the next 10 to 20 years.

In the study, 4,446 PLHIV ages 35 and older with precursor anal HSIL were randomly assigned to topical (imiquimod intra-anally, perianally, or both, or fluorouracil) or ablative (infrared coagulation, hyfrecation/electrocautery) treatment, or active surveillance, and followed every 6 months for 5 years. The study population was broadly representative, including men who have sex with men (MSM), women, transgender people, and historically underrepresented minorities, a factor that reinforces the study’s importance in this specific population.

Because the primary endpoint was reached (that is, to determine if HSIL treatment and removal effectively reduces anal cancer incidence in HIV-infected men and women), the Data Safety Board halted accrual and recommended that participants in the surveillance group be offered treatment moving forward. While the investigators are currently working on publication of the results, the study is ongoing.

Still, the ANCHOR study, which is one of the largest malignancy screening studies conducted in PLHIV, has also highlighted significant challenges in how anal cancer is approached in general.

“Anal cancer has many similarities to cervical cancer, where screening for precancerous lesions and treatment have been shown to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality,” said Joseph Sparano, MD, a medical oncologist specializing in HIV and breast cancer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Sparano is chair and principal investigator of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium but was not involved in the ANCHOR study.

But, he explained in an interview, “it’s much more difficult and technically challenging to screen for and evaluate the anal canal histology,” noting that New York is currently the only U.S. state to recommend screening for anal dysplasia with high-resolution anoscopy in HIV-infected men and women.

Availability and access to high-resolution anoscopy is limited, said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch at the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Cancer Research Division and director of the Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy (which, incidentally, cosponsored ANCHOR).

“There are relatively few people that do this at this time,” he added in an interview, pointing out that among those who do, most are obstetricians/gynecologists.

A bit of digging into ANCHOR’s backstory revealed that this was a point of contention at the study’s onset. While physicians participating in the study received extensive training in high-resolution anoscopy, ob/gyns were the fastest to achieve competency and/or had the most prior experience, namely because of their experience in cervical cancer screening in women.

But initial objections by the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which at the time, insisted that its members only treat women and threatened to remove their certification if they participated in the research), almost threw a wrench into the study’s start, according to a report in The New York Times. While rational minds prevailed and the board reversed its earlier statements, lack of ample training in the procedure may signal future barriers to treatment.

Another challenge lies in how study findings might be applicable to other groups outside of the HIV/AIDS population, such as people with other forms of immunosuppression who have HSIL, or even healthy women or men who are at risk as a result of penetrative/nonpenetrative sexual or nonsexual (for example, vaginal discharge to the anus) contact.

Although he was unable to share specifics at this time, Dr. Palefsky said that when they designed the ANCHOR study, they were aware that “merely showing efficacy wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient for establishing a standard of care, where[as] other pieces of information undoubtedly would be considered by entities that make guidelines” (for example, an examination of adverse events, risks/benefits, and factors that influence quality of life).

“With that in mind, we are doing a quality-of-life study and, in fact, have [collaborated on], developed, and validated what I think is the first anal disease-specific, quality of life instrument,” Dr. Palefsky said. “The work is still ongoing because we did not complete enrollment in the study, but we are continuing it as part of the follow up.”

Study investigators have also collected samples for a biorepository of specimens that will hopefully facilitate a better understanding of the molecular events driving progression from precancer to cancer. “A lot of people with HIV have these high-grade lesions,” Dr. Palefsky said. “If we were able to identify who’s at highest risk of all of them, that would be very important, because we prefer not to treat everybody with high-grade disease,” he noted, adding that the “underlying hope is that the biomarkers we find in the setting will also be relevant for other HPV-related cancers,” especially in women.

Dr. Yarchoan concurred. “One of the challenges is going to be to digest this information and see how to use it to potentially address the growing problem of females with HIV,” he said.

Dr. Palefsky, Dr. Sparano, and Dr. Yarchoan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Can treatment or removal of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) reduce the likelihood of developing anal cancer in people living with HIV (PLHIV)?

“In theory, looking for and treating high-grade disease (like we know works in the cervix) is a potential way to prevent anal cancer in high-risk individuals,” Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Anal Neoplasia Clinic, told this news organization. “But we’ve never had any direct evidence that it worked,” he said.

Initial findings from ANCHOR – the first randomized trial to demonstrate that anal cancer can be prevented in high-risk, HIV-infected patients – promise to change that paradigm and may even portend a new standard of care.

Undoubtedly, this is welcome news for the HIV community, who are not only at increased risk for anal HSIL overall, but among whom anal cancer cases have been rising over the past decade. This is especially true for women who are expected to bear a large portion of overall burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated anal squamous cell carcinoma over the next 10 to 20 years.

In the study, 4,446 PLHIV ages 35 and older with precursor anal HSIL were randomly assigned to topical (imiquimod intra-anally, perianally, or both, or fluorouracil) or ablative (infrared coagulation, hyfrecation/electrocautery) treatment, or active surveillance, and followed every 6 months for 5 years. The study population was broadly representative, including men who have sex with men (MSM), women, transgender people, and historically underrepresented minorities, a factor that reinforces the study’s importance in this specific population.

Because the primary endpoint was reached (that is, to determine if HSIL treatment and removal effectively reduces anal cancer incidence in HIV-infected men and women), the Data Safety Board halted accrual and recommended that participants in the surveillance group be offered treatment moving forward. While the investigators are currently working on publication of the results, the study is ongoing.

Still, the ANCHOR study, which is one of the largest malignancy screening studies conducted in PLHIV, has also highlighted significant challenges in how anal cancer is approached in general.

“Anal cancer has many similarities to cervical cancer, where screening for precancerous lesions and treatment have been shown to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality,” said Joseph Sparano, MD, a medical oncologist specializing in HIV and breast cancer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Sparano is chair and principal investigator of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium but was not involved in the ANCHOR study.

But, he explained in an interview, “it’s much more difficult and technically challenging to screen for and evaluate the anal canal histology,” noting that New York is currently the only U.S. state to recommend screening for anal dysplasia with high-resolution anoscopy in HIV-infected men and women.

Availability and access to high-resolution anoscopy is limited, said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch at the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Cancer Research Division and director of the Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy (which, incidentally, cosponsored ANCHOR).

“There are relatively few people that do this at this time,” he added in an interview, pointing out that among those who do, most are obstetricians/gynecologists.

A bit of digging into ANCHOR’s backstory revealed that this was a point of contention at the study’s onset. While physicians participating in the study received extensive training in high-resolution anoscopy, ob/gyns were the fastest to achieve competency and/or had the most prior experience, namely because of their experience in cervical cancer screening in women.

But initial objections by the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which at the time, insisted that its members only treat women and threatened to remove their certification if they participated in the research), almost threw a wrench into the study’s start, according to a report in The New York Times. While rational minds prevailed and the board reversed its earlier statements, lack of ample training in the procedure may signal future barriers to treatment.

Another challenge lies in how study findings might be applicable to other groups outside of the HIV/AIDS population, such as people with other forms of immunosuppression who have HSIL, or even healthy women or men who are at risk as a result of penetrative/nonpenetrative sexual or nonsexual (for example, vaginal discharge to the anus) contact.

Although he was unable to share specifics at this time, Dr. Palefsky said that when they designed the ANCHOR study, they were aware that “merely showing efficacy wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient for establishing a standard of care, where[as] other pieces of information undoubtedly would be considered by entities that make guidelines” (for example, an examination of adverse events, risks/benefits, and factors that influence quality of life).

“With that in mind, we are doing a quality-of-life study and, in fact, have [collaborated on], developed, and validated what I think is the first anal disease-specific, quality of life instrument,” Dr. Palefsky said. “The work is still ongoing because we did not complete enrollment in the study, but we are continuing it as part of the follow up.”

Study investigators have also collected samples for a biorepository of specimens that will hopefully facilitate a better understanding of the molecular events driving progression from precancer to cancer. “A lot of people with HIV have these high-grade lesions,” Dr. Palefsky said. “If we were able to identify who’s at highest risk of all of them, that would be very important, because we prefer not to treat everybody with high-grade disease,” he noted, adding that the “underlying hope is that the biomarkers we find in the setting will also be relevant for other HPV-related cancers,” especially in women.

Dr. Yarchoan concurred. “One of the challenges is going to be to digest this information and see how to use it to potentially address the growing problem of females with HIV,” he said.

Dr. Palefsky, Dr. Sparano, and Dr. Yarchoan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Can treatment or removal of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) reduce the likelihood of developing anal cancer in people living with HIV (PLHIV)?

“In theory, looking for and treating high-grade disease (like we know works in the cervix) is a potential way to prevent anal cancer in high-risk individuals,” Joel Palefsky, MD, lead investigator of the Anal Cancer/HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study and founder/director of the University of California, San Francisco’s Anal Neoplasia Clinic, told this news organization. “But we’ve never had any direct evidence that it worked,” he said.

Initial findings from ANCHOR – the first randomized trial to demonstrate that anal cancer can be prevented in high-risk, HIV-infected patients – promise to change that paradigm and may even portend a new standard of care.

Undoubtedly, this is welcome news for the HIV community, who are not only at increased risk for anal HSIL overall, but among whom anal cancer cases have been rising over the past decade. This is especially true for women who are expected to bear a large portion of overall burden of human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated anal squamous cell carcinoma over the next 10 to 20 years.

In the study, 4,446 PLHIV ages 35 and older with precursor anal HSIL were randomly assigned to topical (imiquimod intra-anally, perianally, or both, or fluorouracil) or ablative (infrared coagulation, hyfrecation/electrocautery) treatment, or active surveillance, and followed every 6 months for 5 years. The study population was broadly representative, including men who have sex with men (MSM), women, transgender people, and historically underrepresented minorities, a factor that reinforces the study’s importance in this specific population.

Because the primary endpoint was reached (that is, to determine if HSIL treatment and removal effectively reduces anal cancer incidence in HIV-infected men and women), the Data Safety Board halted accrual and recommended that participants in the surveillance group be offered treatment moving forward. While the investigators are currently working on publication of the results, the study is ongoing.

Still, the ANCHOR study, which is one of the largest malignancy screening studies conducted in PLHIV, has also highlighted significant challenges in how anal cancer is approached in general.

“Anal cancer has many similarities to cervical cancer, where screening for precancerous lesions and treatment have been shown to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality,” said Joseph Sparano, MD, a medical oncologist specializing in HIV and breast cancer at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Sparano is chair and principal investigator of the AIDS Malignancy Consortium but was not involved in the ANCHOR study.

But, he explained in an interview, “it’s much more difficult and technically challenging to screen for and evaluate the anal canal histology,” noting that New York is currently the only U.S. state to recommend screening for anal dysplasia with high-resolution anoscopy in HIV-infected men and women.

Availability and access to high-resolution anoscopy is limited, said Robert Yarchoan, MD, chief of the HIV and AIDS Malignancy Branch at the National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Cancer Research Division and director of the Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy (which, incidentally, cosponsored ANCHOR).

“There are relatively few people that do this at this time,” he added in an interview, pointing out that among those who do, most are obstetricians/gynecologists.

A bit of digging into ANCHOR’s backstory revealed that this was a point of contention at the study’s onset. While physicians participating in the study received extensive training in high-resolution anoscopy, ob/gyns were the fastest to achieve competency and/or had the most prior experience, namely because of their experience in cervical cancer screening in women.

But initial objections by the American Board of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (which at the time, insisted that its members only treat women and threatened to remove their certification if they participated in the research), almost threw a wrench into the study’s start, according to a report in The New York Times. While rational minds prevailed and the board reversed its earlier statements, lack of ample training in the procedure may signal future barriers to treatment.

Another challenge lies in how study findings might be applicable to other groups outside of the HIV/AIDS population, such as people with other forms of immunosuppression who have HSIL, or even healthy women or men who are at risk as a result of penetrative/nonpenetrative sexual or nonsexual (for example, vaginal discharge to the anus) contact.

Although he was unable to share specifics at this time, Dr. Palefsky said that when they designed the ANCHOR study, they were aware that “merely showing efficacy wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient for establishing a standard of care, where[as] other pieces of information undoubtedly would be considered by entities that make guidelines” (for example, an examination of adverse events, risks/benefits, and factors that influence quality of life).

“With that in mind, we are doing a quality-of-life study and, in fact, have [collaborated on], developed, and validated what I think is the first anal disease-specific, quality of life instrument,” Dr. Palefsky said. “The work is still ongoing because we did not complete enrollment in the study, but we are continuing it as part of the follow up.”

Study investigators have also collected samples for a biorepository of specimens that will hopefully facilitate a better understanding of the molecular events driving progression from precancer to cancer. “A lot of people with HIV have these high-grade lesions,” Dr. Palefsky said. “If we were able to identify who’s at highest risk of all of them, that would be very important, because we prefer not to treat everybody with high-grade disease,” he noted, adding that the “underlying hope is that the biomarkers we find in the setting will also be relevant for other HPV-related cancers,” especially in women.

Dr. Yarchoan concurred. “One of the challenges is going to be to digest this information and see how to use it to potentially address the growing problem of females with HIV,” he said.

Dr. Palefsky, Dr. Sparano, and Dr. Yarchoan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) is inversely correlated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC), which supports use of APC as a new quality control measure, according to investigators.

Data from 138 endoscopists showed that patients screened by physicians with higher APCs had significantly lower rates of PCCRC, and an APC of 0.6 offered more protection than either an APC of 0.4 or an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of 25%, reported lead author Joseph C. Anderson, MD, of White River Junction VA Medical Center, Hanover, N.H., and colleagues.

“Unfortunately, APC has never been validated as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC in exams performed by endoscopists with higher rates,” Dr. Anderson said at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

To this end, Dr. Anderson and colleagues reviewed data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR), including 9,023 screening colonoscopies with a follow-up event 6-60 months after the initial exam. Procedures were conducted by 138 endoscopists in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine.

Three quality measures were analyzed for associations with PCCRC: an APC of 0.4, an APC of 0.6, and an ADR of 25%. Hazard ratios were calculated for all PCCRCs, as well as PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. Rates were reported for two time periods: 6-36 months and 6-60 months.

From 6 to 60 months, 82 cases of PCCRC were diagnosed, among which 50 were diagnosed between 6 and 36 months.

For both periods, all three quality measures were significantly associated with reductions in PCCRC. The higher APC of 0.6, however, offered greater protection, reducing all PCCRCs by 71% and 61% in the shorter and longer period, respectively. In comparison, the lower APC of 0.4 reduced rates by 63% and 53%, while the ADR benchmark reduced rates by 62% and 42%.

These trends were maintained for PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. An APC of 0.6 was associated with respective reductions of 79% and 65% for the shorter and longer period, compared with 64% and 57% for the lower APC, and 67% and 49% for ADR.

Additional analysis clarified the relationship between APC level and likelihood of developing PCCRC. In terms of absolute risk, patients screened by an endoscopist with an APC greater than 0.6 had a 0.5% chance of developing PCCRC from 6 to 36 months, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 2.1% for an APC of less than 0.4 (P = .0001). This pattern held through 60 months, during which time an APC greater than 0.6 was associated with an absolute risk of PCCRC of 0.4%, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 1.6% for an APC less than 0.4 (P = .0001).

“Our novel data support the use of APC as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC risk in exams performed by endoscopists with higher APCs,” Dr. Anderson concluded, noting that an APC of 0.6 appeared to offer more protection than an APC of 0.4. “I feel that ... APC as a quality measure, now that we’ve validated it, may be accepted because of its ability to differentiate endoscopists on their adenoma detection skills.”

According to Lawrence Hookey, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., “It’s an important study that will probably contribute to where we’re going forward.”

Dr. Lawrence, chair of the division and medical director of the endoscopy units at Kingston General and Hotel Dieu hospitals, said that APC may overcome the main concern with ADR – that endoscopists who find one adenoma may not be motivated to seek out as many as possible.

“The problem with ADR, in general, is that if you find one polyp, and if ADR is the stat you’re living by, then you don’t need to find any other polyps, and that obviously doesn’t do that patient a favor, necessarily,” Dr. Hookey said in an interview. “It does bring them back sooner for surveillance, but it doesn’t help remove the rest of the polyps that they have. And not that someone is going to find one polyp and turn off the light and pull the scope out, but you may not be looking as hard.”

APC mitigates this issue, he explained, because it determines “whether or not you’re truly clearing things out and getting rid of as many [polyps] as possible.”

Dr. Hookey said that APC is “probably the best” quality control measure on the horizon, and he suggested that more work is needed to determine the optimal benchmark figure, which should ideally be investigated through larger studies.

“I just want to see it in bigger groups,” he said.

The investigators and Dr. Hookey reported no conflicts of interest.

The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) is inversely correlated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC), which supports use of APC as a new quality control measure, according to investigators.

Data from 138 endoscopists showed that patients screened by physicians with higher APCs had significantly lower rates of PCCRC, and an APC of 0.6 offered more protection than either an APC of 0.4 or an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of 25%, reported lead author Joseph C. Anderson, MD, of White River Junction VA Medical Center, Hanover, N.H., and colleagues.

“Unfortunately, APC has never been validated as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC in exams performed by endoscopists with higher rates,” Dr. Anderson said at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

To this end, Dr. Anderson and colleagues reviewed data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR), including 9,023 screening colonoscopies with a follow-up event 6-60 months after the initial exam. Procedures were conducted by 138 endoscopists in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine.

Three quality measures were analyzed for associations with PCCRC: an APC of 0.4, an APC of 0.6, and an ADR of 25%. Hazard ratios were calculated for all PCCRCs, as well as PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. Rates were reported for two time periods: 6-36 months and 6-60 months.

From 6 to 60 months, 82 cases of PCCRC were diagnosed, among which 50 were diagnosed between 6 and 36 months.

For both periods, all three quality measures were significantly associated with reductions in PCCRC. The higher APC of 0.6, however, offered greater protection, reducing all PCCRCs by 71% and 61% in the shorter and longer period, respectively. In comparison, the lower APC of 0.4 reduced rates by 63% and 53%, while the ADR benchmark reduced rates by 62% and 42%.

These trends were maintained for PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. An APC of 0.6 was associated with respective reductions of 79% and 65% for the shorter and longer period, compared with 64% and 57% for the lower APC, and 67% and 49% for ADR.

Additional analysis clarified the relationship between APC level and likelihood of developing PCCRC. In terms of absolute risk, patients screened by an endoscopist with an APC greater than 0.6 had a 0.5% chance of developing PCCRC from 6 to 36 months, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 2.1% for an APC of less than 0.4 (P = .0001). This pattern held through 60 months, during which time an APC greater than 0.6 was associated with an absolute risk of PCCRC of 0.4%, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 1.6% for an APC less than 0.4 (P = .0001).

“Our novel data support the use of APC as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC risk in exams performed by endoscopists with higher APCs,” Dr. Anderson concluded, noting that an APC of 0.6 appeared to offer more protection than an APC of 0.4. “I feel that ... APC as a quality measure, now that we’ve validated it, may be accepted because of its ability to differentiate endoscopists on their adenoma detection skills.”

According to Lawrence Hookey, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., “It’s an important study that will probably contribute to where we’re going forward.”

Dr. Lawrence, chair of the division and medical director of the endoscopy units at Kingston General and Hotel Dieu hospitals, said that APC may overcome the main concern with ADR – that endoscopists who find one adenoma may not be motivated to seek out as many as possible.

“The problem with ADR, in general, is that if you find one polyp, and if ADR is the stat you’re living by, then you don’t need to find any other polyps, and that obviously doesn’t do that patient a favor, necessarily,” Dr. Hookey said in an interview. “It does bring them back sooner for surveillance, but it doesn’t help remove the rest of the polyps that they have. And not that someone is going to find one polyp and turn off the light and pull the scope out, but you may not be looking as hard.”

APC mitigates this issue, he explained, because it determines “whether or not you’re truly clearing things out and getting rid of as many [polyps] as possible.”

Dr. Hookey said that APC is “probably the best” quality control measure on the horizon, and he suggested that more work is needed to determine the optimal benchmark figure, which should ideally be investigated through larger studies.

“I just want to see it in bigger groups,” he said.

The investigators and Dr. Hookey reported no conflicts of interest.

The number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) is inversely correlated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC), which supports use of APC as a new quality control measure, according to investigators.

Data from 138 endoscopists showed that patients screened by physicians with higher APCs had significantly lower rates of PCCRC, and an APC of 0.6 offered more protection than either an APC of 0.4 or an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of 25%, reported lead author Joseph C. Anderson, MD, of White River Junction VA Medical Center, Hanover, N.H., and colleagues.

“Unfortunately, APC has never been validated as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC in exams performed by endoscopists with higher rates,” Dr. Anderson said at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.

To this end, Dr. Anderson and colleagues reviewed data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR), including 9,023 screening colonoscopies with a follow-up event 6-60 months after the initial exam. Procedures were conducted by 138 endoscopists in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine.

Three quality measures were analyzed for associations with PCCRC: an APC of 0.4, an APC of 0.6, and an ADR of 25%. Hazard ratios were calculated for all PCCRCs, as well as PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. Rates were reported for two time periods: 6-36 months and 6-60 months.

From 6 to 60 months, 82 cases of PCCRC were diagnosed, among which 50 were diagnosed between 6 and 36 months.

For both periods, all three quality measures were significantly associated with reductions in PCCRC. The higher APC of 0.6, however, offered greater protection, reducing all PCCRCs by 71% and 61% in the shorter and longer period, respectively. In comparison, the lower APC of 0.4 reduced rates by 63% and 53%, while the ADR benchmark reduced rates by 62% and 42%.

These trends were maintained for PCCRCs diagnosed at first follow-up event. An APC of 0.6 was associated with respective reductions of 79% and 65% for the shorter and longer period, compared with 64% and 57% for the lower APC, and 67% and 49% for ADR.

Additional analysis clarified the relationship between APC level and likelihood of developing PCCRC. In terms of absolute risk, patients screened by an endoscopist with an APC greater than 0.6 had a 0.5% chance of developing PCCRC from 6 to 36 months, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 2.1% for an APC of less than 0.4 (P = .0001). This pattern held through 60 months, during which time an APC greater than 0.6 was associated with an absolute risk of PCCRC of 0.4%, compared with 0.7% for an APC of 0.4-0.6, and 1.6% for an APC less than 0.4 (P = .0001).

“Our novel data support the use of APC as a quality measure by demonstrating a reduction in PCCRC risk in exams performed by endoscopists with higher APCs,” Dr. Anderson concluded, noting that an APC of 0.6 appeared to offer more protection than an APC of 0.4. “I feel that ... APC as a quality measure, now that we’ve validated it, may be accepted because of its ability to differentiate endoscopists on their adenoma detection skills.”

According to Lawrence Hookey, MD, of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., “It’s an important study that will probably contribute to where we’re going forward.”

Dr. Lawrence, chair of the division and medical director of the endoscopy units at Kingston General and Hotel Dieu hospitals, said that APC may overcome the main concern with ADR – that endoscopists who find one adenoma may not be motivated to seek out as many as possible.

“The problem with ADR, in general, is that if you find one polyp, and if ADR is the stat you’re living by, then you don’t need to find any other polyps, and that obviously doesn’t do that patient a favor, necessarily,” Dr. Hookey said in an interview. “It does bring them back sooner for surveillance, but it doesn’t help remove the rest of the polyps that they have. And not that someone is going to find one polyp and turn off the light and pull the scope out, but you may not be looking as hard.”

APC mitigates this issue, he explained, because it determines “whether or not you’re truly clearing things out and getting rid of as many [polyps] as possible.”

Dr. Hookey said that APC is “probably the best” quality control measure on the horizon, and he suggested that more work is needed to determine the optimal benchmark figure, which should ideally be investigated through larger studies.

“I just want to see it in bigger groups,” he said.

The investigators and Dr. Hookey reported no conflicts of interest.

Lung cancer screening reduces mortality, but patient adherence to screening intervals is suboptimal in the United States, according to a review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

“Lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS),” Yannan Lin, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. ”Patient adherence to Lung-RADS–recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical lung cancer screening programs in the U.S., especially among patients with Lung-RADS category 1-2 results.”

Lung cancer screening can identify tumors at earlier, more treatable stages, but patients with lung cancer diagnoses based on new nodules at incidence screening have shown shortened survivals. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has shown a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with low-dose chest CT screening relative to chest radiography. The Lung-RADS guidelines to standardize the reporting of lung cancer screening were developed based on findings from the NLST and other screening studies, partly to reduce false-positive rates. Lung-RADS scores are based upon nodule size, characteristics and location, with management guidelines specific to Lung-RADS categories, ranging from low-dose chest CT in 12 months for Lung-RADS 1-2 to chest CT, PET/CT, or tissue sampling for Lung-RADS 4B/X.

The rate of adherence to lung cancer screening based on Lung-RADS guidelines is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis looked at patient adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practice.

The meta-analysis included 21 studies. The pooled adherence rate was 57% for defined adherence, which included an annual incidence screen performed within 15 months, among 6,689 patients and 65% for anytime adherence among 5,085 patients. The authors noted that overall rates of adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practices is low as compared with the over 90% adherence seen in the NLST, adversely affecting the mortality benefits of lung cancer screening.

Higher adherence rates were found in patients with Lung-RADS 3 (risk for lung cancer, 1%-2%) and 4 (risk, >5%) than Lung-RADS 1 and 2 (risk, <1%; P < .05), which the authors said suggests that tailored interventions based on Lung-RADS categories may be beneficial.

“It is likely that patients and referrers are more concerned about nodules at a higher risk for lung cancer, prompting greater adherence to recommended screening intervals in Lung-RADS 3-4,” the authors wrote. “It is crucial that patients and referrers alike understand that screening is most effective when performed regularly, including for those with negative baseline screens, as de novo nodules, those detected after a negative screen, are more aggressive than those detected at baseline screen.”

These low adherence rates seen in the clinical practices could be explained by patient characteristics, insurance coverage and interventions to ensure adherence, among other factors.

Further, inconsistent reporting of adherence rates was observed. Standardized reporting of adherence rates to lung cancer screening is needed to identify interventions to improve adherence, the authors wrote.

The authors of this study noted no conflicts of interest.

Lung cancer screening reduces mortality, but patient adherence to screening intervals is suboptimal in the United States, according to a review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

“Lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS),” Yannan Lin, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. ”Patient adherence to Lung-RADS–recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical lung cancer screening programs in the U.S., especially among patients with Lung-RADS category 1-2 results.”

Lung cancer screening can identify tumors at earlier, more treatable stages, but patients with lung cancer diagnoses based on new nodules at incidence screening have shown shortened survivals. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has shown a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with low-dose chest CT screening relative to chest radiography. The Lung-RADS guidelines to standardize the reporting of lung cancer screening were developed based on findings from the NLST and other screening studies, partly to reduce false-positive rates. Lung-RADS scores are based upon nodule size, characteristics and location, with management guidelines specific to Lung-RADS categories, ranging from low-dose chest CT in 12 months for Lung-RADS 1-2 to chest CT, PET/CT, or tissue sampling for Lung-RADS 4B/X.

The rate of adherence to lung cancer screening based on Lung-RADS guidelines is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis looked at patient adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practice.

The meta-analysis included 21 studies. The pooled adherence rate was 57% for defined adherence, which included an annual incidence screen performed within 15 months, among 6,689 patients and 65% for anytime adherence among 5,085 patients. The authors noted that overall rates of adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practices is low as compared with the over 90% adherence seen in the NLST, adversely affecting the mortality benefits of lung cancer screening.

Higher adherence rates were found in patients with Lung-RADS 3 (risk for lung cancer, 1%-2%) and 4 (risk, >5%) than Lung-RADS 1 and 2 (risk, <1%; P < .05), which the authors said suggests that tailored interventions based on Lung-RADS categories may be beneficial.

“It is likely that patients and referrers are more concerned about nodules at a higher risk for lung cancer, prompting greater adherence to recommended screening intervals in Lung-RADS 3-4,” the authors wrote. “It is crucial that patients and referrers alike understand that screening is most effective when performed regularly, including for those with negative baseline screens, as de novo nodules, those detected after a negative screen, are more aggressive than those detected at baseline screen.”

These low adherence rates seen in the clinical practices could be explained by patient characteristics, insurance coverage and interventions to ensure adherence, among other factors.

Further, inconsistent reporting of adherence rates was observed. Standardized reporting of adherence rates to lung cancer screening is needed to identify interventions to improve adherence, the authors wrote.

The authors of this study noted no conflicts of interest.

Lung cancer screening reduces mortality, but patient adherence to screening intervals is suboptimal in the United States, according to a review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology.

“Lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality, particularly when patients adhere to follow-up recommendations standardized by the Lung CT Screening Reporting & Data System (Lung-RADS),” Yannan Lin, MD, MPH, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues wrote. ”Patient adherence to Lung-RADS–recommended screening intervals is suboptimal across clinical lung cancer screening programs in the U.S., especially among patients with Lung-RADS category 1-2 results.”

Lung cancer screening can identify tumors at earlier, more treatable stages, but patients with lung cancer diagnoses based on new nodules at incidence screening have shown shortened survivals. The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has shown a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality with low-dose chest CT screening relative to chest radiography. The Lung-RADS guidelines to standardize the reporting of lung cancer screening were developed based on findings from the NLST and other screening studies, partly to reduce false-positive rates. Lung-RADS scores are based upon nodule size, characteristics and location, with management guidelines specific to Lung-RADS categories, ranging from low-dose chest CT in 12 months for Lung-RADS 1-2 to chest CT, PET/CT, or tissue sampling for Lung-RADS 4B/X.

The rate of adherence to lung cancer screening based on Lung-RADS guidelines is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis looked at patient adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practice.

The meta-analysis included 21 studies. The pooled adherence rate was 57% for defined adherence, which included an annual incidence screen performed within 15 months, among 6,689 patients and 65% for anytime adherence among 5,085 patients. The authors noted that overall rates of adherence to Lung-RADS recommended screening intervals in clinical practices is low as compared with the over 90% adherence seen in the NLST, adversely affecting the mortality benefits of lung cancer screening.

Higher adherence rates were found in patients with Lung-RADS 3 (risk for lung cancer, 1%-2%) and 4 (risk, >5%) than Lung-RADS 1 and 2 (risk, <1%; P < .05), which the authors said suggests that tailored interventions based on Lung-RADS categories may be beneficial.

“It is likely that patients and referrers are more concerned about nodules at a higher risk for lung cancer, prompting greater adherence to recommended screening intervals in Lung-RADS 3-4,” the authors wrote. “It is crucial that patients and referrers alike understand that screening is most effective when performed regularly, including for those with negative baseline screens, as de novo nodules, those detected after a negative screen, are more aggressive than those detected at baseline screen.”

These low adherence rates seen in the clinical practices could be explained by patient characteristics, insurance coverage and interventions to ensure adherence, among other factors.

Further, inconsistent reporting of adherence rates was observed. Standardized reporting of adherence rates to lung cancer screening is needed to identify interventions to improve adherence, the authors wrote.

The authors of this study noted no conflicts of interest.

Approximately 12,000 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed in women in the United States each year, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said B.J. Rimel, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in a presentation at the virtual Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

Despite increased cervical cancer prevention and screening efforts, the incidence of, and mortality from, cervical cancer has remained stable for the past 2 decades, said Dr. Rimel.

Cervical cancer is the only cancer that can be prevented by vaccination, Dr. Rimel noted. It is essential to identify the women who are dying from cervical cancer, as well as who gets screened, who gets vaccinated, and who ends up in clinical trials, she said.

Novel agents for treating cervical cancer suggest that improvement in stagnant mortality rates is possible, said Dr. Rimel. She noted recent studies of cemiplimab, tisotumab vedotin, and a combination therapy involving pembrolizumab and platinum/paclitaxel, with and without bevacizumab.

Dr. Rimel suggested several opportunities to improve the identification and treatment of cervical cancer: Treat it like a rare disease; address structural racism through clinical trials; create opportunities for low–socioeconomic status patients to be involved in research; and develop solutions according to location (urban vs. rural), she said.

Compared with other cancers, cervical cancer is relatively rare in the United States, Dr. Rimel said. However, “It is important that those with cervical cancer can get treated and get healed from the disease,” she said. To better identify the women with cervical cancer who need treatment and to get them into clinical trials, she suggested using strategies employed by rare disease groups, such as seeking out patient support groups and registries.

Significant racial and ethnic disparities persist in cervical cancer, Dr. Rimel emphasized. Data from the CDC show that Black and Hispanic women in the United States are diagnosed with cervical cancer more frequently than women of other races and ethnicities and are less likely to survive.

“Reimagine cervical cancer as a disease of patients who are historically underrepresented due to race, language, poverty, and location,” she said.

Improving equity in cervical cancer care involves structural and trial-specific issues, said Dr. Rimel. Structural issues start with addressing how women enter into the health care system, she said. Consider where women receive care, and whether women have the opportunity to be vaccinated, and later screened, she said. Consider barriers to cervical cancer trials in centers with larger underserved populations, not only cost or insurance, but also issues of language and trust between patients and health care providers, she noted.

To improve the equity of cervical cancer clinical trials, consider potential barriers to enrollment, she added.

“Low English fluency is a barrier to trial enrollment,” said Dr. Rimel. In-person translation is essential for consent to participate in a trial, and “clinical trial budgets must reflect this requirement,” she added. Patient-reported outcomes need to be in the patient’s preferred language, “this includes online content,” Dr. Rimel said.

Dr. Rimel presented other strategies for clinical trial designs to improve equity.

“Compensate patients for their travel, or provide them with tech to allow for off-site monitoring,” she proposed. Patients of lower socioeconomic status in rural and urban areas have different barriers to enrollment, but virtual visits might be an option for those able to access the Internet when given a device. For others, smaller trial sites closer to home, combined with compensation for travel or missed work, might create more opportunities to participate, Dr. Rimel said. Finally, researchers should consider potential roles for smaller or broader studies that involve less travel and testing that would be feasible for more patients who might not otherwise participate in a clinical trial, she concluded.

Dr. Rimel had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Approximately 12,000 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed in women in the United States each year, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said B.J. Rimel, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in a presentation at the virtual Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

Despite increased cervical cancer prevention and screening efforts, the incidence of, and mortality from, cervical cancer has remained stable for the past 2 decades, said Dr. Rimel.

Cervical cancer is the only cancer that can be prevented by vaccination, Dr. Rimel noted. It is essential to identify the women who are dying from cervical cancer, as well as who gets screened, who gets vaccinated, and who ends up in clinical trials, she said.

Novel agents for treating cervical cancer suggest that improvement in stagnant mortality rates is possible, said Dr. Rimel. She noted recent studies of cemiplimab, tisotumab vedotin, and a combination therapy involving pembrolizumab and platinum/paclitaxel, with and without bevacizumab.

Dr. Rimel suggested several opportunities to improve the identification and treatment of cervical cancer: Treat it like a rare disease; address structural racism through clinical trials; create opportunities for low–socioeconomic status patients to be involved in research; and develop solutions according to location (urban vs. rural), she said.

Compared with other cancers, cervical cancer is relatively rare in the United States, Dr. Rimel said. However, “It is important that those with cervical cancer can get treated and get healed from the disease,” she said. To better identify the women with cervical cancer who need treatment and to get them into clinical trials, she suggested using strategies employed by rare disease groups, such as seeking out patient support groups and registries.

Significant racial and ethnic disparities persist in cervical cancer, Dr. Rimel emphasized. Data from the CDC show that Black and Hispanic women in the United States are diagnosed with cervical cancer more frequently than women of other races and ethnicities and are less likely to survive.

“Reimagine cervical cancer as a disease of patients who are historically underrepresented due to race, language, poverty, and location,” she said.

Improving equity in cervical cancer care involves structural and trial-specific issues, said Dr. Rimel. Structural issues start with addressing how women enter into the health care system, she said. Consider where women receive care, and whether women have the opportunity to be vaccinated, and later screened, she said. Consider barriers to cervical cancer trials in centers with larger underserved populations, not only cost or insurance, but also issues of language and trust between patients and health care providers, she noted.

To improve the equity of cervical cancer clinical trials, consider potential barriers to enrollment, she added.

“Low English fluency is a barrier to trial enrollment,” said Dr. Rimel. In-person translation is essential for consent to participate in a trial, and “clinical trial budgets must reflect this requirement,” she added. Patient-reported outcomes need to be in the patient’s preferred language, “this includes online content,” Dr. Rimel said.

Dr. Rimel presented other strategies for clinical trial designs to improve equity.

“Compensate patients for their travel, or provide them with tech to allow for off-site monitoring,” she proposed. Patients of lower socioeconomic status in rural and urban areas have different barriers to enrollment, but virtual visits might be an option for those able to access the Internet when given a device. For others, smaller trial sites closer to home, combined with compensation for travel or missed work, might create more opportunities to participate, Dr. Rimel said. Finally, researchers should consider potential roles for smaller or broader studies that involve less travel and testing that would be feasible for more patients who might not otherwise participate in a clinical trial, she concluded.

Dr. Rimel had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Approximately 12,000 new cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed in women in the United States each year, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said B.J. Rimel, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in a presentation at the virtual Advancing NIH Research on the Health of Women conference sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

Despite increased cervical cancer prevention and screening efforts, the incidence of, and mortality from, cervical cancer has remained stable for the past 2 decades, said Dr. Rimel.

Cervical cancer is the only cancer that can be prevented by vaccination, Dr. Rimel noted. It is essential to identify the women who are dying from cervical cancer, as well as who gets screened, who gets vaccinated, and who ends up in clinical trials, she said.

Novel agents for treating cervical cancer suggest that improvement in stagnant mortality rates is possible, said Dr. Rimel. She noted recent studies of cemiplimab, tisotumab vedotin, and a combination therapy involving pembrolizumab and platinum/paclitaxel, with and without bevacizumab.

Dr. Rimel suggested several opportunities to improve the identification and treatment of cervical cancer: Treat it like a rare disease; address structural racism through clinical trials; create opportunities for low–socioeconomic status patients to be involved in research; and develop solutions according to location (urban vs. rural), she said.

Compared with other cancers, cervical cancer is relatively rare in the United States, Dr. Rimel said. However, “It is important that those with cervical cancer can get treated and get healed from the disease,” she said. To better identify the women with cervical cancer who need treatment and to get them into clinical trials, she suggested using strategies employed by rare disease groups, such as seeking out patient support groups and registries.

Significant racial and ethnic disparities persist in cervical cancer, Dr. Rimel emphasized. Data from the CDC show that Black and Hispanic women in the United States are diagnosed with cervical cancer more frequently than women of other races and ethnicities and are less likely to survive.

“Reimagine cervical cancer as a disease of patients who are historically underrepresented due to race, language, poverty, and location,” she said.

Improving equity in cervical cancer care involves structural and trial-specific issues, said Dr. Rimel. Structural issues start with addressing how women enter into the health care system, she said. Consider where women receive care, and whether women have the opportunity to be vaccinated, and later screened, she said. Consider barriers to cervical cancer trials in centers with larger underserved populations, not only cost or insurance, but also issues of language and trust between patients and health care providers, she noted.

To improve the equity of cervical cancer clinical trials, consider potential barriers to enrollment, she added.

“Low English fluency is a barrier to trial enrollment,” said Dr. Rimel. In-person translation is essential for consent to participate in a trial, and “clinical trial budgets must reflect this requirement,” she added. Patient-reported outcomes need to be in the patient’s preferred language, “this includes online content,” Dr. Rimel said.

Dr. Rimel presented other strategies for clinical trial designs to improve equity.

“Compensate patients for their travel, or provide them with tech to allow for off-site monitoring,” she proposed. Patients of lower socioeconomic status in rural and urban areas have different barriers to enrollment, but virtual visits might be an option for those able to access the Internet when given a device. For others, smaller trial sites closer to home, combined with compensation for travel or missed work, might create more opportunities to participate, Dr. Rimel said. Finally, researchers should consider potential roles for smaller or broader studies that involve less travel and testing that would be feasible for more patients who might not otherwise participate in a clinical trial, she concluded.

Dr. Rimel had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Implementing a selective type-and-screen blood testing policy in the labor and delivery unit was associated with projected annual savings of close to $200,000, a large single-center study found. Furthermore, there was no evidence of increased maternal morbidity in the university-based facility performing more than 4,400 deliveries per year, according to Ashley E. Benson, MD, MA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

The study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, evaluated patient safety, resource utilization, and transfusion-related costs after a policy change from universal type and screen to selective, risk-based type and screen on admission to labor and delivery.

“There had been some national interest in moving toward decreased resource utilization, and findings that universal screening was not cost effective,” Dr. Benson, who has since relocated to Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. An earlier cost-effective modeling study at her center had suggested that universal test and screen was not cost effective and likely not safer either. “So based on that data we felt an implementation study was warranted.”

The switch to a selective policy was made in 2018, after which her group compared outcomes from October 2017 to September 2019, looking those both 1 year preimplementation and 1 year post implementation.

One year post implementation, the following outcomes emerged, compared with preimplementation:

• Overall projected saving of $181,000 a year in the maternity unit
• Lower mean monthly type- and screen-related costs, such as those for ABO typing, antibody screen, and antibody workup. cross-matches, hold clots, and transfused products: $9,753 vs. $20,676 in the preimplementation year (P < .001)
• A lower mean monthly cost of total transfusion preparedness: $25,090 vs. $39,211 (P < .001)
• No differences in emergency-release transfusion events (four vs. three, P = .99),the study’s primary safety outcome
• Fewer emergency-release red blood cell units transfused (9 vs. 24, P = .002) and O-negative RBC units transfused (8 vs. 18, P = .016)
• No differences in hysterectomies (0.05% vs. 0.1%, P = .44) and ICU admissions (0.45% vs. 0.51%, P = .43)

“In a year of selective type and screen, we saw a 51% reduction in costs related to type and screen, and a 38% reduction in overall transfusion-related costs,” the authors wrote. “This study supports other literature suggesting that more judicious use of type and screen may be safe and cost effective.”

Dr. Benson said the results were positively received when presented a meeting 2 years ago but the published version has yet to prompt feedback.
 

The study

Antepartum patients underwent transfusion preparedness tests according to the center’s standard antenatal admission order sets and were risk stratified in alignment with California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative recommendations. The mean maternal age of patients in both time periods was similar at just over 29 years and the mean gestational age at delivery was just under 38 weeks.

Under the new policy, a “hold clot” is obtained for women stratified as low or medium risk on admission. In this instance, a tube of patient blood is held in the blood bank but processed only if needed, as in the event of active hemorrhage or an order for transfusion. A blood cross-match is obtained on all women stratified as high risk or having a prior positive antibody screen.

Relevant costs were the direct costs of transfusion-related testing in the labor and delivery unit from a health system perspective.

Obstetric hemorrhage is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide, the authors pointed out. While transfusion in obstetric patients occurs in only 1% or 2% of all deliveries it is nevertheless difficult to predict which patients will need transfusion, with only 2%-8% of those stratified as high risk ultimately requiring transfusion. Although obstetric hemorrhage safety bundles recommend risk stratification on admission to labor and delivery with selective type and screen for higher-risk individuals, for safety and simplicity’s sake, many labor and delivery units perform universal type and screen.

The authors cautioned that these results occurred in an academic tertiary care center with systems fine-tuned to deal with active hemorrhage and deliver timely transfusable blood. “At the moment we don’t have enough data to say whether the selective approach would be safe in hospitals with more limited blood bank capacity and access and fewer transfusion specialists in a setting optimized to respond to emergent needs, Dr. Benson said.

Katayoun F. M. Fomani, MD, a transfusion medicine specialist and medical director of blood bank and transfusion services at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New York, agreed. “This approach only works in a controlled environment such as in this study where eligible women were assessed antenatally at the same center, but it would not work at every institution,” she said in an interview. “In addition, all patients were assessed according to the California Collaborative guideline, which itself increases the safety level but is not followed everywhere.”

The obstetric division at her hospital in New York adheres to the universal type and screen. “We have patients coming in from outside whose antenatal testing was not done at our hospital,” she said. “For this selective approach to work you need a controlled population and the electronic resources and personnel to follow each patient carefully.”

The authors indicated no specific funding for this study and disclosed no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Fomani had no potential competing interests to declare.

Implementing a selective type-and-screen blood testing policy in the labor and delivery unit was associated with projected annual savings of close to $200,000, a large single-center study found. Furthermore, there was no evidence of increased maternal morbidity in the university-based facility performing more than 4,400 deliveries per year, according to Ashley E. Benson, MD, MA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

The study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, evaluated patient safety, resource utilization, and transfusion-related costs after a policy change from universal type and screen to selective, risk-based type and screen on admission to labor and delivery.

“There had been some national interest in moving toward decreased resource utilization, and findings that universal screening was not cost effective,” Dr. Benson, who has since relocated to Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. An earlier cost-effective modeling study at her center had suggested that universal test and screen was not cost effective and likely not safer either. “So based on that data we felt an implementation study was warranted.”

The switch to a selective policy was made in 2018, after which her group compared outcomes from October 2017 to September 2019, looking those both 1 year preimplementation and 1 year post implementation.

One year post implementation, the following outcomes emerged, compared with preimplementation:

• Overall projected saving of $181,000 a year in the maternity unit
• Lower mean monthly type- and screen-related costs, such as those for ABO typing, antibody screen, and antibody workup. cross-matches, hold clots, and transfused products: $9,753 vs. $20,676 in the preimplementation year (P < .001)
• A lower mean monthly cost of total transfusion preparedness: $25,090 vs. $39,211 (P < .001)
• No differences in emergency-release transfusion events (four vs. three, P = .99),the study’s primary safety outcome
• Fewer emergency-release red blood cell units transfused (9 vs. 24, P = .002) and O-negative RBC units transfused (8 vs. 18, P = .016)
• No differences in hysterectomies (0.05% vs. 0.1%, P = .44) and ICU admissions (0.45% vs. 0.51%, P = .43)

“In a year of selective type and screen, we saw a 51% reduction in costs related to type and screen, and a 38% reduction in overall transfusion-related costs,” the authors wrote. “This study supports other literature suggesting that more judicious use of type and screen may be safe and cost effective.”

Dr. Benson said the results were positively received when presented a meeting 2 years ago but the published version has yet to prompt feedback.
 

The study

Antepartum patients underwent transfusion preparedness tests according to the center’s standard antenatal admission order sets and were risk stratified in alignment with California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative recommendations. The mean maternal age of patients in both time periods was similar at just over 29 years and the mean gestational age at delivery was just under 38 weeks.

Under the new policy, a “hold clot” is obtained for women stratified as low or medium risk on admission. In this instance, a tube of patient blood is held in the blood bank but processed only if needed, as in the event of active hemorrhage or an order for transfusion. A blood cross-match is obtained on all women stratified as high risk or having a prior positive antibody screen.

Relevant costs were the direct costs of transfusion-related testing in the labor and delivery unit from a health system perspective.

Obstetric hemorrhage is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide, the authors pointed out. While transfusion in obstetric patients occurs in only 1% or 2% of all deliveries it is nevertheless difficult to predict which patients will need transfusion, with only 2%-8% of those stratified as high risk ultimately requiring transfusion. Although obstetric hemorrhage safety bundles recommend risk stratification on admission to labor and delivery with selective type and screen for higher-risk individuals, for safety and simplicity’s sake, many labor and delivery units perform universal type and screen.

The authors cautioned that these results occurred in an academic tertiary care center with systems fine-tuned to deal with active hemorrhage and deliver timely transfusable blood. “At the moment we don’t have enough data to say whether the selective approach would be safe in hospitals with more limited blood bank capacity and access and fewer transfusion specialists in a setting optimized to respond to emergent needs, Dr. Benson said.

Katayoun F. M. Fomani, MD, a transfusion medicine specialist and medical director of blood bank and transfusion services at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New York, agreed. “This approach only works in a controlled environment such as in this study where eligible women were assessed antenatally at the same center, but it would not work at every institution,” she said in an interview. “In addition, all patients were assessed according to the California Collaborative guideline, which itself increases the safety level but is not followed everywhere.”

The obstetric division at her hospital in New York adheres to the universal type and screen. “We have patients coming in from outside whose antenatal testing was not done at our hospital,” she said. “For this selective approach to work you need a controlled population and the electronic resources and personnel to follow each patient carefully.”

The authors indicated no specific funding for this study and disclosed no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Fomani had no potential competing interests to declare.

Implementing a selective type-and-screen blood testing policy in the labor and delivery unit was associated with projected annual savings of close to $200,000, a large single-center study found. Furthermore, there was no evidence of increased maternal morbidity in the university-based facility performing more than 4,400 deliveries per year, according to Ashley E. Benson, MD, MA, of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and colleagues.

The study, published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, evaluated patient safety, resource utilization, and transfusion-related costs after a policy change from universal type and screen to selective, risk-based type and screen on admission to labor and delivery.

“There had been some national interest in moving toward decreased resource utilization, and findings that universal screening was not cost effective,” Dr. Benson, who has since relocated to Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in an interview. An earlier cost-effective modeling study at her center had suggested that universal test and screen was not cost effective and likely not safer either. “So based on that data we felt an implementation study was warranted.”

The switch to a selective policy was made in 2018, after which her group compared outcomes from October 2017 to September 2019, looking those both 1 year preimplementation and 1 year post implementation.

One year post implementation, the following outcomes emerged, compared with preimplementation:

• Overall projected saving of $181,000 a year in the maternity unit
• Lower mean monthly type- and screen-related costs, such as those for ABO typing, antibody screen, and antibody workup. cross-matches, hold clots, and transfused products: $9,753 vs. $20,676 in the preimplementation year (P < .001)
• A lower mean monthly cost of total transfusion preparedness: $25,090 vs. $39,211 (P < .001)
• No differences in emergency-release transfusion events (four vs. three, P = .99),the study’s primary safety outcome
• Fewer emergency-release red blood cell units transfused (9 vs. 24, P = .002) and O-negative RBC units transfused (8 vs. 18, P = .016)
• No differences in hysterectomies (0.05% vs. 0.1%, P = .44) and ICU admissions (0.45% vs. 0.51%, P = .43)

“In a year of selective type and screen, we saw a 51% reduction in costs related to type and screen, and a 38% reduction in overall transfusion-related costs,” the authors wrote. “This study supports other literature suggesting that more judicious use of type and screen may be safe and cost effective.”

Dr. Benson said the results were positively received when presented a meeting 2 years ago but the published version has yet to prompt feedback.
 

The study

Antepartum patients underwent transfusion preparedness tests according to the center’s standard antenatal admission order sets and were risk stratified in alignment with California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative recommendations. The mean maternal age of patients in both time periods was similar at just over 29 years and the mean gestational age at delivery was just under 38 weeks.

Under the new policy, a “hold clot” is obtained for women stratified as low or medium risk on admission. In this instance, a tube of patient blood is held in the blood bank but processed only if needed, as in the event of active hemorrhage or an order for transfusion. A blood cross-match is obtained on all women stratified as high risk or having a prior positive antibody screen.

Relevant costs were the direct costs of transfusion-related testing in the labor and delivery unit from a health system perspective.

Obstetric hemorrhage is the leading cause of maternal death worldwide, the authors pointed out. While transfusion in obstetric patients occurs in only 1% or 2% of all deliveries it is nevertheless difficult to predict which patients will need transfusion, with only 2%-8% of those stratified as high risk ultimately requiring transfusion. Although obstetric hemorrhage safety bundles recommend risk stratification on admission to labor and delivery with selective type and screen for higher-risk individuals, for safety and simplicity’s sake, many labor and delivery units perform universal type and screen.

The authors cautioned that these results occurred in an academic tertiary care center with systems fine-tuned to deal with active hemorrhage and deliver timely transfusable blood. “At the moment we don’t have enough data to say whether the selective approach would be safe in hospitals with more limited blood bank capacity and access and fewer transfusion specialists in a setting optimized to respond to emergent needs, Dr. Benson said.

Katayoun F. M. Fomani, MD, a transfusion medicine specialist and medical director of blood bank and transfusion services at Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New York, agreed. “This approach only works in a controlled environment such as in this study where eligible women were assessed antenatally at the same center, but it would not work at every institution,” she said in an interview. “In addition, all patients were assessed according to the California Collaborative guideline, which itself increases the safety level but is not followed everywhere.”

The obstetric division at her hospital in New York adheres to the universal type and screen. “We have patients coming in from outside whose antenatal testing was not done at our hospital,” she said. “For this selective approach to work you need a controlled population and the electronic resources and personnel to follow each patient carefully.”

The authors indicated no specific funding for this study and disclosed no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Fomani had no potential competing interests to declare.

In ongoing efforts to investigate a link between vitamin D and colorectal cancer, new research shows that women who consume higher levels of vitamin D – particularly from dietary sources – have a reduced risk of developing early-onset colorectal cancer, compared with those who have lower levels.

This is according to an observational study published in the journal Gastroenterology. The study included 94,205 women (aged 25-42 years) who were followed between 1991 and 2015 during which 111 incident cases of early-onset colorectal cancer were diagnosed. Among 29,186 women who had at least one lower endoscopy from 1991 to 2011, 1,439 newly diagnosed conventional adenomas and 1,878 serrated polyps were found.

Women who consumed the highest average levels of total vitamin D of 450 IU per day, compared with those consuming less than 300 IU per day, showed a significantly reduced risk of early-onset colorectal cancer. Consuming 400 IU each day was associated with a 54% reduced risk of early-onset colorectal cancer.

“If confirmed, our findings could potentially lead to recommendations for higher vitamin D intake as an inexpensive low-risk complement to colorectal cancer screening as a prevention strategy for adults younger than age 50,” wrote the study authors, led by Edward L. Giovannucci, MD, ScD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

Associations between vitamin D levels and colorectal cancer have been documented in review articles over the years. The link is the subject of 10 recently completed or ongoing clinical trials. Few studies have focused on early colorectal cancer and vitamin D intake. Unlike advanced colorectal cancer, the early-onset form of the disease is not as strongly associated with the traditional risk factors of a family history of colorectal cancer and it is therefore believed to be more strongly linked to other factors, such as lifestyle and diet – including vitamin D supplementation.
 

The evidence is in, but it’s incomplete

In addition to the new study in Gastroenterology, other observational studies, as well as laboratory and animal studies, suggest that vitamin D plays a role in inhibiting carcinogenesis. Vitamin D, researchers theorize, contains anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and tumor angiogenesis properties that can slow the growth of tumors, but the evidence is mixed.

A meta-analysis of 137,567 patients published in 2013 in Preventive Medicine found an inverse association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and total cancer mortality in women, but not among men. Three meta-analyses published in 2014 and 2019 found that vitamin D supplementation does not affect cancer incidence but does significantly reduce total cancer mortality rates by 12%-13%.

In 2019, researchers led by Marjorie McCullough, ScD, RD, senior scientific director of epidemiology research for the American Cancer Society, described a causal relationship between circulating vitamin D and colorectal cancer risk among 17 cohorts from a pooled analysis. “Our study suggests that optimal circulating 25(OH)D concentrations for colorectal cancer risk reduction are 75-100 nmol/L, [which is] higher than current Institute of Medicine recommendations for bone health,” she and colleagues wrote. Their findings were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL) published in 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed no significant effect of vitamin D₃ supplementation of 2,000 IU/day in lowering the risk of invasive cancer or cardiovascular events.

Despite the mixed results, studies offer valuable insights into cancer risks, said Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, codirector of the colorectal cancer moon shot research program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The Gastroenterology study is noteworthy because it focuses on early-onset colorectal cancer, he said.

“[The authors] demonstrate for the first time that there is an association of vitamin D intake with early-onset colorectal incidence, especially in the left side of the colon and rectum where the increase in early onset colorectal cancer manifests,” Dr. Kopetz said. “The analysis suggests that it may require long-term vitamin D intake to derive the benefit, which may explain why some shorter-term randomized studies failed to demonstrate.”

In animal models, vitamin D₃ is “estimated to lower the incidence of colorectal cancer by 50%,” according to Lidija Klampfer, PhD, formerly a molecular biologist and senior research scientist with the Southern Research Institute, Birmingham, Ala.

Dr. Klampfer, a founding partner of ProteXase Therapeutics, is the author of an article on vitamin D and colon cancer published in 2014 in the World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology.

“The levels of vitamin D3 appear to be an essential determinant for the development and progression of colon cancer and supplementation with vitamin D3 is effective in suppressing intestinal tumorigenesis in animal models,” she wrote. “Studies have shown that 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D₃ can inhibit tumor-promoting inflammation leading to the development and progression of colon cancer.”
 

The hazards of a vitamin D deficiency

A severe vitamin D deficiency is associated with compromised bone and muscle health, calcium absorption, immunity, heart function and it can affect mood. Other studies have linked vitamin D deficiency to colorectal cancer, blood cancers, and bowel cancer.

Serum 25(OH)D is the primary circulating form of vitamin D and is considered the best marker for assessing vitamin D status, says Karin Amrein, MD, MSc, an endocrinologist with the Medical University of Graz (Austria). She was the lead author of a review on vitamin D deficiency published in January 2020 in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The Global Consensus Recommendations define vitamin D insufficiency as 12-20 ng/mL (30-50 nmol/L) and a deficiency as a serum 25OHD concentration less than 12 ng/mL (30 nmol/L). A deficiency in adults is usually treated with 50,000 IU of vitamin D2 or D3 once weekly for 8 weeks followed by maintenance dosages of cholecalciferol (vitamin D₃) at 800-1,000 IU daily from dietary and supplemental sources.

Screening is recommended for individuals who exhibit symptoms and conditions associated with a vitamin D deficiency, but there is little agreement on recommended serum levels because every individual is different, according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force which updated its vitamin D recommendations in April for the first time in 7 years.

In ongoing efforts to investigate a link between vitamin D and colorectal cancer, new research shows that women who consume higher levels of vitamin D – particularly from dietary sources – have a reduced risk of developing early-onset colorectal cancer, compared with those who have lower levels.

This is according to an observational study published in the journal Gastroenterology. The study included 94,205 women (aged 25-42 years) who were followed between 1991 and 2015 during which 111 incident cases of early-onset colorectal cancer were diagnosed. Among 29,186 women who had at least one lower endoscopy from 1991 to 2011, 1,439 newly diagnosed conventional adenomas and 1,878 serrated polyps were found.

Women who consumed the highest average levels of total vitamin D of 450 IU per day, compared with those consuming less than 300 IU per day, showed a significantly reduced risk of early-onset colorectal cancer. Consuming 400 IU each day was associated with a 54% reduced risk of early-onset colorectal cancer.

“If confirmed, our findings could potentially lead to recommendations for higher vitamin D intake as an inexpensive low-risk complement to colorectal cancer screening as a prevention strategy for adults younger than age 50,” wrote the study authors, led by Edward L. Giovannucci, MD, ScD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

Associations between vitamin D levels and colorectal cancer have been documented in review articles over the years. The link is the subject of 10 recently completed or ongoing clinical trials. Few studies have focused on early colorectal cancer and vitamin D intake. Unlike advanced colorectal cancer, the early-onset form of the disease is not as strongly associated with the traditional risk factors of a family history of colorectal cancer and it is therefore believed to be more strongly linked to other factors, such as lifestyle and diet – including vitamin D supplementation.
 

The evidence is in, but it’s incomplete

In addition to the new study in Gastroenterology, other observational studies, as well as laboratory and animal studies, suggest that vitamin D plays a role in inhibiting carcinogenesis. Vitamin D, researchers theorize, contains anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and tumor angiogenesis properties that can slow the growth of tumors, but the evidence is mixed.

A meta-analysis of 137,567 patients published in 2013 in Preventive Medicine found an inverse association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and total cancer mortality in women, but not among men. Three meta-analyses published in 2014 and 2019 found that vitamin D supplementation does not affect cancer incidence but does significantly reduce total cancer mortality rates by 12%-13%.

In 2019, researchers led by Marjorie McCullough, ScD, RD, senior scientific director of epidemiology research for the American Cancer Society, described a causal relationship between circulating vitamin D and colorectal cancer risk among 17 cohorts from a pooled analysis. “Our study suggests that optimal circulating 25(OH)D concentrations for colorectal cancer risk reduction are 75-100 nmol/L, [which is] higher than current Institute of Medicine recommendations for bone health,” she and colleagues wrote. Their findings were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL) published in 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed no significant effect of vitamin D₃ supplementation of 2,000 IU/day in lowering the risk of invasive cancer or cardiovascular events.

Despite the mixed results, studies offer valuable insights into cancer risks, said Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, codirector of the colorectal cancer moon shot research program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The Gastroenterology study is noteworthy because it focuses on early-onset colorectal cancer, he said.

“[The authors] demonstrate for the first time that there is an association of vitamin D intake with early-onset colorectal incidence, especially in the left side of the colon and rectum where the increase in early onset colorectal cancer manifests,” Dr. Kopetz said. “The analysis suggests that it may require long-term vitamin D intake to derive the benefit, which may explain why some shorter-term randomized studies failed to demonstrate.”

In animal models, vitamin D₃ is “estimated to lower the incidence of colorectal cancer by 50%,” according to Lidija Klampfer, PhD, formerly a molecular biologist and senior research scientist with the Southern Research Institute, Birmingham, Ala.

Dr. Klampfer, a founding partner of ProteXase Therapeutics, is the author of an article on vitamin D and colon cancer published in 2014 in the World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology.

“The levels of vitamin D3 appear to be an essential determinant for the development and progression of colon cancer and supplementation with vitamin D3 is effective in suppressing intestinal tumorigenesis in animal models,” she wrote. “Studies have shown that 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D₃ can inhibit tumor-promoting inflammation leading to the development and progression of colon cancer.”
 

The hazards of a vitamin D deficiency

A severe vitamin D deficiency is associated with compromised bone and muscle health, calcium absorption, immunity, heart function and it can affect mood. Other studies have linked vitamin D deficiency to colorectal cancer, blood cancers, and bowel cancer.

Serum 25(OH)D is the primary circulating form of vitamin D and is considered the best marker for assessing vitamin D status, says Karin Amrein, MD, MSc, an endocrinologist with the Medical University of Graz (Austria). She was the lead author of a review on vitamin D deficiency published in January 2020 in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The Global Consensus Recommendations define vitamin D insufficiency as 12-20 ng/mL (30-50 nmol/L) and a deficiency as a serum 25OHD concentration less than 12 ng/mL (30 nmol/L). A deficiency in adults is usually treated with 50,000 IU of vitamin D2 or D3 once weekly for 8 weeks followed by maintenance dosages of cholecalciferol (vitamin D₃) at 800-1,000 IU daily from dietary and supplemental sources.

Screening is recommended for individuals who exhibit symptoms and conditions associated with a vitamin D deficiency, but there is little agreement on recommended serum levels because every individual is different, according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force which updated its vitamin D recommendations in April for the first time in 7 years.

In ongoing efforts to investigate a link between vitamin D and colorectal cancer, new research shows that women who consume higher levels of vitamin D – particularly from dietary sources – have a reduced risk of developing early-onset colorectal cancer, compared with those who have lower levels.

This is according to an observational study published in the journal Gastroenterology. The study included 94,205 women (aged 25-42 years) who were followed between 1991 and 2015 during which 111 incident cases of early-onset colorectal cancer were diagnosed. Among 29,186 women who had at least one lower endoscopy from 1991 to 2011, 1,439 newly diagnosed conventional adenomas and 1,878 serrated polyps were found.

Women who consumed the highest average levels of total vitamin D of 450 IU per day, compared with those consuming less than 300 IU per day, showed a significantly reduced risk of early-onset colorectal cancer. Consuming 400 IU each day was associated with a 54% reduced risk of early-onset colorectal cancer.

“If confirmed, our findings could potentially lead to recommendations for higher vitamin D intake as an inexpensive low-risk complement to colorectal cancer screening as a prevention strategy for adults younger than age 50,” wrote the study authors, led by Edward L. Giovannucci, MD, ScD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.

Associations between vitamin D levels and colorectal cancer have been documented in review articles over the years. The link is the subject of 10 recently completed or ongoing clinical trials. Few studies have focused on early colorectal cancer and vitamin D intake. Unlike advanced colorectal cancer, the early-onset form of the disease is not as strongly associated with the traditional risk factors of a family history of colorectal cancer and it is therefore believed to be more strongly linked to other factors, such as lifestyle and diet – including vitamin D supplementation.
 

The evidence is in, but it’s incomplete

In addition to the new study in Gastroenterology, other observational studies, as well as laboratory and animal studies, suggest that vitamin D plays a role in inhibiting carcinogenesis. Vitamin D, researchers theorize, contains anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, and tumor angiogenesis properties that can slow the growth of tumors, but the evidence is mixed.

A meta-analysis of 137,567 patients published in 2013 in Preventive Medicine found an inverse association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) and total cancer mortality in women, but not among men. Three meta-analyses published in 2014 and 2019 found that vitamin D supplementation does not affect cancer incidence but does significantly reduce total cancer mortality rates by 12%-13%.

In 2019, researchers led by Marjorie McCullough, ScD, RD, senior scientific director of epidemiology research for the American Cancer Society, described a causal relationship between circulating vitamin D and colorectal cancer risk among 17 cohorts from a pooled analysis. “Our study suggests that optimal circulating 25(OH)D concentrations for colorectal cancer risk reduction are 75-100 nmol/L, [which is] higher than current Institute of Medicine recommendations for bone health,” she and colleagues wrote. Their findings were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL) published in 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine, showed no significant effect of vitamin D₃ supplementation of 2,000 IU/day in lowering the risk of invasive cancer or cardiovascular events.

Despite the mixed results, studies offer valuable insights into cancer risks, said Scott Kopetz, MD, PhD, codirector of the colorectal cancer moon shot research program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

The Gastroenterology study is noteworthy because it focuses on early-onset colorectal cancer, he said.

“[The authors] demonstrate for the first time that there is an association of vitamin D intake with early-onset colorectal incidence, especially in the left side of the colon and rectum where the increase in early onset colorectal cancer manifests,” Dr. Kopetz said. “The analysis suggests that it may require long-term vitamin D intake to derive the benefit, which may explain why some shorter-term randomized studies failed to demonstrate.”

In animal models, vitamin D₃ is “estimated to lower the incidence of colorectal cancer by 50%,” according to Lidija Klampfer, PhD, formerly a molecular biologist and senior research scientist with the Southern Research Institute, Birmingham, Ala.

Dr. Klampfer, a founding partner of ProteXase Therapeutics, is the author of an article on vitamin D and colon cancer published in 2014 in the World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology.

“The levels of vitamin D3 appear to be an essential determinant for the development and progression of colon cancer and supplementation with vitamin D3 is effective in suppressing intestinal tumorigenesis in animal models,” she wrote. “Studies have shown that 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D₃ can inhibit tumor-promoting inflammation leading to the development and progression of colon cancer.”
 

The hazards of a vitamin D deficiency

A severe vitamin D deficiency is associated with compromised bone and muscle health, calcium absorption, immunity, heart function and it can affect mood. Other studies have linked vitamin D deficiency to colorectal cancer, blood cancers, and bowel cancer.

Serum 25(OH)D is the primary circulating form of vitamin D and is considered the best marker for assessing vitamin D status, says Karin Amrein, MD, MSc, an endocrinologist with the Medical University of Graz (Austria). She was the lead author of a review on vitamin D deficiency published in January 2020 in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The Global Consensus Recommendations define vitamin D insufficiency as 12-20 ng/mL (30-50 nmol/L) and a deficiency as a serum 25OHD concentration less than 12 ng/mL (30 nmol/L). A deficiency in adults is usually treated with 50,000 IU of vitamin D2 or D3 once weekly for 8 weeks followed by maintenance dosages of cholecalciferol (vitamin D₃) at 800-1,000 IU daily from dietary and supplemental sources.

Screening is recommended for individuals who exhibit symptoms and conditions associated with a vitamin D deficiency, but there is little agreement on recommended serum levels because every individual is different, according to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force which updated its vitamin D recommendations in April for the first time in 7 years.

A new study suggests that tiny, clear nematodes can sniff out early-stage pancreatic cancer.

Research shows Caenorhabditis elegans are attracted to the odor certain chemicals give off – a behavior known as attractive chemotaxis – and early evidence indicates these scents may include human cancer cell secretions, cancer tissues, and urine from patients with colorectal, gastric, and breast cancers.

According to the recent analysis, published in Oncotarget, these small worms may be hot on the trail of pancreatic cancer–related compounds too. The researchers found that C. elegans were significantly more attracted to patients with early-stage pancreatic cancer versus healthy controls.

There is a huge need for research like this that explores strategies to detect pancreatic cancer early, but it’s far too soon to tell how, or if, this particular approach will be clinically relevant, according to Neeha Zaidi, MD, assistant professor of oncology and a medical oncologist specializing in pancreatic cancer at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who was not involved in the current analysis.

Right now, few diagnostic markers exist for identifying pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs), which account for 90% of pancreatic cancers. PDACs remain one of the deadliest cancers, with a 5-year survival rate of 9%.

A combination of surgical resection and chemotherapy is the only curative treatment, and just 20% of patients are eligible, Dr. Zaidi said. The majority are identified after the disease has metastasized.

However, patients’ 5-year survival rate improves markedly – as high as 85% – if the condition is caught sooner.

In the current study, the researchers first exposed C. elegans to the urine of 83 patients from cancer centers across Japan who had various stages of pancreatic cancer before and after undergoing surgical resection. Using an assay, which takes 30 minutes and 50-100 nematodes per test, C. elegans showed significantly higher chemotaxis toward preoperative urine, compared with postoperative urine.

In a second, closed-labeled arm, the nematodes were exposed to the urine of 28 randomized participants – 11 of whom had early-stage pancreatic cancer (0 or IA), plus 17 healthy volunteers. In this instance as well, C. elegans showed significantly higher chemotaxis in patients with early-stage pancreatic cancer, compared with healthy volunteers (P = .034). 

According to the authors, C. elegans “had a higher sensitivity for detecting early pancreatic cancer compared to existing diagnostic markers.” And while this strategy needs to be further validated, they believe early detection of pancreatic cancer using C. elegans “can certainly be expected in the near future.”

The study aligns with previous research, showing that wild-type C. elegans are sensitive to scent and that these critters can smell cancer. Other studies have also found that sniffer canines can detect volatile organic compounds – including biomarkers of certain cancers – in the urine and breath of cancer patients. But training an adequate number of these canines for the clinic isn’t feasible, while C. elegans are far more compact and affordable.

According to Dr. Zaidi, a scent test using C. elegans “seems pretty feasible” and cost effective, but whether this approach will “change our care has yet to be determined.”

The authors, for instance, don’t specify how the scent test will be used, though Dr. Zaidi suspects it would be most relevant for following patients with a higher risk of pancreatic cancer. Alternatively, it could be used as a screening test, but that’s a massive undertaking and “this is way too early to tell if it’s going to be helpful to use this test on a broad scale,” Dr. Zaidi said.

To validate the approach, researchers would also need to know what exactly the C. elegans are smelling and to test it in a much larger number of patients, Dr. Zaidi said. The mere 11 patients with cancer in the blinded portion of the study are not sufficient to draw any major conclusions.

The study also claims a high sensitivity, but what about specificity, Dr. Zaidi said. In other words, are there a lot of false positives? 

In addition, a deeper look at the participants shows the two groups – early PDAC and healthy volunteers – were not adequately balanced. The median age of the diseased patients was 70, and the healthy volunteers was 39.

“This is a big difference,” Eithne Costello, PhD, professor of molecular oncology at Liverpool (England) University, said in an interview. “It [also] appears the controls are all of one sex (either all male or all female), while the cancer group is mixed.”

The authors attributed these shortcomings to the small population they had to work with: There simply aren’t many patients whose pancreatic cancer is detected early. Dr. Zaidi agreed that patients with pancreatic cancer stage 0 or IA are extremely difficult to come by.

Even still, researchers need to understand the mechanisms behind this approach and see it work in a much larger group of patients, Dr. Zaidi said.

The study was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology. The authors reported institutional endowments received from Hirotsu Bio Science, Kinshu-kai Medical, IDEA Consultants, Ono Pharmaceutical, and others. Two coauthors are employees of Hirotsu Bio Science.

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

A new study suggests that tiny, clear nematodes can sniff out early-stage pancreatic cancer.

Research shows Caenorhabditis elegans are attracted to the odor certain chemicals give off – a behavior known as attractive chemotaxis – and early evidence indicates these scents may include human cancer cell secretions, cancer tissues, and urine from patients with colorectal, gastric, and breast cancers.

According to the recent analysis, published in Oncotarget, these small worms may be hot on the trail of pancreatic cancer–related compounds too. The researchers found that C. elegans were significantly more attracted to patients with early-stage pancreatic cancer versus healthy controls.

There is a huge need for research like this that explores strategies to detect pancreatic cancer early, but it’s far too soon to tell how, or if, this particular approach will be clinically relevant, according to Neeha Zaidi, MD, assistant professor of oncology and a medical oncologist specializing in pancreatic cancer at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who was not involved in the current analysis.

Right now, few diagnostic markers exist for identifying pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs), which account for 90% of pancreatic cancers. PDACs remain one of the deadliest cancers, with a 5-year survival rate of 9%.

A combination of surgical resection and chemotherapy is the only curative treatment, and just 20% of patients are eligible, Dr. Zaidi said. The majority are identified after the disease has metastasized.

However, patients’ 5-year survival rate improves markedly – as high as 85% – if the condition is caught sooner.

In the current study, the researchers first exposed C. elegans to the urine of 83 patients from cancer centers across Japan who had various stages of pancreatic cancer before and after undergoing surgical resection. Using an assay, which takes 30 minutes and 50-100 nematodes per test, C. elegans showed significantly higher chemotaxis toward preoperative urine, compared with postoperative urine.

In a second, closed-labeled arm, the nematodes were exposed to the urine of 28 randomized participants – 11 of whom had early-stage pancreatic cancer (0 or IA), plus 17 healthy volunteers. In this instance as well, C. elegans showed significantly higher chemotaxis in patients with early-stage pancreatic cancer, compared with healthy volunteers (P = .034). 

According to the authors, C. elegans “had a higher sensitivity for detecting early pancreatic cancer compared to existing diagnostic markers.” And while this strategy needs to be further validated, they believe early detection of pancreatic cancer using C. elegans “can certainly be expected in the near future.”

The study aligns with previous research, showing that wild-type C. elegans are sensitive to scent and that these critters can smell cancer. Other studies have also found that sniffer canines can detect volatile organic compounds – including biomarkers of certain cancers – in the urine and breath of cancer patients. But training an adequate number of these canines for the clinic isn’t feasible, while C. elegans are far more compact and affordable.

According to Dr. Zaidi, a scent test using C. elegans “seems pretty feasible” and cost effective, but whether this approach will “change our care has yet to be determined.”

The authors, for instance, don’t specify how the scent test will be used, though Dr. Zaidi suspects it would be most relevant for following patients with a higher risk of pancreatic cancer. Alternatively, it could be used as a screening test, but that’s a massive undertaking and “this is way too early to tell if it’s going to be helpful to use this test on a broad scale,” Dr. Zaidi said.

To validate the approach, researchers would also need to know what exactly the C. elegans are smelling and to test it in a much larger number of patients, Dr. Zaidi said. The mere 11 patients with cancer in the blinded portion of the study are not sufficient to draw any major conclusions.

The study also claims a high sensitivity, but what about specificity, Dr. Zaidi said. In other words, are there a lot of false positives? 

In addition, a deeper look at the participants shows the two groups – early PDAC and healthy volunteers – were not adequately balanced. The median age of the diseased patients was 70, and the healthy volunteers was 39.

“This is a big difference,” Eithne Costello, PhD, professor of molecular oncology at Liverpool (England) University, said in an interview. “It [also] appears the controls are all of one sex (either all male or all female), while the cancer group is mixed.”

The authors attributed these shortcomings to the small population they had to work with: There simply aren’t many patients whose pancreatic cancer is detected early. Dr. Zaidi agreed that patients with pancreatic cancer stage 0 or IA are extremely difficult to come by.

Even still, researchers need to understand the mechanisms behind this approach and see it work in a much larger group of patients, Dr. Zaidi said.

The study was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology. The authors reported institutional endowments received from Hirotsu Bio Science, Kinshu-kai Medical, IDEA Consultants, Ono Pharmaceutical, and others. Two coauthors are employees of Hirotsu Bio Science.

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

A new study suggests that tiny, clear nematodes can sniff out early-stage pancreatic cancer.

Research shows Caenorhabditis elegans are attracted to the odor certain chemicals give off – a behavior known as attractive chemotaxis – and early evidence indicates these scents may include human cancer cell secretions, cancer tissues, and urine from patients with colorectal, gastric, and breast cancers.

According to the recent analysis, published in Oncotarget, these small worms may be hot on the trail of pancreatic cancer–related compounds too. The researchers found that C. elegans were significantly more attracted to patients with early-stage pancreatic cancer versus healthy controls.

There is a huge need for research like this that explores strategies to detect pancreatic cancer early, but it’s far too soon to tell how, or if, this particular approach will be clinically relevant, according to Neeha Zaidi, MD, assistant professor of oncology and a medical oncologist specializing in pancreatic cancer at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, who was not involved in the current analysis.

Right now, few diagnostic markers exist for identifying pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas (PDACs), which account for 90% of pancreatic cancers. PDACs remain one of the deadliest cancers, with a 5-year survival rate of 9%.

A combination of surgical resection and chemotherapy is the only curative treatment, and just 20% of patients are eligible, Dr. Zaidi said. The majority are identified after the disease has metastasized.

However, patients’ 5-year survival rate improves markedly – as high as 85% – if the condition is caught sooner.

In the current study, the researchers first exposed C. elegans to the urine of 83 patients from cancer centers across Japan who had various stages of pancreatic cancer before and after undergoing surgical resection. Using an assay, which takes 30 minutes and 50-100 nematodes per test, C. elegans showed significantly higher chemotaxis toward preoperative urine, compared with postoperative urine.

In a second, closed-labeled arm, the nematodes were exposed to the urine of 28 randomized participants – 11 of whom had early-stage pancreatic cancer (0 or IA), plus 17 healthy volunteers. In this instance as well, C. elegans showed significantly higher chemotaxis in patients with early-stage pancreatic cancer, compared with healthy volunteers (P = .034). 

According to the authors, C. elegans “had a higher sensitivity for detecting early pancreatic cancer compared to existing diagnostic markers.” And while this strategy needs to be further validated, they believe early detection of pancreatic cancer using C. elegans “can certainly be expected in the near future.”

The study aligns with previous research, showing that wild-type C. elegans are sensitive to scent and that these critters can smell cancer. Other studies have also found that sniffer canines can detect volatile organic compounds – including biomarkers of certain cancers – in the urine and breath of cancer patients. But training an adequate number of these canines for the clinic isn’t feasible, while C. elegans are far more compact and affordable.

According to Dr. Zaidi, a scent test using C. elegans “seems pretty feasible” and cost effective, but whether this approach will “change our care has yet to be determined.”

The authors, for instance, don’t specify how the scent test will be used, though Dr. Zaidi suspects it would be most relevant for following patients with a higher risk of pancreatic cancer. Alternatively, it could be used as a screening test, but that’s a massive undertaking and “this is way too early to tell if it’s going to be helpful to use this test on a broad scale,” Dr. Zaidi said.

To validate the approach, researchers would also need to know what exactly the C. elegans are smelling and to test it in a much larger number of patients, Dr. Zaidi said. The mere 11 patients with cancer in the blinded portion of the study are not sufficient to draw any major conclusions.

The study also claims a high sensitivity, but what about specificity, Dr. Zaidi said. In other words, are there a lot of false positives? 

In addition, a deeper look at the participants shows the two groups – early PDAC and healthy volunteers – were not adequately balanced. The median age of the diseased patients was 70, and the healthy volunteers was 39.

“This is a big difference,” Eithne Costello, PhD, professor of molecular oncology at Liverpool (England) University, said in an interview. “It [also] appears the controls are all of one sex (either all male or all female), while the cancer group is mixed.”

The authors attributed these shortcomings to the small population they had to work with: There simply aren’t many patients whose pancreatic cancer is detected early. Dr. Zaidi agreed that patients with pancreatic cancer stage 0 or IA are extremely difficult to come by.

Even still, researchers need to understand the mechanisms behind this approach and see it work in a much larger group of patients, Dr. Zaidi said.

The study was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology. The authors reported institutional endowments received from Hirotsu Bio Science, Kinshu-kai Medical, IDEA Consultants, Ono Pharmaceutical, and others. Two coauthors are employees of Hirotsu Bio Science.

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

Adenoma miss rates were significantly lower with the use of an artificial intelligence (AI)–based computer-aided detection (CADe) system than with high-definition white light (HDWL), according to a new prospective, multicenter, single-blind randomized study based on data from more than 200 colonoscopies.

Missed adenomas can be generally categorized as adenomas fully obscured from the visual field or those appearing partly or fully in the visual field but missed by an endoscopist, wrote Jeremy R. Glissen Brown, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues. While retrospective and prospective studies in China, Italy, and Japan have shown that deep-learning CADe improves adenoma identification during colonoscopy, there have been no prospective U.S. studies on CADe in a diverse population, they noted.

In the study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the researchers reviewed data from 223 adults aged 22 years and older who underwent screening colonoscopies across four U.S. academic medical centers between 2019 and 2020. The procedure indication was primary colorectal cancer screening for 59.6% of the patients and postpolypectomy surveillance for 40.4%. Among this cohort, 45.3% (101) were female, 67.7% (151) were White, and 21% (133) were African American. Participants were randomized to receive either CADe colonoscopy first or HDWL colonoscopy first; the patients immediately underwent the other procedure in tandem fashion from the same endoscopist.

The primary outcome of the study was adenoma miss rate (AMR), defined as “the number of histologically confirmed adenomas detected during the second colonoscopy in either arm divided by the total number of adenomas detected during both procedures.” Sessile serrated lesion (SSL) miss rates and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) were secondary outcomes.

Overall, the primary outcome of AMR was significantly lower in the CADe-first group, compared with the HDWL-first group (20.12% vs. 31.25%; P = .0247), with an odds ratio of 1.8048 (95% CI, 1.0780-3.0217). The CADe-first group yielded a lower SSL miss rate, compared with the HDLW-first group (7.14% vs. 42.11%; P = .0482), as well as a lower polyp miss rate (20.70% vs. 33.71%; P = .0007). The first-pass number of APC was significantly higher in the CADe-first group, compared with the HDWL-first group (1.19 [SD 2.03] vs. 0.90 [SD 1.55]; P = .0323). In addition, the first-pass adenoma detection rate (ADR) was not significantly different in the CADe-first group, compared with the HDWL-first group (50.44% vs. 43.64%; P = .3091), and the median withdrawal time was significantly shorter with CADe, compared with HDWL (9.5 minutes vs. 8.5 minutes; P = .0098).

There were no significant observable differences between the two groups regarding missed adenomas arranged by size or location. Moreover, there were no significant differences in miss rates for hyperplastic polyps or advanced adenomas. Factors significantly associated with missed adenomas included being in the HDLW-first group, age 65 years or younger, and the right colon vs. other locations. No immediate adverse events occurred in either group.

According to the researchers, while previous studies in China and Italy have shown increased ADR using CADe systems, these results are not generalizable to the U.S. population for several reasons, notably the studies’ inclusion of colonoscopy indications other than colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. Though the present study showed a significantly lower AMR with CADe, it still represents missed adenomas. The researchers note: “In the present study, in which CADe detected 285 polyps, there were only three false negatives (defined as polyps that were visualized by the endoscopist but not by the CADe system). Overall, this suggests that the ‘missed polyps’ in the CADe arm may have been obscured behind folds rather than in the visual field.” They added, “Further research is needed on combining CADe technologies with mucosal exposure devices, as the benefits of these tools for polyp detection may be additive.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to detect a difference in overall ADR, the limited generalizability of the tandem study design to real-world practice, the inclusion of only experienced endoscopists, and the use of a second monitor that may have impacted gaze patterns, the researchers noted. However, the results represent the first examination of deep-learning CADe in a diverse U.S. population and showed a decrease in adenoma miss rates and decreased miss rates for polyps and SSLs, compared with HDWL. Based on these findings, the authors concluded CADe “has the potential to decrease inter-provider variability in colonoscopy quality by reducing adenoma miss rate even in experienced providers.”
 

Reducing miss rates matters

“Missed adenomas can be associated with the development of interval colorectal cancer, so whether novel technologies such as artificial intelligence-based computer-aided polyp detection system can decrease adenoma miss rate is of interest,” said Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, of the University of Chicago, in an interview.

Dr Sakuraba said he was not surprised by the current study findings, as several pilot and randomized studies have shown the benefits of AI-based polyp detection systems. As for how the AI-assisted technology might improve practice, he said it may be a valuable addition. “Adenoma miss rate was significantly lower with an AI-based polyp detection system, so it might lead to decreased colorectal cancer,” he explained. “Various methods to improve adenoma detection should complement each other. 

Dr. Sakuraba also commented that additional research is needed outside of academic centers, noting “further studies in the community setting involving various endoscopists are required to confirm generalizability.”

Lead author Dr. Glissen Brown had no financial conflicts to disclose. This was an investigator-initiated study, with research software and study funding provided by Wision. Dr. Sakuraba disclosed collaborative research with Fuji film, which was not involved in this study.

Adenoma miss rates were significantly lower with the use of an artificial intelligence (AI)–based computer-aided detection (CADe) system than with high-definition white light (HDWL), according to a new prospective, multicenter, single-blind randomized study based on data from more than 200 colonoscopies.

Missed adenomas can be generally categorized as adenomas fully obscured from the visual field or those appearing partly or fully in the visual field but missed by an endoscopist, wrote Jeremy R. Glissen Brown, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues. While retrospective and prospective studies in China, Italy, and Japan have shown that deep-learning CADe improves adenoma identification during colonoscopy, there have been no prospective U.S. studies on CADe in a diverse population, they noted.

In the study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the researchers reviewed data from 223 adults aged 22 years and older who underwent screening colonoscopies across four U.S. academic medical centers between 2019 and 2020. The procedure indication was primary colorectal cancer screening for 59.6% of the patients and postpolypectomy surveillance for 40.4%. Among this cohort, 45.3% (101) were female, 67.7% (151) were White, and 21% (133) were African American. Participants were randomized to receive either CADe colonoscopy first or HDWL colonoscopy first; the patients immediately underwent the other procedure in tandem fashion from the same endoscopist.

The primary outcome of the study was adenoma miss rate (AMR), defined as “the number of histologically confirmed adenomas detected during the second colonoscopy in either arm divided by the total number of adenomas detected during both procedures.” Sessile serrated lesion (SSL) miss rates and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) were secondary outcomes.

Overall, the primary outcome of AMR was significantly lower in the CADe-first group, compared with the HDWL-first group (20.12% vs. 31.25%; P = .0247), with an odds ratio of 1.8048 (95% CI, 1.0780-3.0217). The CADe-first group yielded a lower SSL miss rate, compared with the HDLW-first group (7.14% vs. 42.11%; P = .0482), as well as a lower polyp miss rate (20.70% vs. 33.71%; P = .0007). The first-pass number of APC was significantly higher in the CADe-first group, compared with the HDWL-first group (1.19 [SD 2.03] vs. 0.90 [SD 1.55]; P = .0323). In addition, the first-pass adenoma detection rate (ADR) was not significantly different in the CADe-first group, compared with the HDWL-first group (50.44% vs. 43.64%; P = .3091), and the median withdrawal time was significantly shorter with CADe, compared with HDWL (9.5 minutes vs. 8.5 minutes; P = .0098).

There were no significant observable differences between the two groups regarding missed adenomas arranged by size or location. Moreover, there were no significant differences in miss rates for hyperplastic polyps or advanced adenomas. Factors significantly associated with missed adenomas included being in the HDLW-first group, age 65 years or younger, and the right colon vs. other locations. No immediate adverse events occurred in either group.

According to the researchers, while previous studies in China and Italy have shown increased ADR using CADe systems, these results are not generalizable to the U.S. population for several reasons, notably the studies’ inclusion of colonoscopy indications other than colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. Though the present study showed a significantly lower AMR with CADe, it still represents missed adenomas. The researchers note: “In the present study, in which CADe detected 285 polyps, there were only three false negatives (defined as polyps that were visualized by the endoscopist but not by the CADe system). Overall, this suggests that the ‘missed polyps’ in the CADe arm may have been obscured behind folds rather than in the visual field.” They added, “Further research is needed on combining CADe technologies with mucosal exposure devices, as the benefits of these tools for polyp detection may be additive.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to detect a difference in overall ADR, the limited generalizability of the tandem study design to real-world practice, the inclusion of only experienced endoscopists, and the use of a second monitor that may have impacted gaze patterns, the researchers noted. However, the results represent the first examination of deep-learning CADe in a diverse U.S. population and showed a decrease in adenoma miss rates and decreased miss rates for polyps and SSLs, compared with HDWL. Based on these findings, the authors concluded CADe “has the potential to decrease inter-provider variability in colonoscopy quality by reducing adenoma miss rate even in experienced providers.”
 

Reducing miss rates matters

“Missed adenomas can be associated with the development of interval colorectal cancer, so whether novel technologies such as artificial intelligence-based computer-aided polyp detection system can decrease adenoma miss rate is of interest,” said Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, of the University of Chicago, in an interview.

Dr Sakuraba said he was not surprised by the current study findings, as several pilot and randomized studies have shown the benefits of AI-based polyp detection systems. As for how the AI-assisted technology might improve practice, he said it may be a valuable addition. “Adenoma miss rate was significantly lower with an AI-based polyp detection system, so it might lead to decreased colorectal cancer,” he explained. “Various methods to improve adenoma detection should complement each other. 

Dr. Sakuraba also commented that additional research is needed outside of academic centers, noting “further studies in the community setting involving various endoscopists are required to confirm generalizability.”

Lead author Dr. Glissen Brown had no financial conflicts to disclose. This was an investigator-initiated study, with research software and study funding provided by Wision. Dr. Sakuraba disclosed collaborative research with Fuji film, which was not involved in this study.

Adenoma miss rates were significantly lower with the use of an artificial intelligence (AI)–based computer-aided detection (CADe) system than with high-definition white light (HDWL), according to a new prospective, multicenter, single-blind randomized study based on data from more than 200 colonoscopies.

Missed adenomas can be generally categorized as adenomas fully obscured from the visual field or those appearing partly or fully in the visual field but missed by an endoscopist, wrote Jeremy R. Glissen Brown, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues. While retrospective and prospective studies in China, Italy, and Japan have shown that deep-learning CADe improves adenoma identification during colonoscopy, there have been no prospective U.S. studies on CADe in a diverse population, they noted.

In the study published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the researchers reviewed data from 223 adults aged 22 years and older who underwent screening colonoscopies across four U.S. academic medical centers between 2019 and 2020. The procedure indication was primary colorectal cancer screening for 59.6% of the patients and postpolypectomy surveillance for 40.4%. Among this cohort, 45.3% (101) were female, 67.7% (151) were White, and 21% (133) were African American. Participants were randomized to receive either CADe colonoscopy first or HDWL colonoscopy first; the patients immediately underwent the other procedure in tandem fashion from the same endoscopist.

The primary outcome of the study was adenoma miss rate (AMR), defined as “the number of histologically confirmed adenomas detected during the second colonoscopy in either arm divided by the total number of adenomas detected during both procedures.” Sessile serrated lesion (SSL) miss rates and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) were secondary outcomes.

Overall, the primary outcome of AMR was significantly lower in the CADe-first group, compared with the HDWL-first group (20.12% vs. 31.25%; P = .0247), with an odds ratio of 1.8048 (95% CI, 1.0780-3.0217). The CADe-first group yielded a lower SSL miss rate, compared with the HDLW-first group (7.14% vs. 42.11%; P = .0482), as well as a lower polyp miss rate (20.70% vs. 33.71%; P = .0007). The first-pass number of APC was significantly higher in the CADe-first group, compared with the HDWL-first group (1.19 [SD 2.03] vs. 0.90 [SD 1.55]; P = .0323). In addition, the first-pass adenoma detection rate (ADR) was not significantly different in the CADe-first group, compared with the HDWL-first group (50.44% vs. 43.64%; P = .3091), and the median withdrawal time was significantly shorter with CADe, compared with HDWL (9.5 minutes vs. 8.5 minutes; P = .0098).

There were no significant observable differences between the two groups regarding missed adenomas arranged by size or location. Moreover, there were no significant differences in miss rates for hyperplastic polyps or advanced adenomas. Factors significantly associated with missed adenomas included being in the HDLW-first group, age 65 years or younger, and the right colon vs. other locations. No immediate adverse events occurred in either group.

According to the researchers, while previous studies in China and Italy have shown increased ADR using CADe systems, these results are not generalizable to the U.S. population for several reasons, notably the studies’ inclusion of colonoscopy indications other than colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. Though the present study showed a significantly lower AMR with CADe, it still represents missed adenomas. The researchers note: “In the present study, in which CADe detected 285 polyps, there were only three false negatives (defined as polyps that were visualized by the endoscopist but not by the CADe system). Overall, this suggests that the ‘missed polyps’ in the CADe arm may have been obscured behind folds rather than in the visual field.” They added, “Further research is needed on combining CADe technologies with mucosal exposure devices, as the benefits of these tools for polyp detection may be additive.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to detect a difference in overall ADR, the limited generalizability of the tandem study design to real-world practice, the inclusion of only experienced endoscopists, and the use of a second monitor that may have impacted gaze patterns, the researchers noted. However, the results represent the first examination of deep-learning CADe in a diverse U.S. population and showed a decrease in adenoma miss rates and decreased miss rates for polyps and SSLs, compared with HDWL. Based on these findings, the authors concluded CADe “has the potential to decrease inter-provider variability in colonoscopy quality by reducing adenoma miss rate even in experienced providers.”
 

Reducing miss rates matters

“Missed adenomas can be associated with the development of interval colorectal cancer, so whether novel technologies such as artificial intelligence-based computer-aided polyp detection system can decrease adenoma miss rate is of interest,” said Atsushi Sakuraba, MD, of the University of Chicago, in an interview.

Dr Sakuraba said he was not surprised by the current study findings, as several pilot and randomized studies have shown the benefits of AI-based polyp detection systems. As for how the AI-assisted technology might improve practice, he said it may be a valuable addition. “Adenoma miss rate was significantly lower with an AI-based polyp detection system, so it might lead to decreased colorectal cancer,” he explained. “Various methods to improve adenoma detection should complement each other. 

Dr. Sakuraba also commented that additional research is needed outside of academic centers, noting “further studies in the community setting involving various endoscopists are required to confirm generalizability.”

Lead author Dr. Glissen Brown had no financial conflicts to disclose. This was an investigator-initiated study, with research software and study funding provided by Wision. Dr. Sakuraba disclosed collaborative research with Fuji film, which was not involved in this study.

In the first study of its kind, women with a breast cancer diagnosis who recalled eating nuts were found to have a significantly better disease-free survival over a 10-year study period, compared with those who said they had not eaten nuts.

PxHere

There was also an improvement in overall survival, but this was not statistically significant.

The finding comes from a study of more than 3,000 patients conducted in China, published online in the International Journal of Cancer. Patients were queried about nut consumption on only one occasion, 5 years after their breast cancer diagnosis. 

The investigators report a dose-response pattern between nut eating and the risk of both breast cancer recurrence and overall mortality, with those consuming the largest amounts having the lowest risks.

“Nuts are important components of healthy diets. Promoting this modifiable lifestyle factor should be emphasized in breast cancer survivor guidelines,” conclude Xiao-Ou Shu, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues in the study.

“The association for disease-free survival is quite strong and robust,” Dr. Shu told this news organization.

However, as with all observational studies, this report shows an association and not causation.

“Based upon this study alone, the evidence is weak,” said Wendy Chen, MD, MPH, a breast oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was approached for comment.  

The people who consumed nuts generally had more education, higher income, lower body mass index, earlier-stage cancers, and more physically active lives – all factors associated with better breast cancer survival, she observed. “The authors tried to control for these factors,” Dr. Chen acknowledged. But it’s hard to know whether nut consumption was “truly” the difference maker, she said.

Furthermore, the study population is also “a bit unusual” because people had to survive 5 years after diagnosis to be included in the analysis – and thus is not representative of breast cancer survivors, she noted.

Erin Van Blarigan, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, described the overall evidence of the beneficial relationship between nut eating and breast cancer – including this study – as “limited.” She previously led a study that observed benefits of nut intake for patients with colon cancer.

Dr. Van Blarigan also noted that nut intake in this study was “very low” – with the median intake less than one serving per week.

She also offered some general advice about eating nuts.  

“Nuts are an energy-dense food, so portion sizes should be kept small,” she said, explaining a portion should be about 1 ounce or 1/4 cup of nuts or 1-2 tablespoons of nut butter.

A little may go a long way, she suggested, as research to date “suggests only small amounts may be needed to gain potential benefits.”

The level of nut consumption was low in the Chinese study population (median = 17.3 grams/week) compared with the 42.5 grams/week recommended by the American Heart Association, the study authors acknowledge.

“Nuts, particularly tree nuts, are expensive in China. Traditionally, nut consumption level has been low among Chinese, particularly in the old generation,” commented Dr. Shu.
 

Study authors did an adjusted analysis

The new study was conducted among 3,449 participants of the Shanghai Breast Cancer Survival Study.

Nut consumption (including peanuts and tree nuts such as walnuts) was assessed with a food questionnaire at 5 years post-diagnosis.

An analysis was conducted at 10 years post-diagnosis (and 5 years after the diet questionnaire). At this 10-year mark, there were 252 breast cancer-specific deaths. Among 3,274 survivors without previous recurrence at the dietary assessment, 209 went on to develop breast cancer-specific events – either recurrence, metastasis, or breast cancer mortality.

Nut consumers had higher overall survival (93.7% vs. 89%; P = .003) and disease-free survival (94.1% vs. 86.2%; P <.001) rates than nonconsumers.

However, the two groups had many differences, as noted by the authors and outside experts.

The consumers had a younger age at diagnosis, lower BMI, higher total energy intake, higher diet quality score, and higher soy food intake. In addition, nut consumers were more likely to have a higher education, personal income, and physical activity level (≥7.5 metabolic equivalent of task-hour/week) as well as to have received immunotherapy.

So the investigators adjusted for many of those variables and found that nut consumption was associated with significantly better disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.75), but a nonsignificantly improved overall survival (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.66-1.23), as noted above.

Analyses by amount of nut intake showed a dose-response relationship for both overall survival (P trend = .022) and disease-free survival (P trend = .003).

The authors say that “there has been no strong evidence to support individual food items in favor of breast cancer survival,” citing a 2018 report entitled “Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Survivors” from the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research.

The new study provides evidence that nuts may be such a food, they say, while also calling for studies to confirm their findings.

Study limitations include that fact that the statuses of recurrence and metastasis were self-reported. Misclassification, particularly regarding the event date, is likely, the team says.

The study authors and Dr. Van Blarigan and Dr. Chen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the first study of its kind, women with a breast cancer diagnosis who recalled eating nuts were found to have a significantly better disease-free survival over a 10-year study period, compared with those who said they had not eaten nuts.

PxHere

There was also an improvement in overall survival, but this was not statistically significant.

The finding comes from a study of more than 3,000 patients conducted in China, published online in the International Journal of Cancer. Patients were queried about nut consumption on only one occasion, 5 years after their breast cancer diagnosis. 

The investigators report a dose-response pattern between nut eating and the risk of both breast cancer recurrence and overall mortality, with those consuming the largest amounts having the lowest risks.

“Nuts are important components of healthy diets. Promoting this modifiable lifestyle factor should be emphasized in breast cancer survivor guidelines,” conclude Xiao-Ou Shu, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues in the study.

“The association for disease-free survival is quite strong and robust,” Dr. Shu told this news organization.

However, as with all observational studies, this report shows an association and not causation.

“Based upon this study alone, the evidence is weak,” said Wendy Chen, MD, MPH, a breast oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was approached for comment.  

The people who consumed nuts generally had more education, higher income, lower body mass index, earlier-stage cancers, and more physically active lives – all factors associated with better breast cancer survival, she observed. “The authors tried to control for these factors,” Dr. Chen acknowledged. But it’s hard to know whether nut consumption was “truly” the difference maker, she said.

Furthermore, the study population is also “a bit unusual” because people had to survive 5 years after diagnosis to be included in the analysis – and thus is not representative of breast cancer survivors, she noted.

Erin Van Blarigan, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, described the overall evidence of the beneficial relationship between nut eating and breast cancer – including this study – as “limited.” She previously led a study that observed benefits of nut intake for patients with colon cancer.

Dr. Van Blarigan also noted that nut intake in this study was “very low” – with the median intake less than one serving per week.

She also offered some general advice about eating nuts.  

“Nuts are an energy-dense food, so portion sizes should be kept small,” she said, explaining a portion should be about 1 ounce or 1/4 cup of nuts or 1-2 tablespoons of nut butter.

A little may go a long way, she suggested, as research to date “suggests only small amounts may be needed to gain potential benefits.”

The level of nut consumption was low in the Chinese study population (median = 17.3 grams/week) compared with the 42.5 grams/week recommended by the American Heart Association, the study authors acknowledge.

“Nuts, particularly tree nuts, are expensive in China. Traditionally, nut consumption level has been low among Chinese, particularly in the old generation,” commented Dr. Shu.
 

Study authors did an adjusted analysis

The new study was conducted among 3,449 participants of the Shanghai Breast Cancer Survival Study.

Nut consumption (including peanuts and tree nuts such as walnuts) was assessed with a food questionnaire at 5 years post-diagnosis.

An analysis was conducted at 10 years post-diagnosis (and 5 years after the diet questionnaire). At this 10-year mark, there were 252 breast cancer-specific deaths. Among 3,274 survivors without previous recurrence at the dietary assessment, 209 went on to develop breast cancer-specific events – either recurrence, metastasis, or breast cancer mortality.

Nut consumers had higher overall survival (93.7% vs. 89%; P = .003) and disease-free survival (94.1% vs. 86.2%; P <.001) rates than nonconsumers.

However, the two groups had many differences, as noted by the authors and outside experts.

The consumers had a younger age at diagnosis, lower BMI, higher total energy intake, higher diet quality score, and higher soy food intake. In addition, nut consumers were more likely to have a higher education, personal income, and physical activity level (≥7.5 metabolic equivalent of task-hour/week) as well as to have received immunotherapy.

So the investigators adjusted for many of those variables and found that nut consumption was associated with significantly better disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.75), but a nonsignificantly improved overall survival (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.66-1.23), as noted above.

Analyses by amount of nut intake showed a dose-response relationship for both overall survival (P trend = .022) and disease-free survival (P trend = .003).

The authors say that “there has been no strong evidence to support individual food items in favor of breast cancer survival,” citing a 2018 report entitled “Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Survivors” from the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research.

The new study provides evidence that nuts may be such a food, they say, while also calling for studies to confirm their findings.

Study limitations include that fact that the statuses of recurrence and metastasis were self-reported. Misclassification, particularly regarding the event date, is likely, the team says.

The study authors and Dr. Van Blarigan and Dr. Chen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the first study of its kind, women with a breast cancer diagnosis who recalled eating nuts were found to have a significantly better disease-free survival over a 10-year study period, compared with those who said they had not eaten nuts.

PxHere

There was also an improvement in overall survival, but this was not statistically significant.

The finding comes from a study of more than 3,000 patients conducted in China, published online in the International Journal of Cancer. Patients were queried about nut consumption on only one occasion, 5 years after their breast cancer diagnosis. 

The investigators report a dose-response pattern between nut eating and the risk of both breast cancer recurrence and overall mortality, with those consuming the largest amounts having the lowest risks.

“Nuts are important components of healthy diets. Promoting this modifiable lifestyle factor should be emphasized in breast cancer survivor guidelines,” conclude Xiao-Ou Shu, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues in the study.

“The association for disease-free survival is quite strong and robust,” Dr. Shu told this news organization.

However, as with all observational studies, this report shows an association and not causation.

“Based upon this study alone, the evidence is weak,” said Wendy Chen, MD, MPH, a breast oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was approached for comment.  

The people who consumed nuts generally had more education, higher income, lower body mass index, earlier-stage cancers, and more physically active lives – all factors associated with better breast cancer survival, she observed. “The authors tried to control for these factors,” Dr. Chen acknowledged. But it’s hard to know whether nut consumption was “truly” the difference maker, she said.

Furthermore, the study population is also “a bit unusual” because people had to survive 5 years after diagnosis to be included in the analysis – and thus is not representative of breast cancer survivors, she noted.

Erin Van Blarigan, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, described the overall evidence of the beneficial relationship between nut eating and breast cancer – including this study – as “limited.” She previously led a study that observed benefits of nut intake for patients with colon cancer.

Dr. Van Blarigan also noted that nut intake in this study was “very low” – with the median intake less than one serving per week.

She also offered some general advice about eating nuts.  

“Nuts are an energy-dense food, so portion sizes should be kept small,” she said, explaining a portion should be about 1 ounce or 1/4 cup of nuts or 1-2 tablespoons of nut butter.

A little may go a long way, she suggested, as research to date “suggests only small amounts may be needed to gain potential benefits.”

The level of nut consumption was low in the Chinese study population (median = 17.3 grams/week) compared with the 42.5 grams/week recommended by the American Heart Association, the study authors acknowledge.

“Nuts, particularly tree nuts, are expensive in China. Traditionally, nut consumption level has been low among Chinese, particularly in the old generation,” commented Dr. Shu.
 

Study authors did an adjusted analysis

The new study was conducted among 3,449 participants of the Shanghai Breast Cancer Survival Study.

Nut consumption (including peanuts and tree nuts such as walnuts) was assessed with a food questionnaire at 5 years post-diagnosis.

An analysis was conducted at 10 years post-diagnosis (and 5 years after the diet questionnaire). At this 10-year mark, there were 252 breast cancer-specific deaths. Among 3,274 survivors without previous recurrence at the dietary assessment, 209 went on to develop breast cancer-specific events – either recurrence, metastasis, or breast cancer mortality.

Nut consumers had higher overall survival (93.7% vs. 89%; P = .003) and disease-free survival (94.1% vs. 86.2%; P <.001) rates than nonconsumers.

However, the two groups had many differences, as noted by the authors and outside experts.

The consumers had a younger age at diagnosis, lower BMI, higher total energy intake, higher diet quality score, and higher soy food intake. In addition, nut consumers were more likely to have a higher education, personal income, and physical activity level (≥7.5 metabolic equivalent of task-hour/week) as well as to have received immunotherapy.

So the investigators adjusted for many of those variables and found that nut consumption was associated with significantly better disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.75), but a nonsignificantly improved overall survival (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.66-1.23), as noted above.

Analyses by amount of nut intake showed a dose-response relationship for both overall survival (P trend = .022) and disease-free survival (P trend = .003).

The authors say that “there has been no strong evidence to support individual food items in favor of breast cancer survival,” citing a 2018 report entitled “Diet, Nutrition, Physical Activity and Breast Cancer Survivors” from the World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research.

The new study provides evidence that nuts may be such a food, they say, while also calling for studies to confirm their findings.

Study limitations include that fact that the statuses of recurrence and metastasis were self-reported. Misclassification, particularly regarding the event date, is likely, the team says.

The study authors and Dr. Van Blarigan and Dr. Chen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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