AVAHO

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, oncologists still enjoyed an increase in their income as well as an increase in their overall wealth, according to the Medscape Oncologist Debt and Net Worth Report 2021.

Overall, oncologists’ average annual income rose from $377,000 in 2020 to $403,000 this year.

Although many offices closed for periods during 2020, some physicians used the Paycheck Protection Program. Others found other methods to keep their earnings relatively stable, such as switching to telehealth, cutting staff, and renegotiating leases.

The overall net worth of oncologists also increased. This year, 55% reported a net worth of $1.5 million, compared to 42% last year. A contributing factor is the rise in home prices, suggested Joel Greenwald, MD, CFP, a wealth management advisor for physicians.

The rise in the stock market also played a role, he noted. “And I’ve seen clients accumulate cash, which has added to their net worth. They cut back on spending because they were worried about big declines in income and also because there was simply less to spend money on.”

The percentage of oncologists (16%) with a net worth of more than $5 million stayed pretty much the same. Oncology remained in the upper half of the list of wealthy specialties. Topping that list are dermatology (28%), orthopedics and orthopedic surgery (25%), and plastic surgery (24%).

On the flip side, the percentage of oncologists on the lower end of the net worth scale declined from last year. Oncology was the specialty with the lowest percentage of practitioners (16%) reporting a net worth of under $500,000.
 

Expenses and debts

Similar to reports from previous years, this latest survey found that more than half of oncologists (56%) said they are paying off a mortgage on a primary residence. About a third (32%) are paying off a car loan. Credit card debt (19%), college or medical school loans (17%), childcare (14%), and medical expenses for themselves or a loved one (12%) were also reported.

When it comes to paying off school loans, oncology was near the bottom of the list of 29 medical specialties, along with nephrology, gastroenterology, and diabetes and endocrinology. Emergency medicine topped that list, followed by family medicine, pediatrics, physical medicine, and rehabilitation (all 31%).

Although the vast majority of oncologists (94%) were able to keep up with their bills, the pandemic did take a toll on some. Six percent said that they were unable to keep up with their bills, and 3% could not meet their mortgage. This is far superior to the American population at large – a quarter of adults missed a mortgage payment or rent payment because of challenges associated with the pandemic.
 

Saving and losses

Most oncologists did not take any extra steps to curtail spending – 77% reported that they had not done anything to reduce major expenses. About a quarter of respondents took significant steps to lower their expenses, such as deferring or refinancing loans (11%), switching to a different type of car (6%), or moving to a different home (5%).

Savings for tax deferred accounts this year was a mixed bag. More than half (56%) of oncologists said that they put aside the same amount every month, give or take; 11% do not regularly put money into a 401(k) retirement account or tax-deferred savings account. Compared to last year, 32% put less money into their savings accounts. Having fewer patients or working fewer hours during the pandemic may have resulted in oncologists needing more of their income, or even their full income, to pay their bills.

Similar results were seen with taxable savings. Half of oncologists were putting the same amount into bank accounts; 20% reported that they do not regularly put money into this type of account. Compared to last year, 29% put less money into taxable savings.

Most oncologists (75%) reported that they did not experience any significant financial losses during the past year. This was similar to last year (77%). The percentage of those who had losses related to their practice rose from 3% to 8%. Much of this increase was due to COVID-19.
 

Living within their means

The vast majority of oncologists live within or below their means (94%). “There are certainly folks who believe that as long as they pay their credit card every month and contribute to their 401(k) enough to get their employer match, they’re doing okay,” said Dr. Greenwald. “I would say living within one’s means is having a 3 to 6 months’ emergency fund and saving at least 20% of gross income toward retirement.”

Although most oncologists live within their means, they also have a higher than average number of credit cards. More than half (54%) have at least five; the average American has four. Nineteen percent of oncologists reported having seven or more credit cards, and none said they had no credit cards.

Mortgage payments varied considerably among respondents, from less than $100,000 (16%) to more than half a million (21%). More than a third (37%) reported having no mortgage at all. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the overall average size of a home mortgage loan was $344,556 in March 2020.

For household finances, 57% reported that they pool incomes to pay the bills, regardless of how much each person earns. A quarter said that they do not have joint finances with a spouse or partner, and for 13%, the person with the higher income paid a larger share.

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

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, oncologists still enjoyed an increase in their income as well as an increase in their overall wealth, according to the Medscape Oncologist Debt and Net Worth Report 2021.

Overall, oncologists’ average annual income rose from $377,000 in 2020 to $403,000 this year.

Although many offices closed for periods during 2020, some physicians used the Paycheck Protection Program. Others found other methods to keep their earnings relatively stable, such as switching to telehealth, cutting staff, and renegotiating leases.

The overall net worth of oncologists also increased. This year, 55% reported a net worth of $1.5 million, compared to 42% last year. A contributing factor is the rise in home prices, suggested Joel Greenwald, MD, CFP, a wealth management advisor for physicians.

The rise in the stock market also played a role, he noted. “And I’ve seen clients accumulate cash, which has added to their net worth. They cut back on spending because they were worried about big declines in income and also because there was simply less to spend money on.”

The percentage of oncologists (16%) with a net worth of more than $5 million stayed pretty much the same. Oncology remained in the upper half of the list of wealthy specialties. Topping that list are dermatology (28%), orthopedics and orthopedic surgery (25%), and plastic surgery (24%).

On the flip side, the percentage of oncologists on the lower end of the net worth scale declined from last year. Oncology was the specialty with the lowest percentage of practitioners (16%) reporting a net worth of under $500,000.
 

Expenses and debts

Similar to reports from previous years, this latest survey found that more than half of oncologists (56%) said they are paying off a mortgage on a primary residence. About a third (32%) are paying off a car loan. Credit card debt (19%), college or medical school loans (17%), childcare (14%), and medical expenses for themselves or a loved one (12%) were also reported.

When it comes to paying off school loans, oncology was near the bottom of the list of 29 medical specialties, along with nephrology, gastroenterology, and diabetes and endocrinology. Emergency medicine topped that list, followed by family medicine, pediatrics, physical medicine, and rehabilitation (all 31%).

Although the vast majority of oncologists (94%) were able to keep up with their bills, the pandemic did take a toll on some. Six percent said that they were unable to keep up with their bills, and 3% could not meet their mortgage. This is far superior to the American population at large – a quarter of adults missed a mortgage payment or rent payment because of challenges associated with the pandemic.
 

Saving and losses

Most oncologists did not take any extra steps to curtail spending – 77% reported that they had not done anything to reduce major expenses. About a quarter of respondents took significant steps to lower their expenses, such as deferring or refinancing loans (11%), switching to a different type of car (6%), or moving to a different home (5%).

Savings for tax deferred accounts this year was a mixed bag. More than half (56%) of oncologists said that they put aside the same amount every month, give or take; 11% do not regularly put money into a 401(k) retirement account or tax-deferred savings account. Compared to last year, 32% put less money into their savings accounts. Having fewer patients or working fewer hours during the pandemic may have resulted in oncologists needing more of their income, or even their full income, to pay their bills.

Similar results were seen with taxable savings. Half of oncologists were putting the same amount into bank accounts; 20% reported that they do not regularly put money into this type of account. Compared to last year, 29% put less money into taxable savings.

Most oncologists (75%) reported that they did not experience any significant financial losses during the past year. This was similar to last year (77%). The percentage of those who had losses related to their practice rose from 3% to 8%. Much of this increase was due to COVID-19.
 

Living within their means

The vast majority of oncologists live within or below their means (94%). “There are certainly folks who believe that as long as they pay their credit card every month and contribute to their 401(k) enough to get their employer match, they’re doing okay,” said Dr. Greenwald. “I would say living within one’s means is having a 3 to 6 months’ emergency fund and saving at least 20% of gross income toward retirement.”

Although most oncologists live within their means, they also have a higher than average number of credit cards. More than half (54%) have at least five; the average American has four. Nineteen percent of oncologists reported having seven or more credit cards, and none said they had no credit cards.

Mortgage payments varied considerably among respondents, from less than $100,000 (16%) to more than half a million (21%). More than a third (37%) reported having no mortgage at all. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the overall average size of a home mortgage loan was $344,556 in March 2020.

For household finances, 57% reported that they pool incomes to pay the bills, regardless of how much each person earns. A quarter said that they do not have joint finances with a spouse or partner, and for 13%, the person with the higher income paid a larger share.

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

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, oncologists still enjoyed an increase in their income as well as an increase in their overall wealth, according to the Medscape Oncologist Debt and Net Worth Report 2021.

Overall, oncologists’ average annual income rose from $377,000 in 2020 to $403,000 this year.

Although many offices closed for periods during 2020, some physicians used the Paycheck Protection Program. Others found other methods to keep their earnings relatively stable, such as switching to telehealth, cutting staff, and renegotiating leases.

The overall net worth of oncologists also increased. This year, 55% reported a net worth of $1.5 million, compared to 42% last year. A contributing factor is the rise in home prices, suggested Joel Greenwald, MD, CFP, a wealth management advisor for physicians.

The rise in the stock market also played a role, he noted. “And I’ve seen clients accumulate cash, which has added to their net worth. They cut back on spending because they were worried about big declines in income and also because there was simply less to spend money on.”

The percentage of oncologists (16%) with a net worth of more than $5 million stayed pretty much the same. Oncology remained in the upper half of the list of wealthy specialties. Topping that list are dermatology (28%), orthopedics and orthopedic surgery (25%), and plastic surgery (24%).

On the flip side, the percentage of oncologists on the lower end of the net worth scale declined from last year. Oncology was the specialty with the lowest percentage of practitioners (16%) reporting a net worth of under $500,000.
 

Expenses and debts

Similar to reports from previous years, this latest survey found that more than half of oncologists (56%) said they are paying off a mortgage on a primary residence. About a third (32%) are paying off a car loan. Credit card debt (19%), college or medical school loans (17%), childcare (14%), and medical expenses for themselves or a loved one (12%) were also reported.

When it comes to paying off school loans, oncology was near the bottom of the list of 29 medical specialties, along with nephrology, gastroenterology, and diabetes and endocrinology. Emergency medicine topped that list, followed by family medicine, pediatrics, physical medicine, and rehabilitation (all 31%).

Although the vast majority of oncologists (94%) were able to keep up with their bills, the pandemic did take a toll on some. Six percent said that they were unable to keep up with their bills, and 3% could not meet their mortgage. This is far superior to the American population at large – a quarter of adults missed a mortgage payment or rent payment because of challenges associated with the pandemic.
 

Saving and losses

Most oncologists did not take any extra steps to curtail spending – 77% reported that they had not done anything to reduce major expenses. About a quarter of respondents took significant steps to lower their expenses, such as deferring or refinancing loans (11%), switching to a different type of car (6%), or moving to a different home (5%).

Savings for tax deferred accounts this year was a mixed bag. More than half (56%) of oncologists said that they put aside the same amount every month, give or take; 11% do not regularly put money into a 401(k) retirement account or tax-deferred savings account. Compared to last year, 32% put less money into their savings accounts. Having fewer patients or working fewer hours during the pandemic may have resulted in oncologists needing more of their income, or even their full income, to pay their bills.

Similar results were seen with taxable savings. Half of oncologists were putting the same amount into bank accounts; 20% reported that they do not regularly put money into this type of account. Compared to last year, 29% put less money into taxable savings.

Most oncologists (75%) reported that they did not experience any significant financial losses during the past year. This was similar to last year (77%). The percentage of those who had losses related to their practice rose from 3% to 8%. Much of this increase was due to COVID-19.
 

Living within their means

The vast majority of oncologists live within or below their means (94%). “There are certainly folks who believe that as long as they pay their credit card every month and contribute to their 401(k) enough to get their employer match, they’re doing okay,” said Dr. Greenwald. “I would say living within one’s means is having a 3 to 6 months’ emergency fund and saving at least 20% of gross income toward retirement.”

Although most oncologists live within their means, they also have a higher than average number of credit cards. More than half (54%) have at least five; the average American has four. Nineteen percent of oncologists reported having seven or more credit cards, and none said they had no credit cards.

Mortgage payments varied considerably among respondents, from less than $100,000 (16%) to more than half a million (21%). More than a third (37%) reported having no mortgage at all. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the overall average size of a home mortgage loan was $344,556 in March 2020.

For household finances, 57% reported that they pool incomes to pay the bills, regardless of how much each person earns. A quarter said that they do not have joint finances with a spouse or partner, and for 13%, the person with the higher income paid a larger share.

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

Alcohol use is a known risk factor for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Now, new research indicates that this risk is more associated with frequent drinking – even in smaller amounts – compared with higher amounts or binge drinking, given similar weekly levels.

“The novel finding of the current study is that frequent drinking may be more dangerous than binge drinking with regard to GI cancers. Alcohol use is a known risk factor for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Now, new research indicates that this risk is more associated with frequent drinking – even in smaller amounts -- compared with higher amounts or binge drinking, given similar weekly levels.” first author Jung Eun Yook, MD, of Seoul (South Korea) National University Hospital, and colleagues reported in an article published Aug. 18, 2021, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.20382).

“This finding suggests that repeated alcohol consumption events even at lower amounts of alcohol may have a greater carcinogenic effect on GI organs than the consumption of larger amounts of alcohol at a lower frequency,” the investigators wrote.

A possible reason behind the difference in risk may be that the chronic “carcinogenic insult” from regular alcohol use may promote cancer development, whereas less frequent, episodic alcohol exposures may allow physiologic recovery, said the authors.

The results are from a population-based study that involved 11,737,467 participants in the Korean National Health System database who did not have cancer and who took part in a national screening program between January 2009 and December 2010.

They were followed from the year after their screening until either they had received a diagnosis of a GI cancer, death occurred, or the end of December 2017.

During a median follow-up of 6.4 years, 319,202 (2.7%) of those in the study developed a GI cancer.

The increase in the risk associated with alcohol consumption was dose dependent.

Compared with those who did not consume alcohol, the risk of developing GI cancer was higher for mild drinkers (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.05), moderate drinkers (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.12-1.15), and heavy drinkers (aHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.26-1.29), after adjusting for age, sex, income, smoking status with intensity, regular exercise, body mass index, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.

There was a linear association between the frequency of drinking and GI cancer risk, with an aHR of 1.39 for individuals who reported drinking every day (95% CI, 1.36-1.41). The risk for GI cancer increased with consumption of five to seven units per occasion (aHR, 1.15). Notably, there were no similar increases with higher intake, including intake of 8-14 units per occasion (aHR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.09-1.12), and even up to more than 14 units per occasion (aHR, 1.11; 95%CI, 1.08-1.14), in comparison with an intake of 5-7 units per occasion.

“Given similar weekly alcohol consumption levels, the risk of GI cancer increased with a higher frequency of drinking and decreased with a higher amount per occasion,” the authors write.

“Most previous studies just assess alcohol consumption as a total amount, [such as] drinks per occasion times occasion per week equals drinks per week [and] grams per week,” coauthor Dong Wook Shin, MD, DrPH, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.

“But it was not known whether frequent drinking with small amount is more harmful than binge drinking, given a similar level of total drinking,” Dr. Shin said.

The increased risk associated with frequent drinking was generally similar with respect to esophageal, gastric, colorectal, biliary, and pancreatic cancer.

An exception was liver cancer, which showed a slightly decreased risk among mild drinkers (aHR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.93).

Of note, the association between alcohol intake and the incidence of GI cancer was lower among women than men in terms of weekly consumption, frequency, and amount of alcohol consumed per occasion.

The associations between drinking and cancer type in terms of esophageal and liver cancers were similar between men and women. However, the alcohol-related risk for colorectal, biliary, and pancreatic cancers was less prominent for women.

Possible mechanisms related to regular drinking

A factor that might account for the increase in GI cancer risk with frequent drinking is that regular alcohol consumption “promotes the accumulation of cell divisions in the stem cells that maintain tissues in homeostasis,” the authors explained.

Another possible explanation is that long-term alcohol exposure may promote carcinogenesis, whereas less frequent exposure might allow “physiological homeostasis,” the authors wrote, adding that in vivo experiments have shown that duration and dose of alcohol exposure have been linked to cancer development.

Importantly, the findings support the importance of reducing the frequency of alcohol use to prevent cancer, the authors noted.

“Alcohol users who have a glass of wine or beer during dinner every day may develop more cancer than people who occasionally consume several drinks,” they cautioned.
 

Genetics, self-reporting considerations

In a related commentary, John D. Potter, MBBS, PhD, of the Research Center for Hauora and Health, Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand, noted that, in addition to supporting the known link between alcohol and cancers of the esophagus, colorectum, and liver, the study “strengthens evidence for a role of alcohol in stomach, biliary tract, and pancreas cancers.”

In comparison with nondrinkers, those who reported heavy drinking were much more likely to be smokers (51.6% vs. 9.0%); however, the study adjusted for smoking.

“Because the researchers were able to control for tobacco, this last finding [regarding the association with cancers of the stomach, biliary tract, and pancreas] is particularly informative,” Dr. Potter noted.

An important caveat is that more than a quarter of the Korean population is known to have an inactive form of the aldehyde dehydrogenase gene (ALDH2), which could have effects on alcohol metabolism as well as the risk for cancer, Dr. Potter wrote.

“This common polymorphism in ALDH2 (ALDH2 rs671 [c.1510G>A (Glu504Lys)]) has paradoxical effects,” he wrote.

“It increases the level of acetaldehyde in the blood of drinkers, which in turn increases the risk of cancer because acetaldehyde is a key player in the carcinogenicity of alcoholic beverages,” Dr. Potter explained. “On the other hand, the accumulation of acetaldehyde and the resultant flushing response are sufficiently unpleasant that they tend to reduce alcohol consumption among those with the Lys allele.”

The study results may therefore not be generalizable to a population in which the distribution of the variation in the ALDH2 enzyme differs, Dr. Potter added.

The lower prevalence of the inactive form (in North America, for instance) would mean that this lower prevalence was not a constraint on individuals’ drinking behavior as it is for some in Korea, Dr. Potter explained.

He noted another consideration: the underreporting of alcohol use is a well-known limitation of studies involving the assessment of alcohol consumption.

Dr. Shin agreed that underreporting is a limitation.

“People tend to underestimate their alcohol use,” Dr. Shin said in an interview.

However, he noted that “our study participants are health-screening participants aged 40 years and older, [and] people who participate in health screening tend to have higher awareness and better health behavior than nonparticipants.”

The authors and Dr. Potter disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alcohol use is a known risk factor for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Now, new research indicates that this risk is more associated with frequent drinking – even in smaller amounts – compared with higher amounts or binge drinking, given similar weekly levels.

“The novel finding of the current study is that frequent drinking may be more dangerous than binge drinking with regard to GI cancers. Alcohol use is a known risk factor for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Now, new research indicates that this risk is more associated with frequent drinking – even in smaller amounts -- compared with higher amounts or binge drinking, given similar weekly levels.” first author Jung Eun Yook, MD, of Seoul (South Korea) National University Hospital, and colleagues reported in an article published Aug. 18, 2021, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.20382).

“This finding suggests that repeated alcohol consumption events even at lower amounts of alcohol may have a greater carcinogenic effect on GI organs than the consumption of larger amounts of alcohol at a lower frequency,” the investigators wrote.

A possible reason behind the difference in risk may be that the chronic “carcinogenic insult” from regular alcohol use may promote cancer development, whereas less frequent, episodic alcohol exposures may allow physiologic recovery, said the authors.

The results are from a population-based study that involved 11,737,467 participants in the Korean National Health System database who did not have cancer and who took part in a national screening program between January 2009 and December 2010.

They were followed from the year after their screening until either they had received a diagnosis of a GI cancer, death occurred, or the end of December 2017.

During a median follow-up of 6.4 years, 319,202 (2.7%) of those in the study developed a GI cancer.

The increase in the risk associated with alcohol consumption was dose dependent.

Compared with those who did not consume alcohol, the risk of developing GI cancer was higher for mild drinkers (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.05), moderate drinkers (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.12-1.15), and heavy drinkers (aHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.26-1.29), after adjusting for age, sex, income, smoking status with intensity, regular exercise, body mass index, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.

There was a linear association between the frequency of drinking and GI cancer risk, with an aHR of 1.39 for individuals who reported drinking every day (95% CI, 1.36-1.41). The risk for GI cancer increased with consumption of five to seven units per occasion (aHR, 1.15). Notably, there were no similar increases with higher intake, including intake of 8-14 units per occasion (aHR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.09-1.12), and even up to more than 14 units per occasion (aHR, 1.11; 95%CI, 1.08-1.14), in comparison with an intake of 5-7 units per occasion.

“Given similar weekly alcohol consumption levels, the risk of GI cancer increased with a higher frequency of drinking and decreased with a higher amount per occasion,” the authors write.

“Most previous studies just assess alcohol consumption as a total amount, [such as] drinks per occasion times occasion per week equals drinks per week [and] grams per week,” coauthor Dong Wook Shin, MD, DrPH, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.

“But it was not known whether frequent drinking with small amount is more harmful than binge drinking, given a similar level of total drinking,” Dr. Shin said.

The increased risk associated with frequent drinking was generally similar with respect to esophageal, gastric, colorectal, biliary, and pancreatic cancer.

An exception was liver cancer, which showed a slightly decreased risk among mild drinkers (aHR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.93).

Of note, the association between alcohol intake and the incidence of GI cancer was lower among women than men in terms of weekly consumption, frequency, and amount of alcohol consumed per occasion.

The associations between drinking and cancer type in terms of esophageal and liver cancers were similar between men and women. However, the alcohol-related risk for colorectal, biliary, and pancreatic cancers was less prominent for women.

Possible mechanisms related to regular drinking

A factor that might account for the increase in GI cancer risk with frequent drinking is that regular alcohol consumption “promotes the accumulation of cell divisions in the stem cells that maintain tissues in homeostasis,” the authors explained.

Another possible explanation is that long-term alcohol exposure may promote carcinogenesis, whereas less frequent exposure might allow “physiological homeostasis,” the authors wrote, adding that in vivo experiments have shown that duration and dose of alcohol exposure have been linked to cancer development.

Importantly, the findings support the importance of reducing the frequency of alcohol use to prevent cancer, the authors noted.

“Alcohol users who have a glass of wine or beer during dinner every day may develop more cancer than people who occasionally consume several drinks,” they cautioned.
 

Genetics, self-reporting considerations

In a related commentary, John D. Potter, MBBS, PhD, of the Research Center for Hauora and Health, Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand, noted that, in addition to supporting the known link between alcohol and cancers of the esophagus, colorectum, and liver, the study “strengthens evidence for a role of alcohol in stomach, biliary tract, and pancreas cancers.”

In comparison with nondrinkers, those who reported heavy drinking were much more likely to be smokers (51.6% vs. 9.0%); however, the study adjusted for smoking.

“Because the researchers were able to control for tobacco, this last finding [regarding the association with cancers of the stomach, biliary tract, and pancreas] is particularly informative,” Dr. Potter noted.

An important caveat is that more than a quarter of the Korean population is known to have an inactive form of the aldehyde dehydrogenase gene (ALDH2), which could have effects on alcohol metabolism as well as the risk for cancer, Dr. Potter wrote.

“This common polymorphism in ALDH2 (ALDH2 rs671 [c.1510G>A (Glu504Lys)]) has paradoxical effects,” he wrote.

“It increases the level of acetaldehyde in the blood of drinkers, which in turn increases the risk of cancer because acetaldehyde is a key player in the carcinogenicity of alcoholic beverages,” Dr. Potter explained. “On the other hand, the accumulation of acetaldehyde and the resultant flushing response are sufficiently unpleasant that they tend to reduce alcohol consumption among those with the Lys allele.”

The study results may therefore not be generalizable to a population in which the distribution of the variation in the ALDH2 enzyme differs, Dr. Potter added.

The lower prevalence of the inactive form (in North America, for instance) would mean that this lower prevalence was not a constraint on individuals’ drinking behavior as it is for some in Korea, Dr. Potter explained.

He noted another consideration: the underreporting of alcohol use is a well-known limitation of studies involving the assessment of alcohol consumption.

Dr. Shin agreed that underreporting is a limitation.

“People tend to underestimate their alcohol use,” Dr. Shin said in an interview.

However, he noted that “our study participants are health-screening participants aged 40 years and older, [and] people who participate in health screening tend to have higher awareness and better health behavior than nonparticipants.”

The authors and Dr. Potter disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alcohol use is a known risk factor for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Now, new research indicates that this risk is more associated with frequent drinking – even in smaller amounts – compared with higher amounts or binge drinking, given similar weekly levels.

“The novel finding of the current study is that frequent drinking may be more dangerous than binge drinking with regard to GI cancers. Alcohol use is a known risk factor for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Now, new research indicates that this risk is more associated with frequent drinking – even in smaller amounts -- compared with higher amounts or binge drinking, given similar weekly levels.” first author Jung Eun Yook, MD, of Seoul (South Korea) National University Hospital, and colleagues reported in an article published Aug. 18, 2021, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.20382).

“This finding suggests that repeated alcohol consumption events even at lower amounts of alcohol may have a greater carcinogenic effect on GI organs than the consumption of larger amounts of alcohol at a lower frequency,” the investigators wrote.

A possible reason behind the difference in risk may be that the chronic “carcinogenic insult” from regular alcohol use may promote cancer development, whereas less frequent, episodic alcohol exposures may allow physiologic recovery, said the authors.

The results are from a population-based study that involved 11,737,467 participants in the Korean National Health System database who did not have cancer and who took part in a national screening program between January 2009 and December 2010.

They were followed from the year after their screening until either they had received a diagnosis of a GI cancer, death occurred, or the end of December 2017.

During a median follow-up of 6.4 years, 319,202 (2.7%) of those in the study developed a GI cancer.

The increase in the risk associated with alcohol consumption was dose dependent.

Compared with those who did not consume alcohol, the risk of developing GI cancer was higher for mild drinkers (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.05), moderate drinkers (aHR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.12-1.15), and heavy drinkers (aHR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.26-1.29), after adjusting for age, sex, income, smoking status with intensity, regular exercise, body mass index, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.

There was a linear association between the frequency of drinking and GI cancer risk, with an aHR of 1.39 for individuals who reported drinking every day (95% CI, 1.36-1.41). The risk for GI cancer increased with consumption of five to seven units per occasion (aHR, 1.15). Notably, there were no similar increases with higher intake, including intake of 8-14 units per occasion (aHR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.09-1.12), and even up to more than 14 units per occasion (aHR, 1.11; 95%CI, 1.08-1.14), in comparison with an intake of 5-7 units per occasion.

“Given similar weekly alcohol consumption levels, the risk of GI cancer increased with a higher frequency of drinking and decreased with a higher amount per occasion,” the authors write.

“Most previous studies just assess alcohol consumption as a total amount, [such as] drinks per occasion times occasion per week equals drinks per week [and] grams per week,” coauthor Dong Wook Shin, MD, DrPH, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.

“But it was not known whether frequent drinking with small amount is more harmful than binge drinking, given a similar level of total drinking,” Dr. Shin said.

The increased risk associated with frequent drinking was generally similar with respect to esophageal, gastric, colorectal, biliary, and pancreatic cancer.

An exception was liver cancer, which showed a slightly decreased risk among mild drinkers (aHR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.93).

Of note, the association between alcohol intake and the incidence of GI cancer was lower among women than men in terms of weekly consumption, frequency, and amount of alcohol consumed per occasion.

The associations between drinking and cancer type in terms of esophageal and liver cancers were similar between men and women. However, the alcohol-related risk for colorectal, biliary, and pancreatic cancers was less prominent for women.

Possible mechanisms related to regular drinking

A factor that might account for the increase in GI cancer risk with frequent drinking is that regular alcohol consumption “promotes the accumulation of cell divisions in the stem cells that maintain tissues in homeostasis,” the authors explained.

Another possible explanation is that long-term alcohol exposure may promote carcinogenesis, whereas less frequent exposure might allow “physiological homeostasis,” the authors wrote, adding that in vivo experiments have shown that duration and dose of alcohol exposure have been linked to cancer development.

Importantly, the findings support the importance of reducing the frequency of alcohol use to prevent cancer, the authors noted.

“Alcohol users who have a glass of wine or beer during dinner every day may develop more cancer than people who occasionally consume several drinks,” they cautioned.
 

Genetics, self-reporting considerations

In a related commentary, John D. Potter, MBBS, PhD, of the Research Center for Hauora and Health, Massey University, Wellington, New Zealand, noted that, in addition to supporting the known link between alcohol and cancers of the esophagus, colorectum, and liver, the study “strengthens evidence for a role of alcohol in stomach, biliary tract, and pancreas cancers.”

In comparison with nondrinkers, those who reported heavy drinking were much more likely to be smokers (51.6% vs. 9.0%); however, the study adjusted for smoking.

“Because the researchers were able to control for tobacco, this last finding [regarding the association with cancers of the stomach, biliary tract, and pancreas] is particularly informative,” Dr. Potter noted.

An important caveat is that more than a quarter of the Korean population is known to have an inactive form of the aldehyde dehydrogenase gene (ALDH2), which could have effects on alcohol metabolism as well as the risk for cancer, Dr. Potter wrote.

“This common polymorphism in ALDH2 (ALDH2 rs671 [c.1510G>A (Glu504Lys)]) has paradoxical effects,” he wrote.

“It increases the level of acetaldehyde in the blood of drinkers, which in turn increases the risk of cancer because acetaldehyde is a key player in the carcinogenicity of alcoholic beverages,” Dr. Potter explained. “On the other hand, the accumulation of acetaldehyde and the resultant flushing response are sufficiently unpleasant that they tend to reduce alcohol consumption among those with the Lys allele.”

The study results may therefore not be generalizable to a population in which the distribution of the variation in the ALDH2 enzyme differs, Dr. Potter added.

The lower prevalence of the inactive form (in North America, for instance) would mean that this lower prevalence was not a constraint on individuals’ drinking behavior as it is for some in Korea, Dr. Potter explained.

He noted another consideration: the underreporting of alcohol use is a well-known limitation of studies involving the assessment of alcohol consumption.

Dr. Shin agreed that underreporting is a limitation.

“People tend to underestimate their alcohol use,” Dr. Shin said in an interview.

However, he noted that “our study participants are health-screening participants aged 40 years and older, [and] people who participate in health screening tend to have higher awareness and better health behavior than nonparticipants.”

The authors and Dr. Potter disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Due to the high cost of newer chemotherapy agents, institutions search for strategies to minimize drug cost and drug waste. Programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors, nivolumab and pembrolizumab, are commonly used in the treatment of solid tumors; however, the agents cost thousands of dollars per dose. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab were initially approved using weight-based dosing, but package labeling for both agents now includes fixed dosing.^1,2 A combination of these 2 dosing strategies could be used by institutions depending on individual patient’s weight to maximize cost savings, minimize drug waste, and maintain safety and efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors. Irrespective of dosing strategy, the development of immune-related adverse events (IrAEs) has been demonstrated with PD-1 inhibitors as a result of the mechanism of action.

PD-1 expression suppresses T cell activity to prevent the development of autoimmunity; however, this is also a mechanism in which tumor cells can evade the host immune system.^3-5 Binding of PD-1 and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) suppresses T cell activity, whereas the inhibition of PD-1 and PD-L1 results in T cell activation.^4,5 Increased T cell activity elicits the anticancer effect, but also contributes to the development of IrAEs^.4,5 Hypothyroidism is one of the most common IrAEs, with a reported incidence of 9% with nivolumab therapy and 8.5% with pembrolizumab.^1,2

Data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers is stored in the centralized Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). VA researchers can obtain approval to use CDW data, which allows for large scale retrospective review of veterans who have received care at VA medical centers (VAMCs). This study aimed to describe the PD-1 inhibitor dosing used within VAMCs and identify actual and potential cost savings. Due to the frequency of immunemediated hypothyroidism and objective data that can be obtained from CDW reports, the study estimated the incidence of immune-mediated hypothyroidism within the veteran population as a safety outcome.

Background

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initially approved dosing for IV nivolumab at 3 mg/kg of patient body weight every 2 weeks and for IV pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg of patient body weight every 3 weeks.^1,2 Subsequent pharmacokinetic studies found that these agents have similar exposure and efficacy with fixed doses of nivolumab 240 mg IV every 2 weeks and pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks; in 2016, FDA labeling shifted from weight-based dosing to fixed dosing for most solid tumor indications.^6-9 Depending on patient weight, a combination of weightbased and fixed dosing could be used by institutions to maximize cost-savings opportunities, minimize drug waste, and maintain clinical efficacy with PD-1 inhibitors. For example, a patient initiating nivolumab who weighs 80 kg would receive 240 mg for both weight-based (3 mg/kg x 80 kg = 240 mg) and fixed dosing; therefore, no cost-savings opportunities would be available. However, for a patient who weighs ≤ 73.3 kg, it would be more costeffective to use weight-based dosing vs the fixed dose. Since nivolumab is available in 40- mg, 100-mg, and 240-mg vials with similar unit prices, a combination of vial sizes could be used to minimize drug waste. Alternatively, for a patient who weighs ≥ 86.7 kg, it would be more cost-effective to administer the fixed, 240 mg dose when compared with the weightbased dose. Pembrolizumab is available only in a 100-mg vial; therefore, weight-based dosing may result in drug waste.

IrAEs can be seen with PD-1 inhibitors due to increased T cell activity, which is independent of dosing strategy and can affect any organ system. However, immune-mediated hypothyroidism has been commonly seen with PD-1 inhibitors. For patients with immunemediated hypothyroidism, levothyroxine can be considered for asymptomatic patients with thyroid- stimulating hormone (TSH) > 10 uIU/mL with normal thyroxine (T4), or patients with clinical primary hypothyroidism (TSH > 10 uIU/mL with low free T4 and clinical symptoms). Additionally, since hypothyroidism usually follows immunotherapy induced thyrotoxicosis, thyroid function tests should be monitored and levothyroxine initiated if TSH is > 10 uIU/mL for these patients.^10,11

Hypothyroidism also can be graded according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Hypothyroidism is considered grade 1 when hypothyroidism is demonstrated through clinical or diagnostic observations only and the patient is asymptomatic and no intervention needed. Grade 2 occurs when the patient is symptomatic and limits instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs), prompting thyroid replacement therapy. In grade 3, patients experience severe symptoms that restrict self-care ADLs, and hospitalization is indicated. Grade 4 has life-threatening consequences, and urgent intervention is indicated. Grade 5 results in the death of the patient.¹²

Electronic health records (EHRs) of veterans who receive care at a VAMC are stored in CDW and available through the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI), which provides access to data while ensuring veterans’ privacy and data security. This feature of the VA EHR allows for analysis of data across the VA health care system, and larger data sets can be used for retrospective chart reviews.

Using reports from CDW, the primary objective of this study was to describe the dosing strategy used for PD-1 inhibitors, and the primary safety outcome was to determine the incidence of immune-mediated hypothyroidism. The secondary objective was to estimate potential cost-savings opportunities using a combination of PD-1 inhibitor dosing strategies.

Methods

This was a retrospective study including data stored in CDW. The study was approved by the Durham VA Health Care System Institutional Review Board and VINCI/Data Access request tracker. Data were limited to nivolumab and pembrolizumab because they received earlier FDA approval, had multiple solid tumor indications, and 2 FDA-approved dosing strategies. The incidence of IrAEs was limited to hypothyroidism, which could be objectively verified with laboratory monitoring of thyroid function tests, including TSH, free or total T4, and triiodothyronine (T3), all of which were available in CDW data. Additionally, most patients with hypothyroidism initiate treatment with levothyroxine. Prescription refill history could also be retrieved using CDW reports.

Hypothyroidism was defined as T4 below lower limit of normal (LLN), TSH above upper limit of normal (ULN), or any increase in levothyroxine dosage. Patients were excluded if they received PD-1 inhibitor for an indication other than solid tumor treatment, such as hematologic malignancy, or if dosing did not follow weight-based or fixed-dosing strategies, such as nivolumab 1 mg/kg when used in combination with ipilimumab, or pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg. The primary endpoint was the percentage of orders for each dosing strategy, and the primary safety outcome was the incidence of immune-mediated hypothyroidism. Secondary endpoints included estimated cost savings and cost-savings opportunities through nivolumab dose rounding and incidence of levothyroxine initiation or dose change. Descriptive statistics were used for the primary and secondary endpoints.

A report in CDW identified patients who received a dose of nivolumab or pembrolizumab between January 1, 2015 and July 1, 2017 at any VAMC. The CDW report obtained weight at time of PD-1 inhibitor therapy initiation, dose of PD-1 inhibitor given, administration date of PD-1 inhibitor, and VA site. Depending on PD-1 inhibitor administered, weight in kg was multiplied by 3 mg/kg or 2 mg/kg to obtain patient’s anticipated weight-based nivolumab and pembrolizumab dose, respectively. The calculated weight-based dose, fixed dose, and administered dose were compared to infer dosing strategy used at the time of ordering. If the patient’s weight-based dose was within 10% of the fixed dose, the order was categorized as converging because the doses were too similar to determine which dosing strategy was intended.

After determination of dosing strategy, the nivolumab orders were evaluated for actual vs missed cost savings. The cost-savings evaluation included only nivolumab orders because nivolumab is available in a 40-mg, 100-mg, and 240-mg vials and, therefore, has more potential for dose-rounding opportunities with minimal drug waste compared with pembrolizumab, which is available only in a 100-mg vial. Actual cost savings included patients who weighed ≤ 73.3 kg and received nivolumab dose based on 3 mg/kg or patients who weighed ≥ 86.7 kg and received nivolumab 240 mg (fixed dose). Missed cost savings comprised patients who weighed ≤ 73.3 kg who received 240 mg nivolumab or patients who weighed ≥ 86.7 kg and received a nivolumab dose > 240 mg. The cost difference between the dose given and theoretical cost-effective dose was calculated to determine actual and potential cost savings. Converging orders were not included in the cost-savings analysis as the intended nivolumab dose could not be determined. An additional cost analysis of nivolumab orders prescribed between September 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017 was also performed because nivolumab fixed dosing was FDA-approved for most solid tumor indications in September 2016.

To determine the incidence of immunemediated hypothyroidism for patients who received a dose of a PD-1 inhibitor at a VAMC, a CDW report with thyroid function laboratory values (TSH, T4, or T3), including reference range values based on specific VA site, and levothyroxine prescriptions issued during PD-1 inhibitor therapy was obtained. A patient was considered to have experienced immune-mediated hypothyroidism if the patient’s laboratory values demonstrated T4 below the LLN, TSH above the ULN, or if the medication fill history demonstrated levothyroxine initiation or a levothyroxine dose increase.

Results 

The CDW report identified 32,769 total PD-1 inhibitor orders. There were 3982 orders that did not meet inclusion criteria or inadequate data were obtained with CDW report and were excluded (Figure). The remaining 28,787 PD-1 inhibitor orders were evaluated for actual or missed cost savings. The distribution of dosing strategies can be found in Table 1.

Nivolumab accounted for 81.5% of all PD-1 inhibitor orders. Using the most cost-effective nivolumab dosing, the actual cost savings was estimated to be $8,514,300 with potential additional $5,591,250 of missed cost-savings opportunities. There were 8013 nivolumab orders written between September 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017. Cost-effective dosing was used in 4687 of these orders, which accounted for a cost savings of $5,198,570. The remaining 3326 orders had a missed cost-savings opportunity, which accounted for an additional $2,907,180 potential cost savings (Table 2).

PD-1 inhibitors were used for the treatment of 3249 unique patients. Based on abnormal thyroid function tests and levothyroxine initiation or dose increase, it is estimated that 514 (15.8%) patients experienced hypothyroidism during PD-1 inhibitor therapy. However, prior to PD-1 inhibitor therapy, 274 patients were receiving levothyroxine, suggesting baseline thyroid dysfunction. Of these patients, 152 (55.5%) patients maintained the same levothyroxine dose during PD-1 inhibitor therapy, but 91 (33.2%) required a levothyroxine dose increase. There were 187 patients who initiated levothyroxine during PD-1 inhibitor therapy (Table 3).

Discussion

Changes in FDA-approved dosing for PD-1 inhibitors allowed a combination of dosing strategies. Depending on patient weight, a weight-based or fixed-dosing strategy can be used to reduce drug cost while maintaining equivalent efficacy. This study evaluated use of dose rounding for PD-1 inhibitors within the VA health care system to identify actual and potential cost savings. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate cost savings through use of a combination of PD-1 inhibitor dosing strategies. Using CDW, researchers were able to review PD-1 dosing from all VAMCs and include a larger number of orders in a single retrospective study.

Nivolumab was the primary agent used within VAMCs. Depending on the indication, pembrolizumab requires PD-1 expression testing prior to its use in several solid tumor indications. Consequently, additional testing and patient eligibility is needed prior to use. Both PD-1 inhibitors were primarily dosed based on patient weight since this was the first FDAapproved dosing strategy. Nivolumab had more orders categorized as converging, which may be due to the therapeutic weight-based dose of 3 mg/kg for nivolumab vs 2 mg/kg for pembrolizumab. The calculated weight-based dose of nivolumab for an 80-kg patient is 240 mg, which also is the fixed dose. A 80-kg patient on pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg would receive a 160-mg dose, whereas the fixed dose of pembrolizumab is 200 mg. Pembrolizumab is available only in a 100-mg vial, which limits opportunities for dose rounding without drug waste and could explain the higher amount of pembrolizumab orders in the fixed-dose category.

In this review of PD-1 inhibitor orders over approximately a 2.5-year study period, we identified $8,514,300 estimated cost savings with $5,591,250 estimated missed cost savings. When looking at orders administered after FDA approval for nivolumab-fixed dosing in September 2016, there was substantial cost savings of $5,198,570 with the potential for an additional $2,907,180 missed cost savings. Due to lower drug acquisition costs within the VA health care system, there may be higher cost-savings opportunities within other health care systems.

Through review of abnormal thyroid laboratory values and levothyroxine initiation or dose changes, this study estimated the incidence of hypothyroidism in patients receiving PD-1 inhibitor therapy at the VA. The incidence of primary hypothyroidism identified in this study was slightly higher at 15.8% compared with the 8.5 to 9.0% incidence reported from clinical trials.^1,2 There are several reasons why the incidence of hypothyroidism appeared higher in this study. Abnormal laboratory values were not assessed for the degree of deviation from the reference range; any TSH above the ULN, T4 below the LLN, or levothyroxine dose increase was included as thyroid dysfunction in this review. There is also the potential for endogenous age-related thyroid fluctuation, and the development of hypothyroidism may not have been related to PD-1 inhibitor therapy. Within this patient population, 8.4% were receiving levothyroxine prior to PD-1 inhibitor initiation indicating baseline thyroid dysfunction, and it is unclear whether levothyroxine dose increases were due to PD-1 inhibitor or endogenous fluctuation.

Limitations

There are several limitations to acknowledge. The dosing strategy and apparent dose rounding was determined by investigator inference and may not accurately represent the intended dosing strategy. This study did not address efficacy of PD-1 inhibitor and dosing strategy; however, clinical trials have demonstrated equivalent efficacy to generate the change in FDA-approved dosing. Additionally, FDA approval for nivolumab fixed dosing was indication specific. Starting in September 2016, many solid tumor indications had fixed dosing approved, but this approval was not necessarily all encompassing.

While the use of CDW allowed for a greater number of PD-1 inhibitor orders to be included in retrospective review, there also were limitations of the CDW report. The patient weight was limited to weight at time of therapy initiation. Due to the potential for weight changes, nivolumab dosing may have seemed inappropriate to investigators, and thereby excluded. Based on data available from CDW reports, hypothyroidism could not be graded according to NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and the incidence of clinically significant hypothyroidism could not be determined.

Conclusions

With increasing drug acquisition costs, particularly among antineoplastic agents, health care systems frequently seek out cost-savings opportunities. Using a combination of weightbased and fixed-dosing strategies for PD-1 inhibitors can be a mechanism to achieve costsavings. Through the identification of the dosing strategy used for PD-1 inhibitors, we were able to identify and report instances for potential cost-savings opportunities among veterans treated within VA health care system. Use of CDW allows for data from all VAMCs to be evaluated in a single retrospective chart review, which allows for the inclusion of a larger sample size. This study identified a substantial cost savings for nivolumab through a combination of weight-based and fixed-dosing strategies. Due to the novel mechanism of action, ongoing realworld evaluation of adverse events and IrAEs is warranted.

Dosing strategies with nivolumab and pembrolizumab continue to evolve. In March 2018, nivolumab 480 mg IV every 4 weeks was FDA approved and in April 2020, pembrolizumab 400 mg IV every 6 weeks was FDA approved.^13,14 While the drug costs will remain the same, extended interval dosing strategies have cost avoidance such as fewer clinic appointments, resulting in decreased staffing costs and decreased patient travel. Additional studies will be needed to evaluate the cost and safety of the recently approved dosing strategies

Due to the high cost of newer chemotherapy agents, institutions search for strategies to minimize drug cost and drug waste. Programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors, nivolumab and pembrolizumab, are commonly used in the treatment of solid tumors; however, the agents cost thousands of dollars per dose. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab were initially approved using weight-based dosing, but package labeling for both agents now includes fixed dosing.^1,2 A combination of these 2 dosing strategies could be used by institutions depending on individual patient’s weight to maximize cost savings, minimize drug waste, and maintain safety and efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors. Irrespective of dosing strategy, the development of immune-related adverse events (IrAEs) has been demonstrated with PD-1 inhibitors as a result of the mechanism of action.

PD-1 expression suppresses T cell activity to prevent the development of autoimmunity; however, this is also a mechanism in which tumor cells can evade the host immune system.^3-5 Binding of PD-1 and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) suppresses T cell activity, whereas the inhibition of PD-1 and PD-L1 results in T cell activation.^4,5 Increased T cell activity elicits the anticancer effect, but also contributes to the development of IrAEs^.4,5 Hypothyroidism is one of the most common IrAEs, with a reported incidence of 9% with nivolumab therapy and 8.5% with pembrolizumab.^1,2

Data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers is stored in the centralized Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). VA researchers can obtain approval to use CDW data, which allows for large scale retrospective review of veterans who have received care at VA medical centers (VAMCs). This study aimed to describe the PD-1 inhibitor dosing used within VAMCs and identify actual and potential cost savings. Due to the frequency of immunemediated hypothyroidism and objective data that can be obtained from CDW reports, the study estimated the incidence of immune-mediated hypothyroidism within the veteran population as a safety outcome.

Background

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initially approved dosing for IV nivolumab at 3 mg/kg of patient body weight every 2 weeks and for IV pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg of patient body weight every 3 weeks.^1,2 Subsequent pharmacokinetic studies found that these agents have similar exposure and efficacy with fixed doses of nivolumab 240 mg IV every 2 weeks and pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks; in 2016, FDA labeling shifted from weight-based dosing to fixed dosing for most solid tumor indications.^6-9 Depending on patient weight, a combination of weightbased and fixed dosing could be used by institutions to maximize cost-savings opportunities, minimize drug waste, and maintain clinical efficacy with PD-1 inhibitors. For example, a patient initiating nivolumab who weighs 80 kg would receive 240 mg for both weight-based (3 mg/kg x 80 kg = 240 mg) and fixed dosing; therefore, no cost-savings opportunities would be available. However, for a patient who weighs ≤ 73.3 kg, it would be more costeffective to use weight-based dosing vs the fixed dose. Since nivolumab is available in 40- mg, 100-mg, and 240-mg vials with similar unit prices, a combination of vial sizes could be used to minimize drug waste. Alternatively, for a patient who weighs ≥ 86.7 kg, it would be more cost-effective to administer the fixed, 240 mg dose when compared with the weightbased dose. Pembrolizumab is available only in a 100-mg vial; therefore, weight-based dosing may result in drug waste.

IrAEs can be seen with PD-1 inhibitors due to increased T cell activity, which is independent of dosing strategy and can affect any organ system. However, immune-mediated hypothyroidism has been commonly seen with PD-1 inhibitors. For patients with immunemediated hypothyroidism, levothyroxine can be considered for asymptomatic patients with thyroid- stimulating hormone (TSH) > 10 uIU/mL with normal thyroxine (T4), or patients with clinical primary hypothyroidism (TSH > 10 uIU/mL with low free T4 and clinical symptoms). Additionally, since hypothyroidism usually follows immunotherapy induced thyrotoxicosis, thyroid function tests should be monitored and levothyroxine initiated if TSH is > 10 uIU/mL for these patients.^10,11

Hypothyroidism also can be graded according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Hypothyroidism is considered grade 1 when hypothyroidism is demonstrated through clinical or diagnostic observations only and the patient is asymptomatic and no intervention needed. Grade 2 occurs when the patient is symptomatic and limits instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs), prompting thyroid replacement therapy. In grade 3, patients experience severe symptoms that restrict self-care ADLs, and hospitalization is indicated. Grade 4 has life-threatening consequences, and urgent intervention is indicated. Grade 5 results in the death of the patient.¹²

Electronic health records (EHRs) of veterans who receive care at a VAMC are stored in CDW and available through the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI), which provides access to data while ensuring veterans’ privacy and data security. This feature of the VA EHR allows for analysis of data across the VA health care system, and larger data sets can be used for retrospective chart reviews.

Using reports from CDW, the primary objective of this study was to describe the dosing strategy used for PD-1 inhibitors, and the primary safety outcome was to determine the incidence of immune-mediated hypothyroidism. The secondary objective was to estimate potential cost-savings opportunities using a combination of PD-1 inhibitor dosing strategies.

Methods

This was a retrospective study including data stored in CDW. The study was approved by the Durham VA Health Care System Institutional Review Board and VINCI/Data Access request tracker. Data were limited to nivolumab and pembrolizumab because they received earlier FDA approval, had multiple solid tumor indications, and 2 FDA-approved dosing strategies. The incidence of IrAEs was limited to hypothyroidism, which could be objectively verified with laboratory monitoring of thyroid function tests, including TSH, free or total T4, and triiodothyronine (T3), all of which were available in CDW data. Additionally, most patients with hypothyroidism initiate treatment with levothyroxine. Prescription refill history could also be retrieved using CDW reports.

Hypothyroidism was defined as T4 below lower limit of normal (LLN), TSH above upper limit of normal (ULN), or any increase in levothyroxine dosage. Patients were excluded if they received PD-1 inhibitor for an indication other than solid tumor treatment, such as hematologic malignancy, or if dosing did not follow weight-based or fixed-dosing strategies, such as nivolumab 1 mg/kg when used in combination with ipilimumab, or pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg. The primary endpoint was the percentage of orders for each dosing strategy, and the primary safety outcome was the incidence of immune-mediated hypothyroidism. Secondary endpoints included estimated cost savings and cost-savings opportunities through nivolumab dose rounding and incidence of levothyroxine initiation or dose change. Descriptive statistics were used for the primary and secondary endpoints.

A report in CDW identified patients who received a dose of nivolumab or pembrolizumab between January 1, 2015 and July 1, 2017 at any VAMC. The CDW report obtained weight at time of PD-1 inhibitor therapy initiation, dose of PD-1 inhibitor given, administration date of PD-1 inhibitor, and VA site. Depending on PD-1 inhibitor administered, weight in kg was multiplied by 3 mg/kg or 2 mg/kg to obtain patient’s anticipated weight-based nivolumab and pembrolizumab dose, respectively. The calculated weight-based dose, fixed dose, and administered dose were compared to infer dosing strategy used at the time of ordering. If the patient’s weight-based dose was within 10% of the fixed dose, the order was categorized as converging because the doses were too similar to determine which dosing strategy was intended.

After determination of dosing strategy, the nivolumab orders were evaluated for actual vs missed cost savings. The cost-savings evaluation included only nivolumab orders because nivolumab is available in a 40-mg, 100-mg, and 240-mg vials and, therefore, has more potential for dose-rounding opportunities with minimal drug waste compared with pembrolizumab, which is available only in a 100-mg vial. Actual cost savings included patients who weighed ≤ 73.3 kg and received nivolumab dose based on 3 mg/kg or patients who weighed ≥ 86.7 kg and received nivolumab 240 mg (fixed dose). Missed cost savings comprised patients who weighed ≤ 73.3 kg who received 240 mg nivolumab or patients who weighed ≥ 86.7 kg and received a nivolumab dose > 240 mg. The cost difference between the dose given and theoretical cost-effective dose was calculated to determine actual and potential cost savings. Converging orders were not included in the cost-savings analysis as the intended nivolumab dose could not be determined. An additional cost analysis of nivolumab orders prescribed between September 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017 was also performed because nivolumab fixed dosing was FDA-approved for most solid tumor indications in September 2016.

To determine the incidence of immunemediated hypothyroidism for patients who received a dose of a PD-1 inhibitor at a VAMC, a CDW report with thyroid function laboratory values (TSH, T4, or T3), including reference range values based on specific VA site, and levothyroxine prescriptions issued during PD-1 inhibitor therapy was obtained. A patient was considered to have experienced immune-mediated hypothyroidism if the patient’s laboratory values demonstrated T4 below the LLN, TSH above the ULN, or if the medication fill history demonstrated levothyroxine initiation or a levothyroxine dose increase.

Results 

The CDW report identified 32,769 total PD-1 inhibitor orders. There were 3982 orders that did not meet inclusion criteria or inadequate data were obtained with CDW report and were excluded (Figure). The remaining 28,787 PD-1 inhibitor orders were evaluated for actual or missed cost savings. The distribution of dosing strategies can be found in Table 1.

Nivolumab accounted for 81.5% of all PD-1 inhibitor orders. Using the most cost-effective nivolumab dosing, the actual cost savings was estimated to be $8,514,300 with potential additional $5,591,250 of missed cost-savings opportunities. There were 8013 nivolumab orders written between September 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017. Cost-effective dosing was used in 4687 of these orders, which accounted for a cost savings of $5,198,570. The remaining 3326 orders had a missed cost-savings opportunity, which accounted for an additional $2,907,180 potential cost savings (Table 2).

PD-1 inhibitors were used for the treatment of 3249 unique patients. Based on abnormal thyroid function tests and levothyroxine initiation or dose increase, it is estimated that 514 (15.8%) patients experienced hypothyroidism during PD-1 inhibitor therapy. However, prior to PD-1 inhibitor therapy, 274 patients were receiving levothyroxine, suggesting baseline thyroid dysfunction. Of these patients, 152 (55.5%) patients maintained the same levothyroxine dose during PD-1 inhibitor therapy, but 91 (33.2%) required a levothyroxine dose increase. There were 187 patients who initiated levothyroxine during PD-1 inhibitor therapy (Table 3).

Discussion

Changes in FDA-approved dosing for PD-1 inhibitors allowed a combination of dosing strategies. Depending on patient weight, a weight-based or fixed-dosing strategy can be used to reduce drug cost while maintaining equivalent efficacy. This study evaluated use of dose rounding for PD-1 inhibitors within the VA health care system to identify actual and potential cost savings. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate cost savings through use of a combination of PD-1 inhibitor dosing strategies. Using CDW, researchers were able to review PD-1 dosing from all VAMCs and include a larger number of orders in a single retrospective study.

Nivolumab was the primary agent used within VAMCs. Depending on the indication, pembrolizumab requires PD-1 expression testing prior to its use in several solid tumor indications. Consequently, additional testing and patient eligibility is needed prior to use. Both PD-1 inhibitors were primarily dosed based on patient weight since this was the first FDAapproved dosing strategy. Nivolumab had more orders categorized as converging, which may be due to the therapeutic weight-based dose of 3 mg/kg for nivolumab vs 2 mg/kg for pembrolizumab. The calculated weight-based dose of nivolumab for an 80-kg patient is 240 mg, which also is the fixed dose. A 80-kg patient on pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg would receive a 160-mg dose, whereas the fixed dose of pembrolizumab is 200 mg. Pembrolizumab is available only in a 100-mg vial, which limits opportunities for dose rounding without drug waste and could explain the higher amount of pembrolizumab orders in the fixed-dose category.

In this review of PD-1 inhibitor orders over approximately a 2.5-year study period, we identified $8,514,300 estimated cost savings with $5,591,250 estimated missed cost savings. When looking at orders administered after FDA approval for nivolumab-fixed dosing in September 2016, there was substantial cost savings of $5,198,570 with the potential for an additional $2,907,180 missed cost savings. Due to lower drug acquisition costs within the VA health care system, there may be higher cost-savings opportunities within other health care systems.

Through review of abnormal thyroid laboratory values and levothyroxine initiation or dose changes, this study estimated the incidence of hypothyroidism in patients receiving PD-1 inhibitor therapy at the VA. The incidence of primary hypothyroidism identified in this study was slightly higher at 15.8% compared with the 8.5 to 9.0% incidence reported from clinical trials.^1,2 There are several reasons why the incidence of hypothyroidism appeared higher in this study. Abnormal laboratory values were not assessed for the degree of deviation from the reference range; any TSH above the ULN, T4 below the LLN, or levothyroxine dose increase was included as thyroid dysfunction in this review. There is also the potential for endogenous age-related thyroid fluctuation, and the development of hypothyroidism may not have been related to PD-1 inhibitor therapy. Within this patient population, 8.4% were receiving levothyroxine prior to PD-1 inhibitor initiation indicating baseline thyroid dysfunction, and it is unclear whether levothyroxine dose increases were due to PD-1 inhibitor or endogenous fluctuation.

Limitations

There are several limitations to acknowledge. The dosing strategy and apparent dose rounding was determined by investigator inference and may not accurately represent the intended dosing strategy. This study did not address efficacy of PD-1 inhibitor and dosing strategy; however, clinical trials have demonstrated equivalent efficacy to generate the change in FDA-approved dosing. Additionally, FDA approval for nivolumab fixed dosing was indication specific. Starting in September 2016, many solid tumor indications had fixed dosing approved, but this approval was not necessarily all encompassing.

While the use of CDW allowed for a greater number of PD-1 inhibitor orders to be included in retrospective review, there also were limitations of the CDW report. The patient weight was limited to weight at time of therapy initiation. Due to the potential for weight changes, nivolumab dosing may have seemed inappropriate to investigators, and thereby excluded. Based on data available from CDW reports, hypothyroidism could not be graded according to NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and the incidence of clinically significant hypothyroidism could not be determined.

Conclusions

With increasing drug acquisition costs, particularly among antineoplastic agents, health care systems frequently seek out cost-savings opportunities. Using a combination of weightbased and fixed-dosing strategies for PD-1 inhibitors can be a mechanism to achieve costsavings. Through the identification of the dosing strategy used for PD-1 inhibitors, we were able to identify and report instances for potential cost-savings opportunities among veterans treated within VA health care system. Use of CDW allows for data from all VAMCs to be evaluated in a single retrospective chart review, which allows for the inclusion of a larger sample size. This study identified a substantial cost savings for nivolumab through a combination of weight-based and fixed-dosing strategies. Due to the novel mechanism of action, ongoing realworld evaluation of adverse events and IrAEs is warranted.

Dosing strategies with nivolumab and pembrolizumab continue to evolve. In March 2018, nivolumab 480 mg IV every 4 weeks was FDA approved and in April 2020, pembrolizumab 400 mg IV every 6 weeks was FDA approved.^13,14 While the drug costs will remain the same, extended interval dosing strategies have cost avoidance such as fewer clinic appointments, resulting in decreased staffing costs and decreased patient travel. Additional studies will be needed to evaluate the cost and safety of the recently approved dosing strategies

Due to the high cost of newer chemotherapy agents, institutions search for strategies to minimize drug cost and drug waste. Programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors, nivolumab and pembrolizumab, are commonly used in the treatment of solid tumors; however, the agents cost thousands of dollars per dose. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab were initially approved using weight-based dosing, but package labeling for both agents now includes fixed dosing.^1,2 A combination of these 2 dosing strategies could be used by institutions depending on individual patient’s weight to maximize cost savings, minimize drug waste, and maintain safety and efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors. Irrespective of dosing strategy, the development of immune-related adverse events (IrAEs) has been demonstrated with PD-1 inhibitors as a result of the mechanism of action.

PD-1 expression suppresses T cell activity to prevent the development of autoimmunity; however, this is also a mechanism in which tumor cells can evade the host immune system.^3-5 Binding of PD-1 and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) suppresses T cell activity, whereas the inhibition of PD-1 and PD-L1 results in T cell activation.^4,5 Increased T cell activity elicits the anticancer effect, but also contributes to the development of IrAEs^.4,5 Hypothyroidism is one of the most common IrAEs, with a reported incidence of 9% with nivolumab therapy and 8.5% with pembrolizumab.^1,2

Data from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers is stored in the centralized Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). VA researchers can obtain approval to use CDW data, which allows for large scale retrospective review of veterans who have received care at VA medical centers (VAMCs). This study aimed to describe the PD-1 inhibitor dosing used within VAMCs and identify actual and potential cost savings. Due to the frequency of immunemediated hypothyroidism and objective data that can be obtained from CDW reports, the study estimated the incidence of immune-mediated hypothyroidism within the veteran population as a safety outcome.

Background

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initially approved dosing for IV nivolumab at 3 mg/kg of patient body weight every 2 weeks and for IV pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg of patient body weight every 3 weeks.^1,2 Subsequent pharmacokinetic studies found that these agents have similar exposure and efficacy with fixed doses of nivolumab 240 mg IV every 2 weeks and pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks; in 2016, FDA labeling shifted from weight-based dosing to fixed dosing for most solid tumor indications.^6-9 Depending on patient weight, a combination of weightbased and fixed dosing could be used by institutions to maximize cost-savings opportunities, minimize drug waste, and maintain clinical efficacy with PD-1 inhibitors. For example, a patient initiating nivolumab who weighs 80 kg would receive 240 mg for both weight-based (3 mg/kg x 80 kg = 240 mg) and fixed dosing; therefore, no cost-savings opportunities would be available. However, for a patient who weighs ≤ 73.3 kg, it would be more costeffective to use weight-based dosing vs the fixed dose. Since nivolumab is available in 40- mg, 100-mg, and 240-mg vials with similar unit prices, a combination of vial sizes could be used to minimize drug waste. Alternatively, for a patient who weighs ≥ 86.7 kg, it would be more cost-effective to administer the fixed, 240 mg dose when compared with the weightbased dose. Pembrolizumab is available only in a 100-mg vial; therefore, weight-based dosing may result in drug waste.

IrAEs can be seen with PD-1 inhibitors due to increased T cell activity, which is independent of dosing strategy and can affect any organ system. However, immune-mediated hypothyroidism has been commonly seen with PD-1 inhibitors. For patients with immunemediated hypothyroidism, levothyroxine can be considered for asymptomatic patients with thyroid- stimulating hormone (TSH) > 10 uIU/mL with normal thyroxine (T4), or patients with clinical primary hypothyroidism (TSH > 10 uIU/mL with low free T4 and clinical symptoms). Additionally, since hypothyroidism usually follows immunotherapy induced thyrotoxicosis, thyroid function tests should be monitored and levothyroxine initiated if TSH is > 10 uIU/mL for these patients.^10,11

Hypothyroidism also can be graded according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Hypothyroidism is considered grade 1 when hypothyroidism is demonstrated through clinical or diagnostic observations only and the patient is asymptomatic and no intervention needed. Grade 2 occurs when the patient is symptomatic and limits instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs), prompting thyroid replacement therapy. In grade 3, patients experience severe symptoms that restrict self-care ADLs, and hospitalization is indicated. Grade 4 has life-threatening consequences, and urgent intervention is indicated. Grade 5 results in the death of the patient.¹²

Electronic health records (EHRs) of veterans who receive care at a VAMC are stored in CDW and available through the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI), which provides access to data while ensuring veterans’ privacy and data security. This feature of the VA EHR allows for analysis of data across the VA health care system, and larger data sets can be used for retrospective chart reviews.

Using reports from CDW, the primary objective of this study was to describe the dosing strategy used for PD-1 inhibitors, and the primary safety outcome was to determine the incidence of immune-mediated hypothyroidism. The secondary objective was to estimate potential cost-savings opportunities using a combination of PD-1 inhibitor dosing strategies.

Methods

This was a retrospective study including data stored in CDW. The study was approved by the Durham VA Health Care System Institutional Review Board and VINCI/Data Access request tracker. Data were limited to nivolumab and pembrolizumab because they received earlier FDA approval, had multiple solid tumor indications, and 2 FDA-approved dosing strategies. The incidence of IrAEs was limited to hypothyroidism, which could be objectively verified with laboratory monitoring of thyroid function tests, including TSH, free or total T4, and triiodothyronine (T3), all of which were available in CDW data. Additionally, most patients with hypothyroidism initiate treatment with levothyroxine. Prescription refill history could also be retrieved using CDW reports.

Hypothyroidism was defined as T4 below lower limit of normal (LLN), TSH above upper limit of normal (ULN), or any increase in levothyroxine dosage. Patients were excluded if they received PD-1 inhibitor for an indication other than solid tumor treatment, such as hematologic malignancy, or if dosing did not follow weight-based or fixed-dosing strategies, such as nivolumab 1 mg/kg when used in combination with ipilimumab, or pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg. The primary endpoint was the percentage of orders for each dosing strategy, and the primary safety outcome was the incidence of immune-mediated hypothyroidism. Secondary endpoints included estimated cost savings and cost-savings opportunities through nivolumab dose rounding and incidence of levothyroxine initiation or dose change. Descriptive statistics were used for the primary and secondary endpoints.

A report in CDW identified patients who received a dose of nivolumab or pembrolizumab between January 1, 2015 and July 1, 2017 at any VAMC. The CDW report obtained weight at time of PD-1 inhibitor therapy initiation, dose of PD-1 inhibitor given, administration date of PD-1 inhibitor, and VA site. Depending on PD-1 inhibitor administered, weight in kg was multiplied by 3 mg/kg or 2 mg/kg to obtain patient’s anticipated weight-based nivolumab and pembrolizumab dose, respectively. The calculated weight-based dose, fixed dose, and administered dose were compared to infer dosing strategy used at the time of ordering. If the patient’s weight-based dose was within 10% of the fixed dose, the order was categorized as converging because the doses were too similar to determine which dosing strategy was intended.

After determination of dosing strategy, the nivolumab orders were evaluated for actual vs missed cost savings. The cost-savings evaluation included only nivolumab orders because nivolumab is available in a 40-mg, 100-mg, and 240-mg vials and, therefore, has more potential for dose-rounding opportunities with minimal drug waste compared with pembrolizumab, which is available only in a 100-mg vial. Actual cost savings included patients who weighed ≤ 73.3 kg and received nivolumab dose based on 3 mg/kg or patients who weighed ≥ 86.7 kg and received nivolumab 240 mg (fixed dose). Missed cost savings comprised patients who weighed ≤ 73.3 kg who received 240 mg nivolumab or patients who weighed ≥ 86.7 kg and received a nivolumab dose > 240 mg. The cost difference between the dose given and theoretical cost-effective dose was calculated to determine actual and potential cost savings. Converging orders were not included in the cost-savings analysis as the intended nivolumab dose could not be determined. An additional cost analysis of nivolumab orders prescribed between September 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017 was also performed because nivolumab fixed dosing was FDA-approved for most solid tumor indications in September 2016.

To determine the incidence of immunemediated hypothyroidism for patients who received a dose of a PD-1 inhibitor at a VAMC, a CDW report with thyroid function laboratory values (TSH, T4, or T3), including reference range values based on specific VA site, and levothyroxine prescriptions issued during PD-1 inhibitor therapy was obtained. A patient was considered to have experienced immune-mediated hypothyroidism if the patient’s laboratory values demonstrated T4 below the LLN, TSH above the ULN, or if the medication fill history demonstrated levothyroxine initiation or a levothyroxine dose increase.

Results 

The CDW report identified 32,769 total PD-1 inhibitor orders. There were 3982 orders that did not meet inclusion criteria or inadequate data were obtained with CDW report and were excluded (Figure). The remaining 28,787 PD-1 inhibitor orders were evaluated for actual or missed cost savings. The distribution of dosing strategies can be found in Table 1.

Nivolumab accounted for 81.5% of all PD-1 inhibitor orders. Using the most cost-effective nivolumab dosing, the actual cost savings was estimated to be $8,514,300 with potential additional $5,591,250 of missed cost-savings opportunities. There were 8013 nivolumab orders written between September 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017. Cost-effective dosing was used in 4687 of these orders, which accounted for a cost savings of $5,198,570. The remaining 3326 orders had a missed cost-savings opportunity, which accounted for an additional $2,907,180 potential cost savings (Table 2).

PD-1 inhibitors were used for the treatment of 3249 unique patients. Based on abnormal thyroid function tests and levothyroxine initiation or dose increase, it is estimated that 514 (15.8%) patients experienced hypothyroidism during PD-1 inhibitor therapy. However, prior to PD-1 inhibitor therapy, 274 patients were receiving levothyroxine, suggesting baseline thyroid dysfunction. Of these patients, 152 (55.5%) patients maintained the same levothyroxine dose during PD-1 inhibitor therapy, but 91 (33.2%) required a levothyroxine dose increase. There were 187 patients who initiated levothyroxine during PD-1 inhibitor therapy (Table 3).

Discussion

Changes in FDA-approved dosing for PD-1 inhibitors allowed a combination of dosing strategies. Depending on patient weight, a weight-based or fixed-dosing strategy can be used to reduce drug cost while maintaining equivalent efficacy. This study evaluated use of dose rounding for PD-1 inhibitors within the VA health care system to identify actual and potential cost savings. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate cost savings through use of a combination of PD-1 inhibitor dosing strategies. Using CDW, researchers were able to review PD-1 dosing from all VAMCs and include a larger number of orders in a single retrospective study.

Nivolumab was the primary agent used within VAMCs. Depending on the indication, pembrolizumab requires PD-1 expression testing prior to its use in several solid tumor indications. Consequently, additional testing and patient eligibility is needed prior to use. Both PD-1 inhibitors were primarily dosed based on patient weight since this was the first FDAapproved dosing strategy. Nivolumab had more orders categorized as converging, which may be due to the therapeutic weight-based dose of 3 mg/kg for nivolumab vs 2 mg/kg for pembrolizumab. The calculated weight-based dose of nivolumab for an 80-kg patient is 240 mg, which also is the fixed dose. A 80-kg patient on pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg would receive a 160-mg dose, whereas the fixed dose of pembrolizumab is 200 mg. Pembrolizumab is available only in a 100-mg vial, which limits opportunities for dose rounding without drug waste and could explain the higher amount of pembrolizumab orders in the fixed-dose category.

In this review of PD-1 inhibitor orders over approximately a 2.5-year study period, we identified $8,514,300 estimated cost savings with $5,591,250 estimated missed cost savings. When looking at orders administered after FDA approval for nivolumab-fixed dosing in September 2016, there was substantial cost savings of $5,198,570 with the potential for an additional $2,907,180 missed cost savings. Due to lower drug acquisition costs within the VA health care system, there may be higher cost-savings opportunities within other health care systems.

Through review of abnormal thyroid laboratory values and levothyroxine initiation or dose changes, this study estimated the incidence of hypothyroidism in patients receiving PD-1 inhibitor therapy at the VA. The incidence of primary hypothyroidism identified in this study was slightly higher at 15.8% compared with the 8.5 to 9.0% incidence reported from clinical trials.^1,2 There are several reasons why the incidence of hypothyroidism appeared higher in this study. Abnormal laboratory values were not assessed for the degree of deviation from the reference range; any TSH above the ULN, T4 below the LLN, or levothyroxine dose increase was included as thyroid dysfunction in this review. There is also the potential for endogenous age-related thyroid fluctuation, and the development of hypothyroidism may not have been related to PD-1 inhibitor therapy. Within this patient population, 8.4% were receiving levothyroxine prior to PD-1 inhibitor initiation indicating baseline thyroid dysfunction, and it is unclear whether levothyroxine dose increases were due to PD-1 inhibitor or endogenous fluctuation.

Limitations

There are several limitations to acknowledge. The dosing strategy and apparent dose rounding was determined by investigator inference and may not accurately represent the intended dosing strategy. This study did not address efficacy of PD-1 inhibitor and dosing strategy; however, clinical trials have demonstrated equivalent efficacy to generate the change in FDA-approved dosing. Additionally, FDA approval for nivolumab fixed dosing was indication specific. Starting in September 2016, many solid tumor indications had fixed dosing approved, but this approval was not necessarily all encompassing.

While the use of CDW allowed for a greater number of PD-1 inhibitor orders to be included in retrospective review, there also were limitations of the CDW report. The patient weight was limited to weight at time of therapy initiation. Due to the potential for weight changes, nivolumab dosing may have seemed inappropriate to investigators, and thereby excluded. Based on data available from CDW reports, hypothyroidism could not be graded according to NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and the incidence of clinically significant hypothyroidism could not be determined.

Conclusions

With increasing drug acquisition costs, particularly among antineoplastic agents, health care systems frequently seek out cost-savings opportunities. Using a combination of weightbased and fixed-dosing strategies for PD-1 inhibitors can be a mechanism to achieve costsavings. Through the identification of the dosing strategy used for PD-1 inhibitors, we were able to identify and report instances for potential cost-savings opportunities among veterans treated within VA health care system. Use of CDW allows for data from all VAMCs to be evaluated in a single retrospective chart review, which allows for the inclusion of a larger sample size. This study identified a substantial cost savings for nivolumab through a combination of weight-based and fixed-dosing strategies. Due to the novel mechanism of action, ongoing realworld evaluation of adverse events and IrAEs is warranted.

Dosing strategies with nivolumab and pembrolizumab continue to evolve. In March 2018, nivolumab 480 mg IV every 4 weeks was FDA approved and in April 2020, pembrolizumab 400 mg IV every 6 weeks was FDA approved.^13,14 While the drug costs will remain the same, extended interval dosing strategies have cost avoidance such as fewer clinic appointments, resulting in decreased staffing costs and decreased patient travel. Additional studies will be needed to evaluate the cost and safety of the recently approved dosing strategies

A COVID-19 booster shot may be beneficial for patients with cancer who are undergoing treatment, according to new findings from an Israeli case-control study.

The seropositivity rate among the patients with cancer remained high (87%) about 4 months after the patients had received the second BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccination. However, the median IgG titer in the patients and the control persons who were without cancer decreased over time. Notably, in a previous analysis that the authors conducted and in the current one, the IgG titers were statistically significantly lower in the patients with cancer as compared to control persons.

The correlation between antibody levels following vaccination and clinical protection has yet to be proven, but the accumulating evidence supports antibody response as a possible correlate of disease protection.

“Our data can’t predict if a third booster dose is necessary,” said study author Salomon M. Stemmer, MD, professor at the Institute of Oncology of Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. “It does seem quite logical that a booster dose will cause an increase in IgG levels.”

The findings were published Aug. 11, 2021, in a research letter in JAMA Oncology.

In their previous study, Dr. Stemmer and colleagues compared the rates of anti–spike antibody response to the initial shot of the BNT162b2 vaccine among 102 adults with solid-tumor cancers who were undergoing treatment with that of 78 healthy control persons. They found that a high percentage of patients undergoing treatment for cancer (90%) achieved a sufficient antibody response to the BNT162b2 vaccine.
 

Booster endorsed

Responses to COVID-19 vaccination have varied among patients with cancer. For patients with solid tumors, responses have been good even while the patients were receiving systemic therapy. However, among patients with blood cancers, particularly those receiving immunosuppressive therapies, responses have been poor. Studies have identified factors associated with a poor response, but it has been unclear whether to recommend booster shots.

In August the Food and Drug Administration authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for all individuals with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid-organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems.
 

IgG titers lower in cancer patients

In the current analysis, the authors evaluated the anti-S response in the patients with cancer approximately 4 months after they had received the second vaccine dose. They compared the responses in those patients with the responses in a control group.

The cohort included 95 patients from the prior study and 66 control persons. The most common malignancies were gastrointestinal (26%), lung (25%), and breast (18%).

All patients were receiving systemic therapy. Chemotherapy was the most common (28%), followed by immunotherapy (21%) and combination chemotherapy/biological therapy (20%).

At a median of 123 days after the second vaccination, 83 patients with cancer (87%) and all of the control patients (100%) were seropositive for anti-S IgG antibodies. The median titer levels were significantly lower among case patients as compared with control patients (417 AU/mL [interquartile range, 136-895] vs. 1,220 AU/mL [IQR, 588-1,987]; P < .001)

There was a 3.6-fold range in median titer values across tumor types and an even wider range (8.8-fold) across the different types of treatment. The lowest titers were observed among patients who had received immunotherapy plus chemotherapy/biological therapy (median [IQR], 94.4 [49.4-191] AU/mL vs. 147 [62.8-339] AU/mL).

In an exploratory multivariable analysis, treatments with chemotherapy plus immunotherapy and immunotherapy plus biological therapy were significantly associated with lower IgG titers.
 

No downside for cancer patients

The Biden administration announced a plan to begin booster COVID-19 vaccinations for all American adults in September, with recommendations that the third vaccine be given at least 8 months after the second mRNA vaccine dose.

Jeremy M. Levin, DPhil, the chairman and CEO of Ovid Therapeutics, explained that, concerning boosters, “it is inconceivable that we will have all data at this stage.

“Knowledge about how boosters work and don’t work and when you should ideally have them is imperfect,” he told this news organization. “However, we can have a lot of confidence in the fact that hundreds of millions of people have received the vaccine, so we know a lot about the safety and efficacy.”

Immunocompromised adults represent less than 5% of the total population, and most of the available data on vaccination are from patients who have undergone solid-organ transplant, Dr. Levin explained. Studies have shown that their response is less robust to vaccination in comparison with adults in the general population.

“Although it is still preliminary, the strongest data come from Israel,” he said, “where they found that the booster was highly effective and doubled the number of transplant patients who developed antibodies.”

But data are not yet available in the setting of cancer. “But even though we don’t have the data yet, the answer is that no matter, the booster process is essential,” he said. “The evidence we have is that boosters raise the immune response, and it is the best data we have now.”

Martin J. Edelman, MD, chair, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the current recommendation is that patients who are immunocompromised receive a booster immediately.

At his health system, this is interpreted to include patients who have undergone the following treatments: Transplant (solid-organ and bone marrow transplant), hemodialysis, hematologic malignancy treatment, active immunosuppressive (chemotherapy, chemoimmunotherapy, and nonhormonal or single-agent immunotherapy) treatment, rheumatology treatments, and high-dose steroids.

“As for cancer patients, we are making arrangements to vaccinate patients who meet the above criteria now,” he said. “There is no known downside to receiving booster immediately. While there may be less of a response than waiting for completion of treatment, we know that patients on active therapy are frequently able to mount a response, and any response is better than none.”

Dr. Edelman added that this area is changing very rapidly. “We will modify our approach as information and guidance from appropriate organizations, such as the FDA and CDC, become available.”

Dr. Stemmer has received institutional research grants from CAN-FITE, AstraZeneca, Bioline RX, BMS, Halozyme, Clovis Oncology, CTG Pharma, Exelixis, Geicam, Incyte, Lilly, Moderna, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Roche, and owns stocks and options in CTG Pharma, DocBoxMD, Tyrnovo, VYPE, Cytora, and CAN-FITE. Dr. Edelman has received personal fees and other compensation from Windmil, Biomarker Strategies, AstraZeneca, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Apexigen, Nektar, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Armo, Bergen Bio, and Apexigen outside the submitted work. He has submitted a patent for epigenetic modifications to increase susceptibility to radiopharmaceuticals and is a paid adviser for Kanaph and Flame. Dr. Levin is chairman and CEO of Ovid Therapeutics.

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

A COVID-19 booster shot may be beneficial for patients with cancer who are undergoing treatment, according to new findings from an Israeli case-control study.

The seropositivity rate among the patients with cancer remained high (87%) about 4 months after the patients had received the second BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccination. However, the median IgG titer in the patients and the control persons who were without cancer decreased over time. Notably, in a previous analysis that the authors conducted and in the current one, the IgG titers were statistically significantly lower in the patients with cancer as compared to control persons.

The correlation between antibody levels following vaccination and clinical protection has yet to be proven, but the accumulating evidence supports antibody response as a possible correlate of disease protection.

“Our data can’t predict if a third booster dose is necessary,” said study author Salomon M. Stemmer, MD, professor at the Institute of Oncology of Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. “It does seem quite logical that a booster dose will cause an increase in IgG levels.”

The findings were published Aug. 11, 2021, in a research letter in JAMA Oncology.

In their previous study, Dr. Stemmer and colleagues compared the rates of anti–spike antibody response to the initial shot of the BNT162b2 vaccine among 102 adults with solid-tumor cancers who were undergoing treatment with that of 78 healthy control persons. They found that a high percentage of patients undergoing treatment for cancer (90%) achieved a sufficient antibody response to the BNT162b2 vaccine.
 

Booster endorsed

Responses to COVID-19 vaccination have varied among patients with cancer. For patients with solid tumors, responses have been good even while the patients were receiving systemic therapy. However, among patients with blood cancers, particularly those receiving immunosuppressive therapies, responses have been poor. Studies have identified factors associated with a poor response, but it has been unclear whether to recommend booster shots.

In August the Food and Drug Administration authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for all individuals with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid-organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems.
 

IgG titers lower in cancer patients

In the current analysis, the authors evaluated the anti-S response in the patients with cancer approximately 4 months after they had received the second vaccine dose. They compared the responses in those patients with the responses in a control group.

The cohort included 95 patients from the prior study and 66 control persons. The most common malignancies were gastrointestinal (26%), lung (25%), and breast (18%).

All patients were receiving systemic therapy. Chemotherapy was the most common (28%), followed by immunotherapy (21%) and combination chemotherapy/biological therapy (20%).

At a median of 123 days after the second vaccination, 83 patients with cancer (87%) and all of the control patients (100%) were seropositive for anti-S IgG antibodies. The median titer levels were significantly lower among case patients as compared with control patients (417 AU/mL [interquartile range, 136-895] vs. 1,220 AU/mL [IQR, 588-1,987]; P < .001)

There was a 3.6-fold range in median titer values across tumor types and an even wider range (8.8-fold) across the different types of treatment. The lowest titers were observed among patients who had received immunotherapy plus chemotherapy/biological therapy (median [IQR], 94.4 [49.4-191] AU/mL vs. 147 [62.8-339] AU/mL).

In an exploratory multivariable analysis, treatments with chemotherapy plus immunotherapy and immunotherapy plus biological therapy were significantly associated with lower IgG titers.
 

No downside for cancer patients

The Biden administration announced a plan to begin booster COVID-19 vaccinations for all American adults in September, with recommendations that the third vaccine be given at least 8 months after the second mRNA vaccine dose.

Jeremy M. Levin, DPhil, the chairman and CEO of Ovid Therapeutics, explained that, concerning boosters, “it is inconceivable that we will have all data at this stage.

“Knowledge about how boosters work and don’t work and when you should ideally have them is imperfect,” he told this news organization. “However, we can have a lot of confidence in the fact that hundreds of millions of people have received the vaccine, so we know a lot about the safety and efficacy.”

Immunocompromised adults represent less than 5% of the total population, and most of the available data on vaccination are from patients who have undergone solid-organ transplant, Dr. Levin explained. Studies have shown that their response is less robust to vaccination in comparison with adults in the general population.

“Although it is still preliminary, the strongest data come from Israel,” he said, “where they found that the booster was highly effective and doubled the number of transplant patients who developed antibodies.”

But data are not yet available in the setting of cancer. “But even though we don’t have the data yet, the answer is that no matter, the booster process is essential,” he said. “The evidence we have is that boosters raise the immune response, and it is the best data we have now.”

Martin J. Edelman, MD, chair, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the current recommendation is that patients who are immunocompromised receive a booster immediately.

At his health system, this is interpreted to include patients who have undergone the following treatments: Transplant (solid-organ and bone marrow transplant), hemodialysis, hematologic malignancy treatment, active immunosuppressive (chemotherapy, chemoimmunotherapy, and nonhormonal or single-agent immunotherapy) treatment, rheumatology treatments, and high-dose steroids.

“As for cancer patients, we are making arrangements to vaccinate patients who meet the above criteria now,” he said. “There is no known downside to receiving booster immediately. While there may be less of a response than waiting for completion of treatment, we know that patients on active therapy are frequently able to mount a response, and any response is better than none.”

Dr. Edelman added that this area is changing very rapidly. “We will modify our approach as information and guidance from appropriate organizations, such as the FDA and CDC, become available.”

Dr. Stemmer has received institutional research grants from CAN-FITE, AstraZeneca, Bioline RX, BMS, Halozyme, Clovis Oncology, CTG Pharma, Exelixis, Geicam, Incyte, Lilly, Moderna, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Roche, and owns stocks and options in CTG Pharma, DocBoxMD, Tyrnovo, VYPE, Cytora, and CAN-FITE. Dr. Edelman has received personal fees and other compensation from Windmil, Biomarker Strategies, AstraZeneca, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Apexigen, Nektar, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Armo, Bergen Bio, and Apexigen outside the submitted work. He has submitted a patent for epigenetic modifications to increase susceptibility to radiopharmaceuticals and is a paid adviser for Kanaph and Flame. Dr. Levin is chairman and CEO of Ovid Therapeutics.

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

A COVID-19 booster shot may be beneficial for patients with cancer who are undergoing treatment, according to new findings from an Israeli case-control study.

The seropositivity rate among the patients with cancer remained high (87%) about 4 months after the patients had received the second BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccination. However, the median IgG titer in the patients and the control persons who were without cancer decreased over time. Notably, in a previous analysis that the authors conducted and in the current one, the IgG titers were statistically significantly lower in the patients with cancer as compared to control persons.

The correlation between antibody levels following vaccination and clinical protection has yet to be proven, but the accumulating evidence supports antibody response as a possible correlate of disease protection.

“Our data can’t predict if a third booster dose is necessary,” said study author Salomon M. Stemmer, MD, professor at the Institute of Oncology of Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel. “It does seem quite logical that a booster dose will cause an increase in IgG levels.”

The findings were published Aug. 11, 2021, in a research letter in JAMA Oncology.

In their previous study, Dr. Stemmer and colleagues compared the rates of anti–spike antibody response to the initial shot of the BNT162b2 vaccine among 102 adults with solid-tumor cancers who were undergoing treatment with that of 78 healthy control persons. They found that a high percentage of patients undergoing treatment for cancer (90%) achieved a sufficient antibody response to the BNT162b2 vaccine.
 

Booster endorsed

Responses to COVID-19 vaccination have varied among patients with cancer. For patients with solid tumors, responses have been good even while the patients were receiving systemic therapy. However, among patients with blood cancers, particularly those receiving immunosuppressive therapies, responses have been poor. Studies have identified factors associated with a poor response, but it has been unclear whether to recommend booster shots.

In August the Food and Drug Administration authorized a third dose of either the Pfizer or the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for all individuals with compromised immune systems. Those eligible for a third dose include solid-organ transplant recipients, those undergoing cancer treatments, and people with autoimmune diseases that suppress their immune systems.
 

IgG titers lower in cancer patients

In the current analysis, the authors evaluated the anti-S response in the patients with cancer approximately 4 months after they had received the second vaccine dose. They compared the responses in those patients with the responses in a control group.

The cohort included 95 patients from the prior study and 66 control persons. The most common malignancies were gastrointestinal (26%), lung (25%), and breast (18%).

All patients were receiving systemic therapy. Chemotherapy was the most common (28%), followed by immunotherapy (21%) and combination chemotherapy/biological therapy (20%).

At a median of 123 days after the second vaccination, 83 patients with cancer (87%) and all of the control patients (100%) were seropositive for anti-S IgG antibodies. The median titer levels were significantly lower among case patients as compared with control patients (417 AU/mL [interquartile range, 136-895] vs. 1,220 AU/mL [IQR, 588-1,987]; P < .001)

There was a 3.6-fold range in median titer values across tumor types and an even wider range (8.8-fold) across the different types of treatment. The lowest titers were observed among patients who had received immunotherapy plus chemotherapy/biological therapy (median [IQR], 94.4 [49.4-191] AU/mL vs. 147 [62.8-339] AU/mL).

In an exploratory multivariable analysis, treatments with chemotherapy plus immunotherapy and immunotherapy plus biological therapy were significantly associated with lower IgG titers.
 

No downside for cancer patients

The Biden administration announced a plan to begin booster COVID-19 vaccinations for all American adults in September, with recommendations that the third vaccine be given at least 8 months after the second mRNA vaccine dose.

Jeremy M. Levin, DPhil, the chairman and CEO of Ovid Therapeutics, explained that, concerning boosters, “it is inconceivable that we will have all data at this stage.

“Knowledge about how boosters work and don’t work and when you should ideally have them is imperfect,” he told this news organization. “However, we can have a lot of confidence in the fact that hundreds of millions of people have received the vaccine, so we know a lot about the safety and efficacy.”

Immunocompromised adults represent less than 5% of the total population, and most of the available data on vaccination are from patients who have undergone solid-organ transplant, Dr. Levin explained. Studies have shown that their response is less robust to vaccination in comparison with adults in the general population.

“Although it is still preliminary, the strongest data come from Israel,” he said, “where they found that the booster was highly effective and doubled the number of transplant patients who developed antibodies.”

But data are not yet available in the setting of cancer. “But even though we don’t have the data yet, the answer is that no matter, the booster process is essential,” he said. “The evidence we have is that boosters raise the immune response, and it is the best data we have now.”

Martin J. Edelman, MD, chair, department of hematology/oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, noted that the current recommendation is that patients who are immunocompromised receive a booster immediately.

At his health system, this is interpreted to include patients who have undergone the following treatments: Transplant (solid-organ and bone marrow transplant), hemodialysis, hematologic malignancy treatment, active immunosuppressive (chemotherapy, chemoimmunotherapy, and nonhormonal or single-agent immunotherapy) treatment, rheumatology treatments, and high-dose steroids.

“As for cancer patients, we are making arrangements to vaccinate patients who meet the above criteria now,” he said. “There is no known downside to receiving booster immediately. While there may be less of a response than waiting for completion of treatment, we know that patients on active therapy are frequently able to mount a response, and any response is better than none.”

Dr. Edelman added that this area is changing very rapidly. “We will modify our approach as information and guidance from appropriate organizations, such as the FDA and CDC, become available.”

Dr. Stemmer has received institutional research grants from CAN-FITE, AstraZeneca, Bioline RX, BMS, Halozyme, Clovis Oncology, CTG Pharma, Exelixis, Geicam, Incyte, Lilly, Moderna, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Roche, and owns stocks and options in CTG Pharma, DocBoxMD, Tyrnovo, VYPE, Cytora, and CAN-FITE. Dr. Edelman has received personal fees and other compensation from Windmil, Biomarker Strategies, AstraZeneca, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Apexigen, Nektar, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Armo, Bergen Bio, and Apexigen outside the submitted work. He has submitted a patent for epigenetic modifications to increase susceptibility to radiopharmaceuticals and is a paid adviser for Kanaph and Flame. Dr. Levin is chairman and CEO of Ovid Therapeutics.

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

The potential of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to become key components in the assessment of individual risk for disease in the clinical setting is inching closer to fruition; however, the technology is plagued by one glaring omission of most existing PRSs – the lack of applicability to those of non-European ancestry.

Polygenic risk scores predict an individual’s risk of disease based on common genetic variants identified in large genomewide association studies (GWASs). They have gained ground in research, as well as in the unregulated realm of the direct-to-consumer market where they are sold as add-ons to DNA ancestry kits such as 23andMe and MyHeritage.com.

While the risk scores show strong validation in estimating risk among people of European descent, their striking caveat is the lack of applicability to other ancestries, particularly African, and their use in practice outside of clinical trials is discouraged in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Study underscores need for ethnically diverse datasets

In a recent study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores’ models in a clinical setting. Researchers tested 7 PRSs models for breast cancer risk against the medical records data of 39,591 women of European, African, and Latinx ancestry.

The PRSs models – all used only for research purposes – included three models involving European ancestry cohorts, two from Latinx cohorts, and two from women African descent.

After adjusting for factors including age, breast cancer family history, and ancestry, the PRSs from women with European ancestry highly corresponded to breast cancer risk, with a mean odds ratio of 1.46 per standard deviation increase in the score.

PRSs were also generalized relatively well among women of Latinx ancestry with a mean OR of 1.31. The authors noted that association is likely caused by Latinx individuals in the United States having a greater proportion of European ancestry than individuals with African ancestry. Importantly, however, the effect size was lower for women of African ancestry with a highest OR of 1.19 per standard deviation.

In the highest percentiles of breast cancer risk, women of European descent had odds ratio as high as 2.19-2.48, suggesting a statistically significant association with overall breast cancer risk. No statistically significant associations were found among women of Latinx and African-ancestry.

The PRSs models were smaller for women of non-European ancestry and included fewer genetic variants for women of non-European ancestry were notably smaller and hence reflected fewer genetic variants. Of the two risk scores involving African ancestry, the Women’s Health Initiative for Women with African ancestry risk score had just 75 variants, while the African diaspora study (ROOT) had 34 variants, compared with 3,820 and 5,218 in the two largest European ancestry PRSs, the Breast Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank, respectively.

“These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts,” the authors wrote.

First author, Cong Liu, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that efforts are underway to improve the inclusivity in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network data set used in this study.

“Until well-developed and validated PRSs for women with non-European ancestry become available, the current PRSs based on cohorts with European ancestry could be adapted for Latinx women, but not women with African ancestry until additional data sets become available in this important and high-risk group,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote.

In a commentary published with the study, Payal D. Shah, MD, of the Basser Center for BRCA at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that PRSs are “disproportionately applicable to patients with European ancestry and are insufficiently vetted and developed in other populations. If an instrument exists that has clinical utility in informing effective cancer risk mitigation strategies, then we must strive to ensure that it is available and applicable to all.”

Higher morality among African American women

While American Cancer Society data shows women with African ancestry generally have incidence rates of breast cancer similar to White women, they have significantly higher mortality from the disease in part because of later-stage diagnosis and health care barriers.

Anne Marie McCarthy, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that African American women “have 42% higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite having lower disease incidence, and are more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which has poorer prognosis than other molecular subtypes.”

Dr. McCarthy and Dr. Armstrong wrote that African American women are chronically underrepresented in breast cancer studies. And as such, it is impossible to know the extent of the prevalence of mutations and risk.

Failing to address the lack of diversity in genomic studies may worsen health disparities for women with African ancestry, Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote. The higher mortality “underscores the urgent need to increase diversity in genomic studies so that future clinical applications of the PRS do not exacerbate existing health disparities. These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts.”
 

Potential PRS benefits underscore need to eliminate bias

The potentially important benefits of PRSs as risk prediction tools used in combination with family history, reproductive history and other factors, should provide strong incentive to push for improvement, Dr. Shah wrote.

For instance, if an individual is estrogen receptor positive and shows elevations in breast cancer risk on a reliable PRS, “this may inform antiestrogen chemoprevention strategies,” she wrote.

A risk score could furthermore influence the age at which breast cancer screening should begin or factor into whether a patient should also receive surveillance breast MRI.

Importantly, PRSs could also add to other risk factors to provide more precise risk estimates and inform management of women with a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk predisposition gene, Dr. Shah wrote.

Confluence project

Among the most promising developments in research is the National Cancer Institute’s Confluence Project, a large research resource aiming to include approximately 300,000 breast cancer cases and 300,000 controls of different races/ethnicities, utilizing the confluence of existing GWAS and new genomewide genotyping data.

Having started enrollment in 2018, the project is approaching implementation, said Montserrat García-Closas, MD, MPH, DrPH, deputy director of cancer epidemiology and genetics with the National Cancer Institute.

“We expect genotyping to be completed by the end of 2022 and for the data to be made available to the research community soon after that,” she said.

Among the project’s key objectives are the development of PRSs to be integrated with known risk factors to provide a personalized risk assessment for breast cancer, overall and by ancestral subtype.

“We plan to apply novel methods to derive multiancestry PRS that will account for differences and similarities in genetic architecture across ethnic/racial groups to develop breast cancer PRSs that can be applied in multiethnic/racial populations,” she said.

NCI is working with investigators in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia, and reaching out to non-European organizations such as AORTIC for studies of African populations.

Direct-to-consumer global PRS

In the commercial PRS market, efforts to address diversity shortcomings are also gaining momentum, with Myriad Genetics touting a first-of-its kind “global PRS.”

The PRS, a recalibrated version the company’s riskScore PRS, sold as part of its Myriad myRisk Hereditary Cancer test, will reportedly apply to all ethnicities in estimating an individual’s 5-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer.

A study presented in June at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, describes the development of the model with the use of three large ancestry-specific PRSs based on African American, Asian, and European cohorts, with the system including a total of 149 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, including 93 well established for breast cancer and 56 that are ancestry specific.

In validation of the data in an independent cohort of 62,707 individuals, the global PRS was strongly associated with breast cancer in the full combined validation cohort as well as in all three of the ancestry subcohorts.

However, the effect size among women with African ancestry was still the lowest of all of the groups, with a mean OR of 1.24 per standard deviation, versus the highest rate of mixed ancestry (OR, 1.59).

According to senior author Holly Pederson, MD, director of medical breast services at the Cleveland Clinic, the applicability of the PRS to women with African ancestry is expected to further improve as additional data become available.

“The discriminatory power in women of African descent was significantly improved but still suboptimal,” she said. “The need for more data, particularly in Black women, is challenging not only because there is likely more diversity in the genomic landscape of women of African descent, but also because the barriers created by historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal dynamics result in the paucity of this data.”

“We must be committed to ending bias resulting in health care disparities,” Dr. Pederson said. She noted that the global PRS is nevertheless “still clinically useful in Black women,” and recommended that clinicians be up front with patients on the status of the research challenges.

“As with any clinical shared decision-making conversation between a patient and her provider, it is important for Black women to know that data is limited in the African American population, particularly given the vast genomic diversity of the African continent,” she said. “This model, as models that have gone before it, will improve with additional data, particularly in this population.”

Commercial PRSs may benefit research

While the commercial marketing of PRSs in a direct-to-consumer fashion have raised some concerns, such as how individuals respond to their risk scores, there could be important benefits as well, commented Megan C. Roberts, PhD.

“There may be an opportunity to learn from these companies about how to engage diverse communities in genomic testing,” said Dr. Roberts, an assistant professor and director of implementation science in precision health and society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Moreover, the data they collect from their customers often can be used for research purposes as well.”

In a recent perspective, Dr. Roberts and colleagues addressed the role of health disparities in PRSs. She’ll be joining international precision public health researchers in October in hosting a free virtual conference at UNC on the topic.

“There is a huge need to improve racial and ethnic diversity in our genomic datasets,” Dr. Roberts said. “Without this, we will not be able to return on the promise of precision medicine and prevention for improving the health of our whole population.”

Dr. Pederson disclosed that she is a consultant for Myriad Genetics.

The potential of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to become key components in the assessment of individual risk for disease in the clinical setting is inching closer to fruition; however, the technology is plagued by one glaring omission of most existing PRSs – the lack of applicability to those of non-European ancestry.

Polygenic risk scores predict an individual’s risk of disease based on common genetic variants identified in large genomewide association studies (GWASs). They have gained ground in research, as well as in the unregulated realm of the direct-to-consumer market where they are sold as add-ons to DNA ancestry kits such as 23andMe and MyHeritage.com.

While the risk scores show strong validation in estimating risk among people of European descent, their striking caveat is the lack of applicability to other ancestries, particularly African, and their use in practice outside of clinical trials is discouraged in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Study underscores need for ethnically diverse datasets

In a recent study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores’ models in a clinical setting. Researchers tested 7 PRSs models for breast cancer risk against the medical records data of 39,591 women of European, African, and Latinx ancestry.

The PRSs models – all used only for research purposes – included three models involving European ancestry cohorts, two from Latinx cohorts, and two from women African descent.

After adjusting for factors including age, breast cancer family history, and ancestry, the PRSs from women with European ancestry highly corresponded to breast cancer risk, with a mean odds ratio of 1.46 per standard deviation increase in the score.

PRSs were also generalized relatively well among women of Latinx ancestry with a mean OR of 1.31. The authors noted that association is likely caused by Latinx individuals in the United States having a greater proportion of European ancestry than individuals with African ancestry. Importantly, however, the effect size was lower for women of African ancestry with a highest OR of 1.19 per standard deviation.

In the highest percentiles of breast cancer risk, women of European descent had odds ratio as high as 2.19-2.48, suggesting a statistically significant association with overall breast cancer risk. No statistically significant associations were found among women of Latinx and African-ancestry.

The PRSs models were smaller for women of non-European ancestry and included fewer genetic variants for women of non-European ancestry were notably smaller and hence reflected fewer genetic variants. Of the two risk scores involving African ancestry, the Women’s Health Initiative for Women with African ancestry risk score had just 75 variants, while the African diaspora study (ROOT) had 34 variants, compared with 3,820 and 5,218 in the two largest European ancestry PRSs, the Breast Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank, respectively.

“These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts,” the authors wrote.

First author, Cong Liu, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that efforts are underway to improve the inclusivity in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network data set used in this study.

“Until well-developed and validated PRSs for women with non-European ancestry become available, the current PRSs based on cohorts with European ancestry could be adapted for Latinx women, but not women with African ancestry until additional data sets become available in this important and high-risk group,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote.

In a commentary published with the study, Payal D. Shah, MD, of the Basser Center for BRCA at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that PRSs are “disproportionately applicable to patients with European ancestry and are insufficiently vetted and developed in other populations. If an instrument exists that has clinical utility in informing effective cancer risk mitigation strategies, then we must strive to ensure that it is available and applicable to all.”

Higher morality among African American women

While American Cancer Society data shows women with African ancestry generally have incidence rates of breast cancer similar to White women, they have significantly higher mortality from the disease in part because of later-stage diagnosis and health care barriers.

Anne Marie McCarthy, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that African American women “have 42% higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite having lower disease incidence, and are more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which has poorer prognosis than other molecular subtypes.”

Dr. McCarthy and Dr. Armstrong wrote that African American women are chronically underrepresented in breast cancer studies. And as such, it is impossible to know the extent of the prevalence of mutations and risk.

Failing to address the lack of diversity in genomic studies may worsen health disparities for women with African ancestry, Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote. The higher mortality “underscores the urgent need to increase diversity in genomic studies so that future clinical applications of the PRS do not exacerbate existing health disparities. These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts.”
 

Potential PRS benefits underscore need to eliminate bias

The potentially important benefits of PRSs as risk prediction tools used in combination with family history, reproductive history and other factors, should provide strong incentive to push for improvement, Dr. Shah wrote.

For instance, if an individual is estrogen receptor positive and shows elevations in breast cancer risk on a reliable PRS, “this may inform antiestrogen chemoprevention strategies,” she wrote.

A risk score could furthermore influence the age at which breast cancer screening should begin or factor into whether a patient should also receive surveillance breast MRI.

Importantly, PRSs could also add to other risk factors to provide more precise risk estimates and inform management of women with a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk predisposition gene, Dr. Shah wrote.

Confluence project

Among the most promising developments in research is the National Cancer Institute’s Confluence Project, a large research resource aiming to include approximately 300,000 breast cancer cases and 300,000 controls of different races/ethnicities, utilizing the confluence of existing GWAS and new genomewide genotyping data.

Having started enrollment in 2018, the project is approaching implementation, said Montserrat García-Closas, MD, MPH, DrPH, deputy director of cancer epidemiology and genetics with the National Cancer Institute.

“We expect genotyping to be completed by the end of 2022 and for the data to be made available to the research community soon after that,” she said.

Among the project’s key objectives are the development of PRSs to be integrated with known risk factors to provide a personalized risk assessment for breast cancer, overall and by ancestral subtype.

“We plan to apply novel methods to derive multiancestry PRS that will account for differences and similarities in genetic architecture across ethnic/racial groups to develop breast cancer PRSs that can be applied in multiethnic/racial populations,” she said.

NCI is working with investigators in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia, and reaching out to non-European organizations such as AORTIC for studies of African populations.

Direct-to-consumer global PRS

In the commercial PRS market, efforts to address diversity shortcomings are also gaining momentum, with Myriad Genetics touting a first-of-its kind “global PRS.”

The PRS, a recalibrated version the company’s riskScore PRS, sold as part of its Myriad myRisk Hereditary Cancer test, will reportedly apply to all ethnicities in estimating an individual’s 5-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer.

A study presented in June at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, describes the development of the model with the use of three large ancestry-specific PRSs based on African American, Asian, and European cohorts, with the system including a total of 149 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, including 93 well established for breast cancer and 56 that are ancestry specific.

In validation of the data in an independent cohort of 62,707 individuals, the global PRS was strongly associated with breast cancer in the full combined validation cohort as well as in all three of the ancestry subcohorts.

However, the effect size among women with African ancestry was still the lowest of all of the groups, with a mean OR of 1.24 per standard deviation, versus the highest rate of mixed ancestry (OR, 1.59).

According to senior author Holly Pederson, MD, director of medical breast services at the Cleveland Clinic, the applicability of the PRS to women with African ancestry is expected to further improve as additional data become available.

“The discriminatory power in women of African descent was significantly improved but still suboptimal,” she said. “The need for more data, particularly in Black women, is challenging not only because there is likely more diversity in the genomic landscape of women of African descent, but also because the barriers created by historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal dynamics result in the paucity of this data.”

“We must be committed to ending bias resulting in health care disparities,” Dr. Pederson said. She noted that the global PRS is nevertheless “still clinically useful in Black women,” and recommended that clinicians be up front with patients on the status of the research challenges.

“As with any clinical shared decision-making conversation between a patient and her provider, it is important for Black women to know that data is limited in the African American population, particularly given the vast genomic diversity of the African continent,” she said. “This model, as models that have gone before it, will improve with additional data, particularly in this population.”

Commercial PRSs may benefit research

While the commercial marketing of PRSs in a direct-to-consumer fashion have raised some concerns, such as how individuals respond to their risk scores, there could be important benefits as well, commented Megan C. Roberts, PhD.

“There may be an opportunity to learn from these companies about how to engage diverse communities in genomic testing,” said Dr. Roberts, an assistant professor and director of implementation science in precision health and society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Moreover, the data they collect from their customers often can be used for research purposes as well.”

In a recent perspective, Dr. Roberts and colleagues addressed the role of health disparities in PRSs. She’ll be joining international precision public health researchers in October in hosting a free virtual conference at UNC on the topic.

“There is a huge need to improve racial and ethnic diversity in our genomic datasets,” Dr. Roberts said. “Without this, we will not be able to return on the promise of precision medicine and prevention for improving the health of our whole population.”

Dr. Pederson disclosed that she is a consultant for Myriad Genetics.

The potential of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to become key components in the assessment of individual risk for disease in the clinical setting is inching closer to fruition; however, the technology is plagued by one glaring omission of most existing PRSs – the lack of applicability to those of non-European ancestry.

Polygenic risk scores predict an individual’s risk of disease based on common genetic variants identified in large genomewide association studies (GWASs). They have gained ground in research, as well as in the unregulated realm of the direct-to-consumer market where they are sold as add-ons to DNA ancestry kits such as 23andMe and MyHeritage.com.

While the risk scores show strong validation in estimating risk among people of European descent, their striking caveat is the lack of applicability to other ancestries, particularly African, and their use in practice outside of clinical trials is discouraged in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Study underscores need for ethnically diverse datasets

In a recent study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores’ models in a clinical setting. Researchers tested 7 PRSs models for breast cancer risk against the medical records data of 39,591 women of European, African, and Latinx ancestry.

The PRSs models – all used only for research purposes – included three models involving European ancestry cohorts, two from Latinx cohorts, and two from women African descent.

After adjusting for factors including age, breast cancer family history, and ancestry, the PRSs from women with European ancestry highly corresponded to breast cancer risk, with a mean odds ratio of 1.46 per standard deviation increase in the score.

PRSs were also generalized relatively well among women of Latinx ancestry with a mean OR of 1.31. The authors noted that association is likely caused by Latinx individuals in the United States having a greater proportion of European ancestry than individuals with African ancestry. Importantly, however, the effect size was lower for women of African ancestry with a highest OR of 1.19 per standard deviation.

In the highest percentiles of breast cancer risk, women of European descent had odds ratio as high as 2.19-2.48, suggesting a statistically significant association with overall breast cancer risk. No statistically significant associations were found among women of Latinx and African-ancestry.

The PRSs models were smaller for women of non-European ancestry and included fewer genetic variants for women of non-European ancestry were notably smaller and hence reflected fewer genetic variants. Of the two risk scores involving African ancestry, the Women’s Health Initiative for Women with African ancestry risk score had just 75 variants, while the African diaspora study (ROOT) had 34 variants, compared with 3,820 and 5,218 in the two largest European ancestry PRSs, the Breast Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank, respectively.

“These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts,” the authors wrote.

First author, Cong Liu, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that efforts are underway to improve the inclusivity in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network data set used in this study.

“Until well-developed and validated PRSs for women with non-European ancestry become available, the current PRSs based on cohorts with European ancestry could be adapted for Latinx women, but not women with African ancestry until additional data sets become available in this important and high-risk group,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote.

In a commentary published with the study, Payal D. Shah, MD, of the Basser Center for BRCA at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that PRSs are “disproportionately applicable to patients with European ancestry and are insufficiently vetted and developed in other populations. If an instrument exists that has clinical utility in informing effective cancer risk mitigation strategies, then we must strive to ensure that it is available and applicable to all.”

Higher morality among African American women

While American Cancer Society data shows women with African ancestry generally have incidence rates of breast cancer similar to White women, they have significantly higher mortality from the disease in part because of later-stage diagnosis and health care barriers.

Anne Marie McCarthy, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that African American women “have 42% higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite having lower disease incidence, and are more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which has poorer prognosis than other molecular subtypes.”

Dr. McCarthy and Dr. Armstrong wrote that African American women are chronically underrepresented in breast cancer studies. And as such, it is impossible to know the extent of the prevalence of mutations and risk.

Failing to address the lack of diversity in genomic studies may worsen health disparities for women with African ancestry, Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote. The higher mortality “underscores the urgent need to increase diversity in genomic studies so that future clinical applications of the PRS do not exacerbate existing health disparities. These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts.”
 

Potential PRS benefits underscore need to eliminate bias

The potentially important benefits of PRSs as risk prediction tools used in combination with family history, reproductive history and other factors, should provide strong incentive to push for improvement, Dr. Shah wrote.

For instance, if an individual is estrogen receptor positive and shows elevations in breast cancer risk on a reliable PRS, “this may inform antiestrogen chemoprevention strategies,” she wrote.

A risk score could furthermore influence the age at which breast cancer screening should begin or factor into whether a patient should also receive surveillance breast MRI.

Importantly, PRSs could also add to other risk factors to provide more precise risk estimates and inform management of women with a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk predisposition gene, Dr. Shah wrote.

Confluence project

Among the most promising developments in research is the National Cancer Institute’s Confluence Project, a large research resource aiming to include approximately 300,000 breast cancer cases and 300,000 controls of different races/ethnicities, utilizing the confluence of existing GWAS and new genomewide genotyping data.

Having started enrollment in 2018, the project is approaching implementation, said Montserrat García-Closas, MD, MPH, DrPH, deputy director of cancer epidemiology and genetics with the National Cancer Institute.

“We expect genotyping to be completed by the end of 2022 and for the data to be made available to the research community soon after that,” she said.

Among the project’s key objectives are the development of PRSs to be integrated with known risk factors to provide a personalized risk assessment for breast cancer, overall and by ancestral subtype.

“We plan to apply novel methods to derive multiancestry PRS that will account for differences and similarities in genetic architecture across ethnic/racial groups to develop breast cancer PRSs that can be applied in multiethnic/racial populations,” she said.

NCI is working with investigators in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia, and reaching out to non-European organizations such as AORTIC for studies of African populations.

Direct-to-consumer global PRS

In the commercial PRS market, efforts to address diversity shortcomings are also gaining momentum, with Myriad Genetics touting a first-of-its kind “global PRS.”

The PRS, a recalibrated version the company’s riskScore PRS, sold as part of its Myriad myRisk Hereditary Cancer test, will reportedly apply to all ethnicities in estimating an individual’s 5-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer.

A study presented in June at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, describes the development of the model with the use of three large ancestry-specific PRSs based on African American, Asian, and European cohorts, with the system including a total of 149 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, including 93 well established for breast cancer and 56 that are ancestry specific.

In validation of the data in an independent cohort of 62,707 individuals, the global PRS was strongly associated with breast cancer in the full combined validation cohort as well as in all three of the ancestry subcohorts.

However, the effect size among women with African ancestry was still the lowest of all of the groups, with a mean OR of 1.24 per standard deviation, versus the highest rate of mixed ancestry (OR, 1.59).

According to senior author Holly Pederson, MD, director of medical breast services at the Cleveland Clinic, the applicability of the PRS to women with African ancestry is expected to further improve as additional data become available.

“The discriminatory power in women of African descent was significantly improved but still suboptimal,” she said. “The need for more data, particularly in Black women, is challenging not only because there is likely more diversity in the genomic landscape of women of African descent, but also because the barriers created by historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal dynamics result in the paucity of this data.”

“We must be committed to ending bias resulting in health care disparities,” Dr. Pederson said. She noted that the global PRS is nevertheless “still clinically useful in Black women,” and recommended that clinicians be up front with patients on the status of the research challenges.

“As with any clinical shared decision-making conversation between a patient and her provider, it is important for Black women to know that data is limited in the African American population, particularly given the vast genomic diversity of the African continent,” she said. “This model, as models that have gone before it, will improve with additional data, particularly in this population.”

Commercial PRSs may benefit research

While the commercial marketing of PRSs in a direct-to-consumer fashion have raised some concerns, such as how individuals respond to their risk scores, there could be important benefits as well, commented Megan C. Roberts, PhD.

“There may be an opportunity to learn from these companies about how to engage diverse communities in genomic testing,” said Dr. Roberts, an assistant professor and director of implementation science in precision health and society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Moreover, the data they collect from their customers often can be used for research purposes as well.”

In a recent perspective, Dr. Roberts and colleagues addressed the role of health disparities in PRSs. She’ll be joining international precision public health researchers in October in hosting a free virtual conference at UNC on the topic.

“There is a huge need to improve racial and ethnic diversity in our genomic datasets,” Dr. Roberts said. “Without this, we will not be able to return on the promise of precision medicine and prevention for improving the health of our whole population.”

Dr. Pederson disclosed that she is a consultant for Myriad Genetics.

Nearly 50,000 veterans are diagnosed with cancer within the Veterans Health Administration annually with prostate cancer (PC) being the most frequently diagnosed, accounting for 29% of all cancers diagnosed.¹ The treatment of PC depends on the stage and risk group at presentation and patient preference. Men with early stage, localized PC can be managed with prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or active surveillance.²

Within the Veterans Health Administration, more patients are treated with radiation therapy than with radical prostatectomy.³ This is in contrast to the civil health system, where more patients are treated with radical prostatectomy than with radiation therapy.^4,5 Radiation therapy for PC can be given externally with external beam radiation therapy or internally with brachytherapy (BT). BT is categorized by the rate at which the radiation dose is delivered and generally grouped as low-dose rate (LDR) or high-dose rate (HDR). LDRBT consists of permanently implanting radioactive seeds, which slowly deliver a radiation dose over an extended period. HDRBT consists of implanting catheters that allow delivery of a radioactive source to be placed temporarily in the prostate and removed after treatment. The utilization of HDRBT has become more common as treatment has evolved to consist of fewer, larger fractions in a shorter time, making it a convenient treatment option for men with PC.⁶ The veteran population has singular medical challenges. These patients differ from the general population and are often underrepresented in medical research and published studies.⁷ There are no studies exploring the treatment-associated toxicities from HDRBT treatment for PC specifically in the veteran population. The objective of this study is to report our findings regarding the veteran-reported and physician-graded toxicities associated with HDRBT as monotherapy in veterans treated through the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for PC.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained, institutional review board-approved database of patients treated with HDRBT for PC. Veterans were seen in consultation at Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital (EHJVAH) in Hines, Illinois. This is the only VA hospital in Illinois that offers radiation therapy, so it acted as a tertiary center, receiving referrals from other, neighboring VA hospitals. If the veteran was deemed a good BT candidate and elected to proceed with HDRBT, HDR treatment was performed at a partnering academic institution equipped to provide HDRBT (Loyola University Medical Center).

We selected patients with National Cancer Center Network (NCCN) low- or intermediate-risk PC undergoing definitive HDRBT as monotherapy using 13.5 Gy x 2 fractions delivered over 2 implants that were 1 to 2 weeks apart. Patients who received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were excluded from this study. No patients received supplemental external beam radiation. Men with unfavorable intermediate risk PC were offered ADT and BT in accordance with NCCN guidelines. However, patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk PC who declined ADT or who were deemed poor ADT candidates due to comorbidities were treated with HDR as monotherapy and included in this study.⁸

HDR Treatment

Our HDRBT implant procedure and treatment planning details have been previously described.⁹ In brief, patients were implanted with between 17 and 22 catheters based on gland size under transrectal ultrasound guidance. After implantation, computed tomography and, when possible, magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate were obtained and registered for target delineation. The prostate was segmented, and an asymmetric planning target volume of 0 to 5 mm was created and extended to encompass the proximal seminal vesicles. The second fraction was given 1 to 2 weeks after initial treatment, based on patient, physician, and operating room availability.

Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment

Veteran-reported genitourinary (GU), gastrointestinal (GI), and sexual health-related quality of life (hrQOL) were assessed using the validated International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26) instruments.^10,11 Baseline veteran-reported hrQOL scores in the GU, GI, and sexual domains were obtained prior to each veteran’s first HDR treatment. Veteran-reported hrQOL scores were assessed at each of the patient’s follow-up appointments. Physician-graded toxicity was assessed Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v 4.03 criteria.¹² Physician-graded toxicity was assessed at each follow-up visit and reported as the highest grade reported during any follow-up examination.

Follow-up appointments typically occurred at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and subsequently every 6 months after the second HDR treatment. Follow-up appointments were conducted in the radiation oncology department at EHJVAH.

Minimal Clinically Important Differences

To evaluate the veteran-reported hrQOL, we characterized statistically significant differences in IPSS or EPIC-26 scores over time as compared with baseline values as clinically important or not clinically important through the use of reported minimal clinically important difference (MCID) assessments.^13-15 For the IPSS, we used reported data that showed a change of ≥ 3.0 points represented a clinically meaningful change in urinary function.¹⁴ For the EPIC-26 scores, we used reported data that showed a change of ≥ 6 points for urinary incontinence score, ≥ 5 points for urinary obstruction score, ≥ 4 points for bowel score, and ≥ 10 points for sexual score to represent an MCID.¹⁵

Statistical Analysis

Changes in veteran-reported hrQOL over time were compared using mixed linear effects models, with the time since the last BT implant serving as the fixed variable. Effects were deemed statistically significant if P < .05. If a statistically significant difference from baseline was found at any time point, additional evaluation was done to see if the numerical difference in the assessment led to an MCID as described above. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 25.0 was used for data analysis.

Results

Seventy-four veterans were included in the study. The median follow-up was 18 months (range 1-43). The demographic and oncologic specifics of the treated veterans are outlined in Table 1.

There was a significant increase in IPSS (P < .001) with reciprocal decline in EPIC-26 urinary incontinence (P = .008) and EPIC-26 urinary obstruction scores (P = .001) from baseline over time (Table 2 and Figure 1). At the 18-month follow-up assessment, there was no longer a significant difference in the EPIC-26 urinary obstruction score from baseline (88.7 vs 84.0, P = .31). The increases in IPSS at the 1-, 3-, and 6-month assessments met the criteria for MCID. The decrease in EPIC-26 urinary incontinence scores at the 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, and 18-month assessments were found to be an MCID, as were the decrease in EPIC-26 urinary obstruction scores at the 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month assessments.

Discussion

We performed a retrospective study of veterans with low- or intermediate-risk PC undergoing definitive HDR prostate BT as monotherapy. We found that veterans experienced immediate declines in GU, GI, and sexual hrQOL after treatment. However, each trended toward a return to baseline over time, with the EPIC-26 urinary obstruction and the EPIC-26 bowel scores showing no difference from the baseline value within 18 months and 12 months, respectively. The physician-reported toxicities were low, with only 1 incidence of grade 3 GU toxicity, no grade 3 GI or sexual toxicities, and no grade 4 or 5 toxicity. This suggests that HDRBT is a well-tolerated and safe, definitive treatment for veterans with localized PC.

In a series similar to ours, Gaudet and colleagues reported on their single institutional results of treating 30 low- or intermediate-risk PC patients with HDRBT as monotherapy.¹⁶ Patients included in their study were civilians from the general population, treated in a similar fashion to the veterans treated in our study. Each patient received 27 Gy in 2 fractions given over 2 implants. The authors collected patient-reported hrQOL results using the IPSS and EPIC questionnaires and found that 57% of patients treated experienced moderate-to-severe urinary symptoms at the 1-month assessment after implantation, with a rapid recovery toward baseline over time. In contrast, GI symptoms did not change from baseline, while sexual symptoms worsened after implantation and failed to return to baseline.

Limitations

To the authors’ knowledge, there are no other studies exploring HDR prostate BT toxicity in a veteran-specific population, and our study is novel in addressing this question. One limitation of the study is the relatively short median follow-up time of 18 months. With this limitation, our data were not yet sufficiently mature to perform biochemical control or overall survival analyses. The next step in our study is to calculate these clinical endpoints from our data after longer follow-up.

An additional limitation to our study is the single institutional nature of the design. While veterans from neighboring VA hospitals were included in the study by way of referral and treatment at our center, the only VA hospital in the state to provide radiation therapy, our patient population remains limited. Further multi-institutional and prospective data are needed to validate our findings.

Conclusions

HDR prostate BT as monotherapy is feasible with a favorable veteran-reported hrQOL and physician-graded toxicity profile. Veterans should be educated about this treatment modality when considering the optimal treatment for their localized prostate cancer.

Nearly 50,000 veterans are diagnosed with cancer within the Veterans Health Administration annually with prostate cancer (PC) being the most frequently diagnosed, accounting for 29% of all cancers diagnosed.¹ The treatment of PC depends on the stage and risk group at presentation and patient preference. Men with early stage, localized PC can be managed with prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or active surveillance.²

Within the Veterans Health Administration, more patients are treated with radiation therapy than with radical prostatectomy.³ This is in contrast to the civil health system, where more patients are treated with radical prostatectomy than with radiation therapy.^4,5 Radiation therapy for PC can be given externally with external beam radiation therapy or internally with brachytherapy (BT). BT is categorized by the rate at which the radiation dose is delivered and generally grouped as low-dose rate (LDR) or high-dose rate (HDR). LDRBT consists of permanently implanting radioactive seeds, which slowly deliver a radiation dose over an extended period. HDRBT consists of implanting catheters that allow delivery of a radioactive source to be placed temporarily in the prostate and removed after treatment. The utilization of HDRBT has become more common as treatment has evolved to consist of fewer, larger fractions in a shorter time, making it a convenient treatment option for men with PC.⁶ The veteran population has singular medical challenges. These patients differ from the general population and are often underrepresented in medical research and published studies.⁷ There are no studies exploring the treatment-associated toxicities from HDRBT treatment for PC specifically in the veteran population. The objective of this study is to report our findings regarding the veteran-reported and physician-graded toxicities associated with HDRBT as monotherapy in veterans treated through the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for PC.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained, institutional review board-approved database of patients treated with HDRBT for PC. Veterans were seen in consultation at Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital (EHJVAH) in Hines, Illinois. This is the only VA hospital in Illinois that offers radiation therapy, so it acted as a tertiary center, receiving referrals from other, neighboring VA hospitals. If the veteran was deemed a good BT candidate and elected to proceed with HDRBT, HDR treatment was performed at a partnering academic institution equipped to provide HDRBT (Loyola University Medical Center).

We selected patients with National Cancer Center Network (NCCN) low- or intermediate-risk PC undergoing definitive HDRBT as monotherapy using 13.5 Gy x 2 fractions delivered over 2 implants that were 1 to 2 weeks apart. Patients who received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were excluded from this study. No patients received supplemental external beam radiation. Men with unfavorable intermediate risk PC were offered ADT and BT in accordance with NCCN guidelines. However, patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk PC who declined ADT or who were deemed poor ADT candidates due to comorbidities were treated with HDR as monotherapy and included in this study.⁸

HDR Treatment

Our HDRBT implant procedure and treatment planning details have been previously described.⁹ In brief, patients were implanted with between 17 and 22 catheters based on gland size under transrectal ultrasound guidance. After implantation, computed tomography and, when possible, magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate were obtained and registered for target delineation. The prostate was segmented, and an asymmetric planning target volume of 0 to 5 mm was created and extended to encompass the proximal seminal vesicles. The second fraction was given 1 to 2 weeks after initial treatment, based on patient, physician, and operating room availability.

Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment

Veteran-reported genitourinary (GU), gastrointestinal (GI), and sexual health-related quality of life (hrQOL) were assessed using the validated International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26) instruments.^10,11 Baseline veteran-reported hrQOL scores in the GU, GI, and sexual domains were obtained prior to each veteran’s first HDR treatment. Veteran-reported hrQOL scores were assessed at each of the patient’s follow-up appointments. Physician-graded toxicity was assessed Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v 4.03 criteria.¹² Physician-graded toxicity was assessed at each follow-up visit and reported as the highest grade reported during any follow-up examination.

Follow-up appointments typically occurred at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and subsequently every 6 months after the second HDR treatment. Follow-up appointments were conducted in the radiation oncology department at EHJVAH.

Minimal Clinically Important Differences

To evaluate the veteran-reported hrQOL, we characterized statistically significant differences in IPSS or EPIC-26 scores over time as compared with baseline values as clinically important or not clinically important through the use of reported minimal clinically important difference (MCID) assessments.^13-15 For the IPSS, we used reported data that showed a change of ≥ 3.0 points represented a clinically meaningful change in urinary function.¹⁴ For the EPIC-26 scores, we used reported data that showed a change of ≥ 6 points for urinary incontinence score, ≥ 5 points for urinary obstruction score, ≥ 4 points for bowel score, and ≥ 10 points for sexual score to represent an MCID.¹⁵

Statistical Analysis

Changes in veteran-reported hrQOL over time were compared using mixed linear effects models, with the time since the last BT implant serving as the fixed variable. Effects were deemed statistically significant if P < .05. If a statistically significant difference from baseline was found at any time point, additional evaluation was done to see if the numerical difference in the assessment led to an MCID as described above. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 25.0 was used for data analysis.

Results

Seventy-four veterans were included in the study. The median follow-up was 18 months (range 1-43). The demographic and oncologic specifics of the treated veterans are outlined in Table 1.

There was a significant increase in IPSS (P < .001) with reciprocal decline in EPIC-26 urinary incontinence (P = .008) and EPIC-26 urinary obstruction scores (P = .001) from baseline over time (Table 2 and Figure 1). At the 18-month follow-up assessment, there was no longer a significant difference in the EPIC-26 urinary obstruction score from baseline (88.7 vs 84.0, P = .31). The increases in IPSS at the 1-, 3-, and 6-month assessments met the criteria for MCID. The decrease in EPIC-26 urinary incontinence scores at the 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, and 18-month assessments were found to be an MCID, as were the decrease in EPIC-26 urinary obstruction scores at the 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month assessments.

Discussion

We performed a retrospective study of veterans with low- or intermediate-risk PC undergoing definitive HDR prostate BT as monotherapy. We found that veterans experienced immediate declines in GU, GI, and sexual hrQOL after treatment. However, each trended toward a return to baseline over time, with the EPIC-26 urinary obstruction and the EPIC-26 bowel scores showing no difference from the baseline value within 18 months and 12 months, respectively. The physician-reported toxicities were low, with only 1 incidence of grade 3 GU toxicity, no grade 3 GI or sexual toxicities, and no grade 4 or 5 toxicity. This suggests that HDRBT is a well-tolerated and safe, definitive treatment for veterans with localized PC.

In a series similar to ours, Gaudet and colleagues reported on their single institutional results of treating 30 low- or intermediate-risk PC patients with HDRBT as monotherapy.¹⁶ Patients included in their study were civilians from the general population, treated in a similar fashion to the veterans treated in our study. Each patient received 27 Gy in 2 fractions given over 2 implants. The authors collected patient-reported hrQOL results using the IPSS and EPIC questionnaires and found that 57% of patients treated experienced moderate-to-severe urinary symptoms at the 1-month assessment after implantation, with a rapid recovery toward baseline over time. In contrast, GI symptoms did not change from baseline, while sexual symptoms worsened after implantation and failed to return to baseline.

Limitations

To the authors’ knowledge, there are no other studies exploring HDR prostate BT toxicity in a veteran-specific population, and our study is novel in addressing this question. One limitation of the study is the relatively short median follow-up time of 18 months. With this limitation, our data were not yet sufficiently mature to perform biochemical control or overall survival analyses. The next step in our study is to calculate these clinical endpoints from our data after longer follow-up.

An additional limitation to our study is the single institutional nature of the design. While veterans from neighboring VA hospitals were included in the study by way of referral and treatment at our center, the only VA hospital in the state to provide radiation therapy, our patient population remains limited. Further multi-institutional and prospective data are needed to validate our findings.

Conclusions

HDR prostate BT as monotherapy is feasible with a favorable veteran-reported hrQOL and physician-graded toxicity profile. Veterans should be educated about this treatment modality when considering the optimal treatment for their localized prostate cancer.

Nearly 50,000 veterans are diagnosed with cancer within the Veterans Health Administration annually with prostate cancer (PC) being the most frequently diagnosed, accounting for 29% of all cancers diagnosed.¹ The treatment of PC depends on the stage and risk group at presentation and patient preference. Men with early stage, localized PC can be managed with prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or active surveillance.²

Within the Veterans Health Administration, more patients are treated with radiation therapy than with radical prostatectomy.³ This is in contrast to the civil health system, where more patients are treated with radical prostatectomy than with radiation therapy.^4,5 Radiation therapy for PC can be given externally with external beam radiation therapy or internally with brachytherapy (BT). BT is categorized by the rate at which the radiation dose is delivered and generally grouped as low-dose rate (LDR) or high-dose rate (HDR). LDRBT consists of permanently implanting radioactive seeds, which slowly deliver a radiation dose over an extended period. HDRBT consists of implanting catheters that allow delivery of a radioactive source to be placed temporarily in the prostate and removed after treatment. The utilization of HDRBT has become more common as treatment has evolved to consist of fewer, larger fractions in a shorter time, making it a convenient treatment option for men with PC.⁶ The veteran population has singular medical challenges. These patients differ from the general population and are often underrepresented in medical research and published studies.⁷ There are no studies exploring the treatment-associated toxicities from HDRBT treatment for PC specifically in the veteran population. The objective of this study is to report our findings regarding the veteran-reported and physician-graded toxicities associated with HDRBT as monotherapy in veterans treated through the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for PC.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained, institutional review board-approved database of patients treated with HDRBT for PC. Veterans were seen in consultation at Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital (EHJVAH) in Hines, Illinois. This is the only VA hospital in Illinois that offers radiation therapy, so it acted as a tertiary center, receiving referrals from other, neighboring VA hospitals. If the veteran was deemed a good BT candidate and elected to proceed with HDRBT, HDR treatment was performed at a partnering academic institution equipped to provide HDRBT (Loyola University Medical Center).

We selected patients with National Cancer Center Network (NCCN) low- or intermediate-risk PC undergoing definitive HDRBT as monotherapy using 13.5 Gy x 2 fractions delivered over 2 implants that were 1 to 2 weeks apart. Patients who received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) were excluded from this study. No patients received supplemental external beam radiation. Men with unfavorable intermediate risk PC were offered ADT and BT in accordance with NCCN guidelines. However, patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk PC who declined ADT or who were deemed poor ADT candidates due to comorbidities were treated with HDR as monotherapy and included in this study.⁸

HDR Treatment

Our HDRBT implant procedure and treatment planning details have been previously described.⁹ In brief, patients were implanted with between 17 and 22 catheters based on gland size under transrectal ultrasound guidance. After implantation, computed tomography and, when possible, magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate were obtained and registered for target delineation. The prostate was segmented, and an asymmetric planning target volume of 0 to 5 mm was created and extended to encompass the proximal seminal vesicles. The second fraction was given 1 to 2 weeks after initial treatment, based on patient, physician, and operating room availability.

Health-Related Quality of Life Assessment

Veteran-reported genitourinary (GU), gastrointestinal (GI), and sexual health-related quality of life (hrQOL) were assessed using the validated International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form (EPIC-26) instruments.^10,11 Baseline veteran-reported hrQOL scores in the GU, GI, and sexual domains were obtained prior to each veteran’s first HDR treatment. Veteran-reported hrQOL scores were assessed at each of the patient’s follow-up appointments. Physician-graded toxicity was assessed Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v 4.03 criteria.¹² Physician-graded toxicity was assessed at each follow-up visit and reported as the highest grade reported during any follow-up examination.

Follow-up appointments typically occurred at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and subsequently every 6 months after the second HDR treatment. Follow-up appointments were conducted in the radiation oncology department at EHJVAH.

Minimal Clinically Important Differences

To evaluate the veteran-reported hrQOL, we characterized statistically significant differences in IPSS or EPIC-26 scores over time as compared with baseline values as clinically important or not clinically important through the use of reported minimal clinically important difference (MCID) assessments.^13-15 For the IPSS, we used reported data that showed a change of ≥ 3.0 points represented a clinically meaningful change in urinary function.¹⁴ For the EPIC-26 scores, we used reported data that showed a change of ≥ 6 points for urinary incontinence score, ≥ 5 points for urinary obstruction score, ≥ 4 points for bowel score, and ≥ 10 points for sexual score to represent an MCID.¹⁵

Statistical Analysis

Changes in veteran-reported hrQOL over time were compared using mixed linear effects models, with the time since the last BT implant serving as the fixed variable. Effects were deemed statistically significant if P < .05. If a statistically significant difference from baseline was found at any time point, additional evaluation was done to see if the numerical difference in the assessment led to an MCID as described above. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 25.0 was used for data analysis.

Results

Seventy-four veterans were included in the study. The median follow-up was 18 months (range 1-43). The demographic and oncologic specifics of the treated veterans are outlined in Table 1.

There was a significant increase in IPSS (P < .001) with reciprocal decline in EPIC-26 urinary incontinence (P = .008) and EPIC-26 urinary obstruction scores (P = .001) from baseline over time (Table 2 and Figure 1). At the 18-month follow-up assessment, there was no longer a significant difference in the EPIC-26 urinary obstruction score from baseline (88.7 vs 84.0, P = .31). The increases in IPSS at the 1-, 3-, and 6-month assessments met the criteria for MCID. The decrease in EPIC-26 urinary incontinence scores at the 1-, 3-, 6-, 12-, and 18-month assessments were found to be an MCID, as were the decrease in EPIC-26 urinary obstruction scores at the 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month assessments.

Discussion

We performed a retrospective study of veterans with low- or intermediate-risk PC undergoing definitive HDR prostate BT as monotherapy. We found that veterans experienced immediate declines in GU, GI, and sexual hrQOL after treatment. However, each trended toward a return to baseline over time, with the EPIC-26 urinary obstruction and the EPIC-26 bowel scores showing no difference from the baseline value within 18 months and 12 months, respectively. The physician-reported toxicities were low, with only 1 incidence of grade 3 GU toxicity, no grade 3 GI or sexual toxicities, and no grade 4 or 5 toxicity. This suggests that HDRBT is a well-tolerated and safe, definitive treatment for veterans with localized PC.

In a series similar to ours, Gaudet and colleagues reported on their single institutional results of treating 30 low- or intermediate-risk PC patients with HDRBT as monotherapy.¹⁶ Patients included in their study were civilians from the general population, treated in a similar fashion to the veterans treated in our study. Each patient received 27 Gy in 2 fractions given over 2 implants. The authors collected patient-reported hrQOL results using the IPSS and EPIC questionnaires and found that 57% of patients treated experienced moderate-to-severe urinary symptoms at the 1-month assessment after implantation, with a rapid recovery toward baseline over time. In contrast, GI symptoms did not change from baseline, while sexual symptoms worsened after implantation and failed to return to baseline.

Limitations

To the authors’ knowledge, there are no other studies exploring HDR prostate BT toxicity in a veteran-specific population, and our study is novel in addressing this question. One limitation of the study is the relatively short median follow-up time of 18 months. With this limitation, our data were not yet sufficiently mature to perform biochemical control or overall survival analyses. The next step in our study is to calculate these clinical endpoints from our data after longer follow-up.

An additional limitation to our study is the single institutional nature of the design. While veterans from neighboring VA hospitals were included in the study by way of referral and treatment at our center, the only VA hospital in the state to provide radiation therapy, our patient population remains limited. Further multi-institutional and prospective data are needed to validate our findings.

Conclusions

HDR prostate BT as monotherapy is feasible with a favorable veteran-reported hrQOL and physician-graded toxicity profile. Veterans should be educated about this treatment modality when considering the optimal treatment for their localized prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most commonly and newly diagnosed nonskin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the United States. About 191,930 cases and about 33,330 deaths from PC were expected for the year 2020.¹ About 1 in 41 men will die of PC. Most men diagnosed with PC are aged > 65 years and do not die of their disease. The 5-year survival rate of localized and regional disease is nearly 100%, and disease with distant metastases is 31%. As a result, more than 3.1 million men in the United States who have been diagnosed with PC are still alive today.¹ Among veterans, there is a substantial population living with PC. Skolarus and Hawley reported in 2014 that an estimated 200,000 veterans with PC were survivors and 12,000 were newly diagnosed.²

In PC, skeletal strength can be affected by several factors, such as aging, malnutrition, androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and bone metastasis.^3,4 In fact, most men can live the rest of their life with PC by using strategies to monitor and treat it, once it shows either radiographic or chemical signs of progression.⁵ ADT is the standard of care to treat hormone-sensitive PC, which is associated with significant skeletal-related adverse effects (AEs).^6,7

Men undergoing ADT are 4 times more likely to develop substantial bone deficiency, Shahinian and colleagues found that in men surviving 5 years after PC diagnosis, 19.4% of those who received ADT had a fracture compared with 12% in men who did not (P < .001). The authors established a significant relation between the number of doses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone given in the first 12 months and the risk of fracture.⁸ Of those who progressed to metastatic disease, the first metastatic nonnodal site is most commonly to the bone.⁹ Advanced PC is characterized by increased bone turnover, which further raises concerns for bone health and patient performance.¹⁰

Skeletal-related events (SREs) include pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, palliative radiation, or surgery to bone, and change in antineoplastic therapy secondary to bone pain. The concept of bone health refers to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of idiopathic, pathogenic, and treatment-related bone loss and delay or prevention of SREs.^6,11 Guidelines and expert groups have recommended screening for osteoporosis at the start of ADT with bone mineral density testing, ensuring adequate calcium and vitamin D intake, modifying lifestyle behaviors (smoking cessation, alcohol moderation, and regular exercise), and prescribing bisphosphonates or receptor-activated nuclear factor κ-B ligand inhibitor, denosumab, for men with osteoporosis or who are at general high-fracture risk.^12,13 The overuse of these medications results in undue cost to patients as well as AEs, such as osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), hypocalcemia, and bone/joint pains.^14-17 There are evidence-based guidelines for appropriate use of bisphosphonates and denosumab for delay and prevention of SREs in the setting of advanced PC.¹⁸ These doses also typically differ in frequency to those of osteoporosis.¹⁹ We summarize the evidence and guidance for health care providers who care for patients with PC at various stages and complications from both disease-related and treatment-related comorbidities.

Bone-Strengthening Agents

Overall, there is evidence to support the use of bone-strengthening agents in patients with osteopenia/osteoporosis in the prevention of SREs with significant risk factors for progressive bone demineralization, such as lifestyle factors and, in particular, treatments such as ADT. Bone-remodeling agents for treatment of bony metastasis have been shown to provide therapeutic advantage only in limited instances in the castration-resistant PC (CRPC) setting. Hence, in patients with hormone-sensitive PC due to medication-related AEs, treatment with bone-strengthening agents is indicated only if the patient has a significant preexisting risk for fracture from osteopenia/osteoporosis (Table). The Figure depicts an algorithm for the management of bone health in men with PC who are being treated with ADT.

Denosumab and bisphosphonates have an established role in preventing SREs in metastatic CRPC.²⁰ The choice of denosumab or a bisphosphonate typically varies based on the indication, possible AEs, and cost of therapy. There are multiple studies involving initiation of these agents at various stages of disease to improve both time to progression as well as management of SREs. There is a lack of evidence that bisphosphonates prevent metastatic-bone lesions in castration-sensitive PC; therefore, prophylactic use of this agent is not recommended in patients unless they have significant bone demineralization.^21,22

Bone Health in Patients

Nonmetastatic Hormone-Sensitive PC

ADT forms the backbone of treatment for patients with local and advanced metastatic castration-sensitive PC along with surgical and focal radiotherapy options. Cancer treatment-induced bone loss is known to occur with prolonged use of ADT. The ZEUS trial found no prevention of bone metastasis in patients with high-risk localized PC with the use of ZA in the absence of bone metastasis. A Kaplan-Meier estimated proportion of bone metastases after a median follow-up of 4.8 years was found to be not statistically significant: 14.7% in the ZA group vs 13.2% in the control/placebo group.²⁹ The STAMPEDE trial showed no significant overall survival (OS) benefit with the addition of ZA to ADT vs ADT alone (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.11; P = .45), 5-year survival with ADT alone was 55% compared to ADT plus ZA with 57% 5-year survival.³⁰ The RADAR trial showed that at 5 years in high Gleason score patients, use of ZA in the absence of bone metastasis was beneficial, but not in low- or intermediate-risk patients. However, at 10-year analysis there was no significant difference in any of the high-stratified groups with or without ZA.³¹

The PR04 trial showed no effect on OS with clodronate compared with placebo in nonmetastatic castration-sensitive PC, with a HR of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.89-1.42; P = .94). The estimated 5-year survival was 80% with placebo and 78% with clodronate; 10-year survival rates were 51% with placebo and 48% with clodronate.³² Data from the HALT trial showed an increased bone mineral density and reduced risk of new vertebral fractures vs placebo (1.5% vs 3.9%, respectively) in the absence of metastatic bone lesions and a reduction in new vertebral fractures in patients with nonmetastatic PC.³³ Most of these studies showed no benefit with the addition of ZA to nonmetastatic PC; although, the HALT trial provides evidence to support use of denosumab in patients with nonmetastatic PC for preventing vertebral fragility fractures in men receiving ADT.

Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive PC

ZA is often used to treat men with metastatic castration-sensitive PC despite limited efficacy and safety data. The CALGB 90202 (Alliance) trial authors found that the early use of ZA was not associated with increased time to first SRE. The median time to first SRE was 31.9 months in the ZA group (95% CI, 24.2-40.3) and 29.8 months in the placebo group (stratified HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0-1.17; 1-sided stratified log-rank P = .39).³⁴ OS was similar between the groups (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.12; P = .29) as were reported AEs.³⁴ Results from these studies suggest limited benefit in treating patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive PC with bisphosphonates without other medical indications for use. Additional studies suggest similar results for treatment with denosumab to that of bisphosphonate therapies.³⁵

Nonmetastatic CRPC

Reasonable interest among treating clinicians exists to be able to delay or prevent the development of metastatic bone disease in patients who are showing biochemical signs of castration resistance but have not yet developed distant metastatic disease. Time to progression on ADT to castration resistance usually occurs 2 to 3 years following initiation of treatment. This typically occurs in patients with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA). As per the Prostate Cancer Working Group 3, in the absence of radiologic progression, CRPC is defined by a 25% increase from the nadir (considering a starting value of ≥ 1 ng/mL), with a minimum rise of 2 ng/mL in the setting of castrate serum testosterone < 50 ng/dL despite good adherence to an ADT regimen, with proven serologic castration either by undetectable or a near undetectable nadir of serum testosterone concentration. Therapeutic implications include prevention of SREs as well as time to metastatic bone lesions. The Zometa 704 trial examined the use of ZA to reduce time to first metastatic bone lesion in the setting of patients with nonmetastatic CRPC.³⁶ The trial was discontinued prematurely due to low patient accrual, but initial analysis provided information on the natural history of a rising PSA in this patient population. At 2 years, one-third of patients had developed bone metastases. Median bone metastasis-free survival was 30 months. Median time to first bone metastasis and OS were not reached. Baseline PSA and PSA velocity independently predicted a shorter time to first bone metastasis, metastasis-free survival, and OS.³⁶

Denosumab was also studied in the setting of nonmetastatic CRPC in the Denosumab 147 trial. The study enrolled 1432 patients and found a significantly increased bone metastasis-free survival by a median of 4.2 months over placebo (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98; P = .03). Denosumab significantly delayed time to first bone metastasis (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98; P = .03). OS was similar between groups (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.85-1.20; P = .91). Rates of AEs and serious AEs were similar between groups, except for ONJ and hypocalcemia. The rates of ONJ for denosumab were 1%, 3%, 4% in years 1,2, 3, respectively; overall, < 5% (n = 33). Hypocalcemia occurred in < 2% (n = 12) in denosumab-treated patients. The authors concluded that in men with CRPC, denosumab significantly prolonged bone metastasis–free survival and delayed time-to-bone metastasis.³⁷ These 2 studies suggest a role of receptor-activated nuclear factor κ-B ligand inhibitor denosumab in patients with nonmetastatic CRPC in the appropriate setting. There were delays in bony metastatic disease, but no difference in OS. Rare denosumab treatment–related specific AEs were noted. Hence, denosumab is not recommended for use in this setting.

Metastatic CRPC

Castration resistance typically occurs 2 to 3 years following initiation of ADT and the most common extranodal site of disease is within the bone in metastatic PC. Disease progression within bones after ADT can be challenging given both the nature of progressive cancer with osteoblastic metastatic lesions and the prolonged effects of ADT on unaffected bone. The Zometa 039 study compared ZA with placebo and found a significant difference in SREs (38% and 49%, respectively; P .03). No survival benefit was observed with the addition of ZA. Use of other bisphosphonates pamidronate and clodronate did not have a similar degree of benefit.^38,39

A phase 3 study of 1904 patients found that denosumab was superior to ZA in delaying the time to first on-study SRE (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.95) and reducing rates of multiple SREs (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94).⁴⁰ This was later confirmed with an additional study that demonstrated treatment with denosumab significantly reduced the risk of developing a first symptomatic SRE, defined as a pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, necessity for radiation, or surgery (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.93; P = .005) and first and subsequent symptomatic SREs (rate ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.92; P = .004) compared with ZA.²⁸ These findings suggest a continued role of denosumab in the treatment of advanced metastatic CRPC from both control of bone disease as well as quality of life and palliation of cancer-related symptoms.

Radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) is an α-emitting radionuclide for treatment of metastatic CRPC with bone metastasis, but otherwise no additional metastatic sites. Radium-223 is a calcium-mimetic that preferentially accumulates into areas of high-bone turnover, such as where bone metastases tend to occur. Radium-223 induces apoptosis of tumor cells through double-stranded DNA breaks. Studies have shown radium-223 to prolong OS and time-to-first symptomatic SRE.⁴¹ The ERA-223 trial showed that when radium-223 was combined with abiraterone acetate, there was an increase in fragility fracture risk compared with placebo combined with abiraterone. Data from the study revealed that the median symptomatic SRE-free survival was 22.3 months (95% CI, 20.4-24.8) in the radium-223 group and 26.0 months (21.8-28.3) in the placebo group. Concurrent treatment with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone and radium-223 was associated with increased fracture risk. Osteoporotic fractures were the most common type of fracture in the radium-223 group and of all fracture types, differed the most between the study groups.⁴²

Conclusions

Convincing evidence supports the ongoing use of bisphosphonates and denosumab in patients with osteoporosis, significant osteopenia with risk factors, and in patients with CRPC with bone metastasis. Bone metastases can cause considerable morbidity and mortality among men with advanced PC. Pain, fracture, and neurologic injury can occur with metastatic bone lesions as well as with ADT-related bone loss. Prevention of SREs in patients with PC is a reasonable goal in PC survivors while being mindful of managing the risks of these therapies.

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most commonly and newly diagnosed nonskin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the United States. About 191,930 cases and about 33,330 deaths from PC were expected for the year 2020.¹ About 1 in 41 men will die of PC. Most men diagnosed with PC are aged > 65 years and do not die of their disease. The 5-year survival rate of localized and regional disease is nearly 100%, and disease with distant metastases is 31%. As a result, more than 3.1 million men in the United States who have been diagnosed with PC are still alive today.¹ Among veterans, there is a substantial population living with PC. Skolarus and Hawley reported in 2014 that an estimated 200,000 veterans with PC were survivors and 12,000 were newly diagnosed.²

In PC, skeletal strength can be affected by several factors, such as aging, malnutrition, androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and bone metastasis.^3,4 In fact, most men can live the rest of their life with PC by using strategies to monitor and treat it, once it shows either radiographic or chemical signs of progression.⁵ ADT is the standard of care to treat hormone-sensitive PC, which is associated with significant skeletal-related adverse effects (AEs).^6,7

Men undergoing ADT are 4 times more likely to develop substantial bone deficiency, Shahinian and colleagues found that in men surviving 5 years after PC diagnosis, 19.4% of those who received ADT had a fracture compared with 12% in men who did not (P < .001). The authors established a significant relation between the number of doses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone given in the first 12 months and the risk of fracture.⁸ Of those who progressed to metastatic disease, the first metastatic nonnodal site is most commonly to the bone.⁹ Advanced PC is characterized by increased bone turnover, which further raises concerns for bone health and patient performance.¹⁰

Skeletal-related events (SREs) include pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, palliative radiation, or surgery to bone, and change in antineoplastic therapy secondary to bone pain. The concept of bone health refers to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of idiopathic, pathogenic, and treatment-related bone loss and delay or prevention of SREs.^6,11 Guidelines and expert groups have recommended screening for osteoporosis at the start of ADT with bone mineral density testing, ensuring adequate calcium and vitamin D intake, modifying lifestyle behaviors (smoking cessation, alcohol moderation, and regular exercise), and prescribing bisphosphonates or receptor-activated nuclear factor κ-B ligand inhibitor, denosumab, for men with osteoporosis or who are at general high-fracture risk.^12,13 The overuse of these medications results in undue cost to patients as well as AEs, such as osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), hypocalcemia, and bone/joint pains.^14-17 There are evidence-based guidelines for appropriate use of bisphosphonates and denosumab for delay and prevention of SREs in the setting of advanced PC.¹⁸ These doses also typically differ in frequency to those of osteoporosis.¹⁹ We summarize the evidence and guidance for health care providers who care for patients with PC at various stages and complications from both disease-related and treatment-related comorbidities.

Bone-Strengthening Agents

Overall, there is evidence to support the use of bone-strengthening agents in patients with osteopenia/osteoporosis in the prevention of SREs with significant risk factors for progressive bone demineralization, such as lifestyle factors and, in particular, treatments such as ADT. Bone-remodeling agents for treatment of bony metastasis have been shown to provide therapeutic advantage only in limited instances in the castration-resistant PC (CRPC) setting. Hence, in patients with hormone-sensitive PC due to medication-related AEs, treatment with bone-strengthening agents is indicated only if the patient has a significant preexisting risk for fracture from osteopenia/osteoporosis (Table). The Figure depicts an algorithm for the management of bone health in men with PC who are being treated with ADT.

Denosumab and bisphosphonates have an established role in preventing SREs in metastatic CRPC.²⁰ The choice of denosumab or a bisphosphonate typically varies based on the indication, possible AEs, and cost of therapy. There are multiple studies involving initiation of these agents at various stages of disease to improve both time to progression as well as management of SREs. There is a lack of evidence that bisphosphonates prevent metastatic-bone lesions in castration-sensitive PC; therefore, prophylactic use of this agent is not recommended in patients unless they have significant bone demineralization.^21,22

Bone Health in Patients

Nonmetastatic Hormone-Sensitive PC

ADT forms the backbone of treatment for patients with local and advanced metastatic castration-sensitive PC along with surgical and focal radiotherapy options. Cancer treatment-induced bone loss is known to occur with prolonged use of ADT. The ZEUS trial found no prevention of bone metastasis in patients with high-risk localized PC with the use of ZA in the absence of bone metastasis. A Kaplan-Meier estimated proportion of bone metastases after a median follow-up of 4.8 years was found to be not statistically significant: 14.7% in the ZA group vs 13.2% in the control/placebo group.²⁹ The STAMPEDE trial showed no significant overall survival (OS) benefit with the addition of ZA to ADT vs ADT alone (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.11; P = .45), 5-year survival with ADT alone was 55% compared to ADT plus ZA with 57% 5-year survival.³⁰ The RADAR trial showed that at 5 years in high Gleason score patients, use of ZA in the absence of bone metastasis was beneficial, but not in low- or intermediate-risk patients. However, at 10-year analysis there was no significant difference in any of the high-stratified groups with or without ZA.³¹

The PR04 trial showed no effect on OS with clodronate compared with placebo in nonmetastatic castration-sensitive PC, with a HR of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.89-1.42; P = .94). The estimated 5-year survival was 80% with placebo and 78% with clodronate; 10-year survival rates were 51% with placebo and 48% with clodronate.³² Data from the HALT trial showed an increased bone mineral density and reduced risk of new vertebral fractures vs placebo (1.5% vs 3.9%, respectively) in the absence of metastatic bone lesions and a reduction in new vertebral fractures in patients with nonmetastatic PC.³³ Most of these studies showed no benefit with the addition of ZA to nonmetastatic PC; although, the HALT trial provides evidence to support use of denosumab in patients with nonmetastatic PC for preventing vertebral fragility fractures in men receiving ADT.

Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive PC

ZA is often used to treat men with metastatic castration-sensitive PC despite limited efficacy and safety data. The CALGB 90202 (Alliance) trial authors found that the early use of ZA was not associated with increased time to first SRE. The median time to first SRE was 31.9 months in the ZA group (95% CI, 24.2-40.3) and 29.8 months in the placebo group (stratified HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0-1.17; 1-sided stratified log-rank P = .39).³⁴ OS was similar between the groups (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.12; P = .29) as were reported AEs.³⁴ Results from these studies suggest limited benefit in treating patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive PC with bisphosphonates without other medical indications for use. Additional studies suggest similar results for treatment with denosumab to that of bisphosphonate therapies.³⁵

Nonmetastatic CRPC

Reasonable interest among treating clinicians exists to be able to delay or prevent the development of metastatic bone disease in patients who are showing biochemical signs of castration resistance but have not yet developed distant metastatic disease. Time to progression on ADT to castration resistance usually occurs 2 to 3 years following initiation of treatment. This typically occurs in patients with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA). As per the Prostate Cancer Working Group 3, in the absence of radiologic progression, CRPC is defined by a 25% increase from the nadir (considering a starting value of ≥ 1 ng/mL), with a minimum rise of 2 ng/mL in the setting of castrate serum testosterone < 50 ng/dL despite good adherence to an ADT regimen, with proven serologic castration either by undetectable or a near undetectable nadir of serum testosterone concentration. Therapeutic implications include prevention of SREs as well as time to metastatic bone lesions. The Zometa 704 trial examined the use of ZA to reduce time to first metastatic bone lesion in the setting of patients with nonmetastatic CRPC.³⁶ The trial was discontinued prematurely due to low patient accrual, but initial analysis provided information on the natural history of a rising PSA in this patient population. At 2 years, one-third of patients had developed bone metastases. Median bone metastasis-free survival was 30 months. Median time to first bone metastasis and OS were not reached. Baseline PSA and PSA velocity independently predicted a shorter time to first bone metastasis, metastasis-free survival, and OS.³⁶

Denosumab was also studied in the setting of nonmetastatic CRPC in the Denosumab 147 trial. The study enrolled 1432 patients and found a significantly increased bone metastasis-free survival by a median of 4.2 months over placebo (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98; P = .03). Denosumab significantly delayed time to first bone metastasis (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98; P = .03). OS was similar between groups (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.85-1.20; P = .91). Rates of AEs and serious AEs were similar between groups, except for ONJ and hypocalcemia. The rates of ONJ for denosumab were 1%, 3%, 4% in years 1,2, 3, respectively; overall, < 5% (n = 33). Hypocalcemia occurred in < 2% (n = 12) in denosumab-treated patients. The authors concluded that in men with CRPC, denosumab significantly prolonged bone metastasis–free survival and delayed time-to-bone metastasis.³⁷ These 2 studies suggest a role of receptor-activated nuclear factor κ-B ligand inhibitor denosumab in patients with nonmetastatic CRPC in the appropriate setting. There were delays in bony metastatic disease, but no difference in OS. Rare denosumab treatment–related specific AEs were noted. Hence, denosumab is not recommended for use in this setting.

Metastatic CRPC

Castration resistance typically occurs 2 to 3 years following initiation of ADT and the most common extranodal site of disease is within the bone in metastatic PC. Disease progression within bones after ADT can be challenging given both the nature of progressive cancer with osteoblastic metastatic lesions and the prolonged effects of ADT on unaffected bone. The Zometa 039 study compared ZA with placebo and found a significant difference in SREs (38% and 49%, respectively; P .03). No survival benefit was observed with the addition of ZA. Use of other bisphosphonates pamidronate and clodronate did not have a similar degree of benefit.^38,39

A phase 3 study of 1904 patients found that denosumab was superior to ZA in delaying the time to first on-study SRE (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.95) and reducing rates of multiple SREs (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94).⁴⁰ This was later confirmed with an additional study that demonstrated treatment with denosumab significantly reduced the risk of developing a first symptomatic SRE, defined as a pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, necessity for radiation, or surgery (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.93; P = .005) and first and subsequent symptomatic SREs (rate ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.92; P = .004) compared with ZA.²⁸ These findings suggest a continued role of denosumab in the treatment of advanced metastatic CRPC from both control of bone disease as well as quality of life and palliation of cancer-related symptoms.

Radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) is an α-emitting radionuclide for treatment of metastatic CRPC with bone metastasis, but otherwise no additional metastatic sites. Radium-223 is a calcium-mimetic that preferentially accumulates into areas of high-bone turnover, such as where bone metastases tend to occur. Radium-223 induces apoptosis of tumor cells through double-stranded DNA breaks. Studies have shown radium-223 to prolong OS and time-to-first symptomatic SRE.⁴¹ The ERA-223 trial showed that when radium-223 was combined with abiraterone acetate, there was an increase in fragility fracture risk compared with placebo combined with abiraterone. Data from the study revealed that the median symptomatic SRE-free survival was 22.3 months (95% CI, 20.4-24.8) in the radium-223 group and 26.0 months (21.8-28.3) in the placebo group. Concurrent treatment with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone and radium-223 was associated with increased fracture risk. Osteoporotic fractures were the most common type of fracture in the radium-223 group and of all fracture types, differed the most between the study groups.⁴²

Conclusions

Convincing evidence supports the ongoing use of bisphosphonates and denosumab in patients with osteoporosis, significant osteopenia with risk factors, and in patients with CRPC with bone metastasis. Bone metastases can cause considerable morbidity and mortality among men with advanced PC. Pain, fracture, and neurologic injury can occur with metastatic bone lesions as well as with ADT-related bone loss. Prevention of SREs in patients with PC is a reasonable goal in PC survivors while being mindful of managing the risks of these therapies.

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most commonly and newly diagnosed nonskin cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in men in the United States. About 191,930 cases and about 33,330 deaths from PC were expected for the year 2020.¹ About 1 in 41 men will die of PC. Most men diagnosed with PC are aged > 65 years and do not die of their disease. The 5-year survival rate of localized and regional disease is nearly 100%, and disease with distant metastases is 31%. As a result, more than 3.1 million men in the United States who have been diagnosed with PC are still alive today.¹ Among veterans, there is a substantial population living with PC. Skolarus and Hawley reported in 2014 that an estimated 200,000 veterans with PC were survivors and 12,000 were newly diagnosed.²

In PC, skeletal strength can be affected by several factors, such as aging, malnutrition, androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and bone metastasis.^3,4 In fact, most men can live the rest of their life with PC by using strategies to monitor and treat it, once it shows either radiographic or chemical signs of progression.⁵ ADT is the standard of care to treat hormone-sensitive PC, which is associated with significant skeletal-related adverse effects (AEs).^6,7

Men undergoing ADT are 4 times more likely to develop substantial bone deficiency, Shahinian and colleagues found that in men surviving 5 years after PC diagnosis, 19.4% of those who received ADT had a fracture compared with 12% in men who did not (P < .001). The authors established a significant relation between the number of doses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone given in the first 12 months and the risk of fracture.⁸ Of those who progressed to metastatic disease, the first metastatic nonnodal site is most commonly to the bone.⁹ Advanced PC is characterized by increased bone turnover, which further raises concerns for bone health and patient performance.¹⁰

Skeletal-related events (SREs) include pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, palliative radiation, or surgery to bone, and change in antineoplastic therapy secondary to bone pain. The concept of bone health refers to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of idiopathic, pathogenic, and treatment-related bone loss and delay or prevention of SREs.^6,11 Guidelines and expert groups have recommended screening for osteoporosis at the start of ADT with bone mineral density testing, ensuring adequate calcium and vitamin D intake, modifying lifestyle behaviors (smoking cessation, alcohol moderation, and regular exercise), and prescribing bisphosphonates or receptor-activated nuclear factor κ-B ligand inhibitor, denosumab, for men with osteoporosis or who are at general high-fracture risk.^12,13 The overuse of these medications results in undue cost to patients as well as AEs, such as osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), hypocalcemia, and bone/joint pains.^14-17 There are evidence-based guidelines for appropriate use of bisphosphonates and denosumab for delay and prevention of SREs in the setting of advanced PC.¹⁸ These doses also typically differ in frequency to those of osteoporosis.¹⁹ We summarize the evidence and guidance for health care providers who care for patients with PC at various stages and complications from both disease-related and treatment-related comorbidities.

Bone-Strengthening Agents

Overall, there is evidence to support the use of bone-strengthening agents in patients with osteopenia/osteoporosis in the prevention of SREs with significant risk factors for progressive bone demineralization, such as lifestyle factors and, in particular, treatments such as ADT. Bone-remodeling agents for treatment of bony metastasis have been shown to provide therapeutic advantage only in limited instances in the castration-resistant PC (CRPC) setting. Hence, in patients with hormone-sensitive PC due to medication-related AEs, treatment with bone-strengthening agents is indicated only if the patient has a significant preexisting risk for fracture from osteopenia/osteoporosis (Table). The Figure depicts an algorithm for the management of bone health in men with PC who are being treated with ADT.

Denosumab and bisphosphonates have an established role in preventing SREs in metastatic CRPC.²⁰ The choice of denosumab or a bisphosphonate typically varies based on the indication, possible AEs, and cost of therapy. There are multiple studies involving initiation of these agents at various stages of disease to improve both time to progression as well as management of SREs. There is a lack of evidence that bisphosphonates prevent metastatic-bone lesions in castration-sensitive PC; therefore, prophylactic use of this agent is not recommended in patients unless they have significant bone demineralization.^21,22

Bone Health in Patients

Nonmetastatic Hormone-Sensitive PC

ADT forms the backbone of treatment for patients with local and advanced metastatic castration-sensitive PC along with surgical and focal radiotherapy options. Cancer treatment-induced bone loss is known to occur with prolonged use of ADT. The ZEUS trial found no prevention of bone metastasis in patients with high-risk localized PC with the use of ZA in the absence of bone metastasis. A Kaplan-Meier estimated proportion of bone metastases after a median follow-up of 4.8 years was found to be not statistically significant: 14.7% in the ZA group vs 13.2% in the control/placebo group.²⁹ The STAMPEDE trial showed no significant overall survival (OS) benefit with the addition of ZA to ADT vs ADT alone (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.11; P = .45), 5-year survival with ADT alone was 55% compared to ADT plus ZA with 57% 5-year survival.³⁰ The RADAR trial showed that at 5 years in high Gleason score patients, use of ZA in the absence of bone metastasis was beneficial, but not in low- or intermediate-risk patients. However, at 10-year analysis there was no significant difference in any of the high-stratified groups with or without ZA.³¹

The PR04 trial showed no effect on OS with clodronate compared with placebo in nonmetastatic castration-sensitive PC, with a HR of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.89-1.42; P = .94). The estimated 5-year survival was 80% with placebo and 78% with clodronate; 10-year survival rates were 51% with placebo and 48% with clodronate.³² Data from the HALT trial showed an increased bone mineral density and reduced risk of new vertebral fractures vs placebo (1.5% vs 3.9%, respectively) in the absence of metastatic bone lesions and a reduction in new vertebral fractures in patients with nonmetastatic PC.³³ Most of these studies showed no benefit with the addition of ZA to nonmetastatic PC; although, the HALT trial provides evidence to support use of denosumab in patients with nonmetastatic PC for preventing vertebral fragility fractures in men receiving ADT.

Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive PC

ZA is often used to treat men with metastatic castration-sensitive PC despite limited efficacy and safety data. The CALGB 90202 (Alliance) trial authors found that the early use of ZA was not associated with increased time to first SRE. The median time to first SRE was 31.9 months in the ZA group (95% CI, 24.2-40.3) and 29.8 months in the placebo group (stratified HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0-1.17; 1-sided stratified log-rank P = .39).³⁴ OS was similar between the groups (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.12; P = .29) as were reported AEs.³⁴ Results from these studies suggest limited benefit in treating patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive PC with bisphosphonates without other medical indications for use. Additional studies suggest similar results for treatment with denosumab to that of bisphosphonate therapies.³⁵

Nonmetastatic CRPC

Reasonable interest among treating clinicians exists to be able to delay or prevent the development of metastatic bone disease in patients who are showing biochemical signs of castration resistance but have not yet developed distant metastatic disease. Time to progression on ADT to castration resistance usually occurs 2 to 3 years following initiation of treatment. This typically occurs in patients with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA). As per the Prostate Cancer Working Group 3, in the absence of radiologic progression, CRPC is defined by a 25% increase from the nadir (considering a starting value of ≥ 1 ng/mL), with a minimum rise of 2 ng/mL in the setting of castrate serum testosterone < 50 ng/dL despite good adherence to an ADT regimen, with proven serologic castration either by undetectable or a near undetectable nadir of serum testosterone concentration. Therapeutic implications include prevention of SREs as well as time to metastatic bone lesions. The Zometa 704 trial examined the use of ZA to reduce time to first metastatic bone lesion in the setting of patients with nonmetastatic CRPC.³⁶ The trial was discontinued prematurely due to low patient accrual, but initial analysis provided information on the natural history of a rising PSA in this patient population. At 2 years, one-third of patients had developed bone metastases. Median bone metastasis-free survival was 30 months. Median time to first bone metastasis and OS were not reached. Baseline PSA and PSA velocity independently predicted a shorter time to first bone metastasis, metastasis-free survival, and OS.³⁶

Denosumab was also studied in the setting of nonmetastatic CRPC in the Denosumab 147 trial. The study enrolled 1432 patients and found a significantly increased bone metastasis-free survival by a median of 4.2 months over placebo (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98; P = .03). Denosumab significantly delayed time to first bone metastasis (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98; P = .03). OS was similar between groups (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.85-1.20; P = .91). Rates of AEs and serious AEs were similar between groups, except for ONJ and hypocalcemia. The rates of ONJ for denosumab were 1%, 3%, 4% in years 1,2, 3, respectively; overall, < 5% (n = 33). Hypocalcemia occurred in < 2% (n = 12) in denosumab-treated patients. The authors concluded that in men with CRPC, denosumab significantly prolonged bone metastasis–free survival and delayed time-to-bone metastasis.³⁷ These 2 studies suggest a role of receptor-activated nuclear factor κ-B ligand inhibitor denosumab in patients with nonmetastatic CRPC in the appropriate setting. There were delays in bony metastatic disease, but no difference in OS. Rare denosumab treatment–related specific AEs were noted. Hence, denosumab is not recommended for use in this setting.

Metastatic CRPC

Castration resistance typically occurs 2 to 3 years following initiation of ADT and the most common extranodal site of disease is within the bone in metastatic PC. Disease progression within bones after ADT can be challenging given both the nature of progressive cancer with osteoblastic metastatic lesions and the prolonged effects of ADT on unaffected bone. The Zometa 039 study compared ZA with placebo and found a significant difference in SREs (38% and 49%, respectively; P .03). No survival benefit was observed with the addition of ZA. Use of other bisphosphonates pamidronate and clodronate did not have a similar degree of benefit.^38,39

A phase 3 study of 1904 patients found that denosumab was superior to ZA in delaying the time to first on-study SRE (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.95) and reducing rates of multiple SREs (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94).⁴⁰ This was later confirmed with an additional study that demonstrated treatment with denosumab significantly reduced the risk of developing a first symptomatic SRE, defined as a pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, necessity for radiation, or surgery (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.93; P = .005) and first and subsequent symptomatic SREs (rate ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.92; P = .004) compared with ZA.²⁸ These findings suggest a continued role of denosumab in the treatment of advanced metastatic CRPC from both control of bone disease as well as quality of life and palliation of cancer-related symptoms.

Radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) is an α-emitting radionuclide for treatment of metastatic CRPC with bone metastasis, but otherwise no additional metastatic sites. Radium-223 is a calcium-mimetic that preferentially accumulates into areas of high-bone turnover, such as where bone metastases tend to occur. Radium-223 induces apoptosis of tumor cells through double-stranded DNA breaks. Studies have shown radium-223 to prolong OS and time-to-first symptomatic SRE.⁴¹ The ERA-223 trial showed that when radium-223 was combined with abiraterone acetate, there was an increase in fragility fracture risk compared with placebo combined with abiraterone. Data from the study revealed that the median symptomatic SRE-free survival was 22.3 months (95% CI, 20.4-24.8) in the radium-223 group and 26.0 months (21.8-28.3) in the placebo group. Concurrent treatment with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone and radium-223 was associated with increased fracture risk. Osteoporotic fractures were the most common type of fracture in the radium-223 group and of all fracture types, differed the most between the study groups.⁴²

Conclusions

Convincing evidence supports the ongoing use of bisphosphonates and denosumab in patients with osteoporosis, significant osteopenia with risk factors, and in patients with CRPC with bone metastasis. Bone metastases can cause considerable morbidity and mortality among men with advanced PC. Pain, fracture, and neurologic injury can occur with metastatic bone lesions as well as with ADT-related bone loss. Prevention of SREs in patients with PC is a reasonable goal in PC survivors while being mindful of managing the risks of these therapies.

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are an important but understudied aspect of treating patients diagnosed with cancer. Substance use can affect cancer treatment outcomes, including morbidity and mortality.^1,2 Additionally, patients with cancer and SUD may have unique psychosocial needs that require close attention and management. There is a paucity of data regarding the best approach to treating such patients. For example, cocaine use may increase the cardiovascular and hematologic risk of some traditional chemotherapy agents.^3,4 Newer targeted agents and immunotherapies remain understudied with respect to SUD risk.

Although the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has established helpful clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of SUD, there are no guidelines for treating patients with SUD and cancer.⁵ Clinicians have limited confidence in treatment approach, and treatment is inconsistent among oncologists nationwide even within the same practice. Furthermore, it can be challenging to safely prescribe opioids for cancer-related pain in individuals with SUD. There is a high risk of SUD and mental health disorders in veterans, making this population particularly vulnerable. We report a case of a male with metastatic pancreatic cancer, severe opioid use disorder (OUD) and moderate cocaine use disorder (CUD) who received pain management and cancer treatment under the direction of a multidisciplinary team approach.

Case Report

A 63-year-old male with a medical history of HIV treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), compensated cirrhosis, severe OUD, moderate CUD, and sedative use disorder in sustained remission was admitted to the West Haven campus of the VA Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS) with abdominal pain, weight loss and fatigue. He used heroin 1 month prior to his admission and reported regular cocaine and marijuana use (Table 1). He was diagnosed with HIV in 1989, and his medical history included herpes zoster and oral candidiasis but no other opportunistic infections. Several months prior to this admission, he had an undetectable viral load and CD4 count of 688.

At the time of this admission, the patient was adherent to methadone treatment. He reported increased abdominal pain. Computed tomography (CT) showed a 2.4-cm mass in the pancreatic uncinate process, multiple liver metastases, retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy, and small lung nodules. A CT-guided liver biopsy showed adenocarcinoma consistent with a primary cancer of the pancreas. Given the complexity of the case, a multidisciplinary team approach was used to treat his cancer and the sequelae safely, including the oncology team, community living center team, palliative care team, and interprofessional opioid reassessment clinic team (ORC).

Cancer Treatment

Chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin calcium, fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplatin) was recommended. The first cycle of treatment originally was planned for the outpatient setting, and a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line was placed. However, after a urine toxicology test was positive for cocaine, the PICC line was removed due to concern for possible use of PICC line for nonprescribed substance use. The patient expressed suicidal ideation at the time and was admitted for psychiatric consult and pain control. Cycle 1 FOLFIRINOX was started during this admission. A PICC line was again put in place and then removed before discharge. A celiac plexus block was performed several days after this admission for pain control.

Given concern about cocaine use increasing the risk of cardiac toxicity with FOLFIRINOX treatment, treating providers sconsulted with the community living center (CLC) about possible admission for future chemotherapy administration and pain management. The CLC at VACHS has 38 beds for rehabilitation, long-term care, and hospice with the mission to restore each veteran to his or her highest level of well-being. After discussion with this patient and CLC staff, he agreed to a CLC admission. The patient agreed to remain in the facility, wear a secure care device, and not leave without staff accompaniment. He was able to obtain a 2-hour pass to pay bills and rent. During the 2 months he was admitted to the CLC he would present to the VACHS Cancer Center for chemotherapy every 2 weeks. He completed 6 cycles of chemotherapy while admitted. During the admission, he was transferred to active medical service for 2 days for fever and malaise, and then returned to the CLC. The patient elected to leave the CLC after 2 months as the inability to see close friends was interfering with his quality of life.

Upon being discharged from the CLC, shared decision making took place with the patient to establish a new treatment plan. In collaboration with the patient, a plan was made to admit him every 2 weeks for continued chemotherapy. A PICC line was placed on each day of admission and removed prior to discharge. It was also agreed that treatment would be delayed if a urine drug test was positive for cocaine on the morning of admission. The patient was also seen by ORC every 2 weeks after being discharged from the CLC.

Imaging after cycle 6 showed decreased size of liver metastases, retroperitoneal lymph nodes, and pancreas mass. Cancer antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) tumor marker was reduced from 3513 U/mL pretreatment to 50 U/mL after cycle 7. Chemotherapy cycle 7 was delayed 6 days due to active cocaine and heroin use. A repeat urine was obtained several days later, which was negative for cocaine, and he was admitted for cycle 7 chemotherapy. Using this treatment approach of admissions for every cycle, the patient was able to receive 11 cycles of FOLFIRINOX with clinical benefit.

Palliative Care/Pain Management

Safely treating the patient’s malignant pain in the context of his OUD was critically important. In order to do this the palliative care team worked closely alongside ORC, is a multidisciplinary team consisting of health care providers (HCPs) from addiction psychiatry, internal medicine, health psychology and pharmacy who are consulted to evaluate veterans’ current opioid regimens and make recommendations to optimize both safety and efficacy. ORC followed this particular veteran as an outpatient and consulted on pain issues during his admission. They recommended the continuation of methadone at 120 mg daily and increased oral oxycodone to 30 mg every 6 hours, and then further increased to 45 mg every 6 hours. He continued to have increased pain despite higher doses of oxycodone, and pain medication was changed to oral hydromorphone 28 mg every 6 hours with the continuation of methadone. ORC and the palliative care team obtained consent from the veteran and a release of Information form signed by the patient to contact his community methadone clinic for further collaboration around pain management throughout the time caring for the veteran.

Even with improvement in disease based on imaging and tumor markers, opioid medications could not be decreased in this case. This is likely in part due to the multidimensional nature of pain. Careful assessment of the biologic, emotional, social, and spiritual contributors to pain is needed in the management of pain, especially at end of life.⁶ Nonpharmacologic pain management strategies used in this case included a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation unit, moist heat, celiac plexus block, and emotional support.

Psychosocial Issues/Substance Use

Psychosocial support for the patient was provided by the interdisciplinary palliative care team and the ORC team in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. Despite efforts from case management to get the veteran home services once discharged from the CLC, he declined repeatedly. Thus, the CLC social worker obtained a guardian alert for the veteran on discharge.

Close outpatient follow-up for medical and psychosocial support was very critical. When an outpatient, the veteran was scheduled for biweekly appointments with palliative care or ORC. When admitted to the hospital, the palliative care team medical director and psychologist conducted joint visits with him. Although he denied depressed mood and anxiety throughout his treatment, he often reflected on regrets that he had as he faced the end of his life. Specifically, he shared thoughts about being estranged from his surviving brother given his long struggle with substance use. Although he did not think a relationship was possible with his brother at the end of life, he still cared deeply for him and wanted to make him aware of his pancreatic cancer diagnosis. This was particularly important to him because their late brother had also died of pancreatic cancer. It was the patient’s wish at the end of his life to alert his surviving brother of his diagnosis so he and his children could get adequate screening throughout their lives. Although he had spoken of this desire often, it wasn’t until his disease progressed and he elected to transition to hospice that he felt ready to write the letter. The palliative care team assisted the veteran in writing and mailing a letter to his brother informing him of his diagnosis and transition to hospice as well as communicating that his brother and his family had been in his thoughts at the end of his life. The patient’s brother received this letter and with assistance from the CLC social worker made arrangements to visit the veteran at bedside at the inpatient CLC hospice unit the final days of his life.

Discussion

There are very little data on the safety of cancer-directed therapy in patients with active SUD. The limited studies that have been done showed conflicting results.

A retrospective study among women with co-occurring SUD and locally advanced cervical cancer who were undergoing primary radiation therapy found that SUD was not associated with a difference in toxicity or survival outcomes.⁷ However, other research suggests that SUD may be associated with an increase in all-cause mortality as well as other adverse outcomes for patients and health care systems (eg, emergency department visits, hospitalizations).⁸ A retrospective study of patients with a history of SUD and nonsmall cell lung cancer showed that these patients had higher rates of depression, less family support, increased rates of missed appointments, more emergency department visits and more hospitalizations.⁹ Patients with chronic myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes who had long-term cocaine use had a 6-fold increased risk of death, which was not found in patients who had long-term alcohol or marijuana use.²

The limited data highlight the need for careful consideration of ways to mitigate potentially adverse outcomes in this population while still providing clinically indicated cancer treatment. Integrated VA health care systems provide unique resources that can maximize veteran safety during cancer treatment. Utilization of VA resources and close interdisciplinary collaboration across VA HCPs can help to ensure equitable access to state-of-the-art cancer therapies for veterans with comorbid SUD.

VA Services for Patients With Comorbidities

This case highlights several distinct aspects of VA health care that make it possible to safely treat individuals with complex comorbidities. One important aspect of this was collaboration with the CLC to admit the veteran for his initial treatment after a positive cocaine test. CLC admission was nonpunitive and allowed ongoing involvement in the VA community. This provided an essential, safe, and structured environment in which 6 cycles of chemotherapy could be delivered.

Although the patient left the CLC after 2 months due to floor restrictions negatively impacting his quality of life and ability to spend time with close friends, several important events occurred during this stay. First, the patient established close relationships with the CLC staff and the palliative care team; both groups followed him throughout his inpatient and outpatient care. These relationships proved essential throughout his care as they were the foundation of difficult conversations about substance use, treatment adherence, and eventually, transition to hospice.

In addition, the opportunity to administer 6 cycles of chemotherapy at the CLC was enough to lead to clinical benefit and radiographic response to treatment. Clinical benefits while in the CLC included maintenance of a good appetite, 15-lb weight gain and preserved performance status (ECOG [Eastern Cooperative Group]-1), which allowed him to actively participate in multiple social and recreational activities while in the CLC. From early conversations, this patient was clear that he wanted treatment as long as his life could be prolonged with good quality of life. Having evidence of the benefit of treatment, at least initially, increased the patient’s confidence in treatment. There were a few conversations when the challenges of treatment mounted (eg, pain, needs for abstinence from cocaine prior to admission for chemotherapy, frequent doctor appointments), and the patient would remind himself of these data to recommit himself to treatment. The opportunity to admit him to the inpatient VA facility, including bed availability for 3 days during his treatment once he left the CLC was important. This plan to admit the patient following a negative urine toxicology test for cocaine was made collaboratively with the veteran and the oncology and palliative care teams. The plan allowed the patient to achieve his treatment goals while maintaining his safety and reducing theoretical cardiac toxicities with his cancer treatment.

Finally, the availability of a multidisciplinary team approach including palliative care, oncology, psychology, addiction medicine and addiction psychiatry, was critical for addressing the veteran’s malignant pain. Palliative care worked in close collaboration with the ORC to prescribe and renew pain medications. ORC offered ongoing consultation on pain management in the context of OUD. As the veteran’s cancer progressed and functional decline prohibited his daily attendance at the community methadone clinic, palliative care and ORC met with the methadone clinic to arrange a less frequent methadone pickup schedule (the patient previously needed daily pickup). Non-VA settings may not have access to these resources to safely treat the biopsychosocial issues that arise in complex cases.

Substance Use and Cancer Treatments

This case raises several critical questions for oncologic care. Cocaine and fluorouracil are both associated with cardiotoxicity, and many oncologists would not feel it is safe to administer a regimen containing fluorouracil to a patient with active cocaine use. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) panel recommends FOLFIRINOX as a preferred category 1 recommendation for first-line treatment of patients with advanced pancreas cancer with good performance status.¹⁰ This recommendation is based on the PRODIGE trial, which has shown improved overall survival (OS): 11.1 vs 6.8 months for patients who received single-agent gemcitabine.¹¹ If patients are not candidates for FOLFIRINOX and have good performance status, the NCCN recommends gemcitabine plus albumin-bound paclitaxel with category 1 level of evidence based on the IMPACT trial, which showed improvement in OS (8.7 vs 6.6 months compared with single-agent gemcitabine).¹²

Some oncologists may have additional concerns administering fluorouracil treatment alternatives (such as gemcitabine and albumin-bound paclitaxel) to individuals with active SUD because of concerns about altered mental status impacting the ability to report important adverse effects. In the absence of sufficient data, HCPs must determine whether they feel it is safe to administer these agents in individuals with active cocaine use. However, denying these patients the possible benefits of standard-of-care life-prolonging therapies without established data raises concerns regarding the ethics of such practices. There is concern that the stigma surrounding cocaine use might contribute to withholding treatment, while treatment is continued for individuals taking prescribed stimulant medications that also have cardiotoxicity risks. VA health care facilities are uniquely situated to use all available resources to address these issues using interprofessional patient-centered care and determine the most optimal treatment based on a risk/benefit discussion between the patient and the HCP.

SUD Screening

This case begs the question of whether oncologists are adequately screening for a range of SUDs, and when they encounter an issue, how they are addressing it. Many oncologists do not receive adequate training on assessment of current or recent substance use. There are health care and systems-level practices that may increase patient safety for individuals with ongoing substance use who are undergoing cancer treatment. Training on obtaining appropriate substance use histories, motivational interviewing to resolve ambivalence about substance use in the direction of change, and shared decision making about treatment options could increase confidence in understanding and addressing substance use issues. It is also important to educate oncologists on how to address patients who return to or continued substance use during treatment. In this case the collaboration from palliative care, psychology, addiction medicine, and addiction psychiatry through the ORC was essential in assisting with ongoing assessment of substance use, guiding difficult conversations about the impact of substance use on the treatment plan, and identifying risk-mitigation strategies. Close collaboration and full utilization of all VA resources allowed this patient to receive first-line treatment for pancreatic cancer in order to reach his goal of prolonging his life while maintaining acceptable quality of life. Table 2 provides best practices for management of patients with comorbid SUD and cancer.

More research is needed into cancer treatment for patients with SUD, especially in the current era of cancer care using novel cancer treatments leading to significantly improved survival in many cancer types. Ideally, oncologists should be routinely or consistently screening patients for substance use, including alcohol. The patient should participate in this decision-making process after being educated about the risks and benefits. These patients can be followed using a multimodal approach to increase their rates of success and improve their quality of life. Although the literature is limited and no formal guidelines are available, VA oncologists are fortunate to have a range of resources available to them to navigate these difficult cases. Veterans have elevated rates of SUD, making this a critical issue to consider in the VA.¹³ It is the hope that this case can highlight how to take advantage of the many VA resources in order to ensure equitable cancer care for all veterans.

Conclusions

This case demonstrates that cancer-directed treatment is safe and feasible in a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer and coexisting active SUD by using a multidisciplinary approach. The multidisciplinary team included palliative care, oncology, psychology, addiction medicine, and addiction psychiatry. Critical steps for a successful outcome include gathering history about SUD; motivational interviewing to resolve ambivalence about treatment for SUD; shared decision making about cancer treatment; and risk-reduction strategies in pain and SUD management.

Treatment advancements in many cancer types have led to significantly longer survival, and it is critical to develop safe protocols to treat patients with active SUD so they also can derive benefit from these very significant medical advancements.

Acknowledgments

Michal Rose, MD, Director of VACHS Cancer Center, and Chandrika Kumar, MD, Director of VACHS Community Living Center, for their collaboration in care for this veteran.

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are an important but understudied aspect of treating patients diagnosed with cancer. Substance use can affect cancer treatment outcomes, including morbidity and mortality.^1,2 Additionally, patients with cancer and SUD may have unique psychosocial needs that require close attention and management. There is a paucity of data regarding the best approach to treating such patients. For example, cocaine use may increase the cardiovascular and hematologic risk of some traditional chemotherapy agents.^3,4 Newer targeted agents and immunotherapies remain understudied with respect to SUD risk.

Although the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has established helpful clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of SUD, there are no guidelines for treating patients with SUD and cancer.⁵ Clinicians have limited confidence in treatment approach, and treatment is inconsistent among oncologists nationwide even within the same practice. Furthermore, it can be challenging to safely prescribe opioids for cancer-related pain in individuals with SUD. There is a high risk of SUD and mental health disorders in veterans, making this population particularly vulnerable. We report a case of a male with metastatic pancreatic cancer, severe opioid use disorder (OUD) and moderate cocaine use disorder (CUD) who received pain management and cancer treatment under the direction of a multidisciplinary team approach.

Case Report

A 63-year-old male with a medical history of HIV treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), compensated cirrhosis, severe OUD, moderate CUD, and sedative use disorder in sustained remission was admitted to the West Haven campus of the VA Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS) with abdominal pain, weight loss and fatigue. He used heroin 1 month prior to his admission and reported regular cocaine and marijuana use (Table 1). He was diagnosed with HIV in 1989, and his medical history included herpes zoster and oral candidiasis but no other opportunistic infections. Several months prior to this admission, he had an undetectable viral load and CD4 count of 688.

At the time of this admission, the patient was adherent to methadone treatment. He reported increased abdominal pain. Computed tomography (CT) showed a 2.4-cm mass in the pancreatic uncinate process, multiple liver metastases, retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy, and small lung nodules. A CT-guided liver biopsy showed adenocarcinoma consistent with a primary cancer of the pancreas. Given the complexity of the case, a multidisciplinary team approach was used to treat his cancer and the sequelae safely, including the oncology team, community living center team, palliative care team, and interprofessional opioid reassessment clinic team (ORC).

Cancer Treatment

Chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin calcium, fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplatin) was recommended. The first cycle of treatment originally was planned for the outpatient setting, and a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line was placed. However, after a urine toxicology test was positive for cocaine, the PICC line was removed due to concern for possible use of PICC line for nonprescribed substance use. The patient expressed suicidal ideation at the time and was admitted for psychiatric consult and pain control. Cycle 1 FOLFIRINOX was started during this admission. A PICC line was again put in place and then removed before discharge. A celiac plexus block was performed several days after this admission for pain control.

Given concern about cocaine use increasing the risk of cardiac toxicity with FOLFIRINOX treatment, treating providers sconsulted with the community living center (CLC) about possible admission for future chemotherapy administration and pain management. The CLC at VACHS has 38 beds for rehabilitation, long-term care, and hospice with the mission to restore each veteran to his or her highest level of well-being. After discussion with this patient and CLC staff, he agreed to a CLC admission. The patient agreed to remain in the facility, wear a secure care device, and not leave without staff accompaniment. He was able to obtain a 2-hour pass to pay bills and rent. During the 2 months he was admitted to the CLC he would present to the VACHS Cancer Center for chemotherapy every 2 weeks. He completed 6 cycles of chemotherapy while admitted. During the admission, he was transferred to active medical service for 2 days for fever and malaise, and then returned to the CLC. The patient elected to leave the CLC after 2 months as the inability to see close friends was interfering with his quality of life.

Upon being discharged from the CLC, shared decision making took place with the patient to establish a new treatment plan. In collaboration with the patient, a plan was made to admit him every 2 weeks for continued chemotherapy. A PICC line was placed on each day of admission and removed prior to discharge. It was also agreed that treatment would be delayed if a urine drug test was positive for cocaine on the morning of admission. The patient was also seen by ORC every 2 weeks after being discharged from the CLC.

Imaging after cycle 6 showed decreased size of liver metastases, retroperitoneal lymph nodes, and pancreas mass. Cancer antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) tumor marker was reduced from 3513 U/mL pretreatment to 50 U/mL after cycle 7. Chemotherapy cycle 7 was delayed 6 days due to active cocaine and heroin use. A repeat urine was obtained several days later, which was negative for cocaine, and he was admitted for cycle 7 chemotherapy. Using this treatment approach of admissions for every cycle, the patient was able to receive 11 cycles of FOLFIRINOX with clinical benefit.

Palliative Care/Pain Management

Safely treating the patient’s malignant pain in the context of his OUD was critically important. In order to do this the palliative care team worked closely alongside ORC, is a multidisciplinary team consisting of health care providers (HCPs) from addiction psychiatry, internal medicine, health psychology and pharmacy who are consulted to evaluate veterans’ current opioid regimens and make recommendations to optimize both safety and efficacy. ORC followed this particular veteran as an outpatient and consulted on pain issues during his admission. They recommended the continuation of methadone at 120 mg daily and increased oral oxycodone to 30 mg every 6 hours, and then further increased to 45 mg every 6 hours. He continued to have increased pain despite higher doses of oxycodone, and pain medication was changed to oral hydromorphone 28 mg every 6 hours with the continuation of methadone. ORC and the palliative care team obtained consent from the veteran and a release of Information form signed by the patient to contact his community methadone clinic for further collaboration around pain management throughout the time caring for the veteran.

Even with improvement in disease based on imaging and tumor markers, opioid medications could not be decreased in this case. This is likely in part due to the multidimensional nature of pain. Careful assessment of the biologic, emotional, social, and spiritual contributors to pain is needed in the management of pain, especially at end of life.⁶ Nonpharmacologic pain management strategies used in this case included a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation unit, moist heat, celiac plexus block, and emotional support.

Psychosocial Issues/Substance Use

Psychosocial support for the patient was provided by the interdisciplinary palliative care team and the ORC team in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. Despite efforts from case management to get the veteran home services once discharged from the CLC, he declined repeatedly. Thus, the CLC social worker obtained a guardian alert for the veteran on discharge.

Close outpatient follow-up for medical and psychosocial support was very critical. When an outpatient, the veteran was scheduled for biweekly appointments with palliative care or ORC. When admitted to the hospital, the palliative care team medical director and psychologist conducted joint visits with him. Although he denied depressed mood and anxiety throughout his treatment, he often reflected on regrets that he had as he faced the end of his life. Specifically, he shared thoughts about being estranged from his surviving brother given his long struggle with substance use. Although he did not think a relationship was possible with his brother at the end of life, he still cared deeply for him and wanted to make him aware of his pancreatic cancer diagnosis. This was particularly important to him because their late brother had also died of pancreatic cancer. It was the patient’s wish at the end of his life to alert his surviving brother of his diagnosis so he and his children could get adequate screening throughout their lives. Although he had spoken of this desire often, it wasn’t until his disease progressed and he elected to transition to hospice that he felt ready to write the letter. The palliative care team assisted the veteran in writing and mailing a letter to his brother informing him of his diagnosis and transition to hospice as well as communicating that his brother and his family had been in his thoughts at the end of his life. The patient’s brother received this letter and with assistance from the CLC social worker made arrangements to visit the veteran at bedside at the inpatient CLC hospice unit the final days of his life.

Discussion

There are very little data on the safety of cancer-directed therapy in patients with active SUD. The limited studies that have been done showed conflicting results.

A retrospective study among women with co-occurring SUD and locally advanced cervical cancer who were undergoing primary radiation therapy found that SUD was not associated with a difference in toxicity or survival outcomes.⁷ However, other research suggests that SUD may be associated with an increase in all-cause mortality as well as other adverse outcomes for patients and health care systems (eg, emergency department visits, hospitalizations).⁸ A retrospective study of patients with a history of SUD and nonsmall cell lung cancer showed that these patients had higher rates of depression, less family support, increased rates of missed appointments, more emergency department visits and more hospitalizations.⁹ Patients with chronic myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes who had long-term cocaine use had a 6-fold increased risk of death, which was not found in patients who had long-term alcohol or marijuana use.²

The limited data highlight the need for careful consideration of ways to mitigate potentially adverse outcomes in this population while still providing clinically indicated cancer treatment. Integrated VA health care systems provide unique resources that can maximize veteran safety during cancer treatment. Utilization of VA resources and close interdisciplinary collaboration across VA HCPs can help to ensure equitable access to state-of-the-art cancer therapies for veterans with comorbid SUD.

VA Services for Patients With Comorbidities

This case highlights several distinct aspects of VA health care that make it possible to safely treat individuals with complex comorbidities. One important aspect of this was collaboration with the CLC to admit the veteran for his initial treatment after a positive cocaine test. CLC admission was nonpunitive and allowed ongoing involvement in the VA community. This provided an essential, safe, and structured environment in which 6 cycles of chemotherapy could be delivered.

Although the patient left the CLC after 2 months due to floor restrictions negatively impacting his quality of life and ability to spend time with close friends, several important events occurred during this stay. First, the patient established close relationships with the CLC staff and the palliative care team; both groups followed him throughout his inpatient and outpatient care. These relationships proved essential throughout his care as they were the foundation of difficult conversations about substance use, treatment adherence, and eventually, transition to hospice.

In addition, the opportunity to administer 6 cycles of chemotherapy at the CLC was enough to lead to clinical benefit and radiographic response to treatment. Clinical benefits while in the CLC included maintenance of a good appetite, 15-lb weight gain and preserved performance status (ECOG [Eastern Cooperative Group]-1), which allowed him to actively participate in multiple social and recreational activities while in the CLC. From early conversations, this patient was clear that he wanted treatment as long as his life could be prolonged with good quality of life. Having evidence of the benefit of treatment, at least initially, increased the patient’s confidence in treatment. There were a few conversations when the challenges of treatment mounted (eg, pain, needs for abstinence from cocaine prior to admission for chemotherapy, frequent doctor appointments), and the patient would remind himself of these data to recommit himself to treatment. The opportunity to admit him to the inpatient VA facility, including bed availability for 3 days during his treatment once he left the CLC was important. This plan to admit the patient following a negative urine toxicology test for cocaine was made collaboratively with the veteran and the oncology and palliative care teams. The plan allowed the patient to achieve his treatment goals while maintaining his safety and reducing theoretical cardiac toxicities with his cancer treatment.

Finally, the availability of a multidisciplinary team approach including palliative care, oncology, psychology, addiction medicine and addiction psychiatry, was critical for addressing the veteran’s malignant pain. Palliative care worked in close collaboration with the ORC to prescribe and renew pain medications. ORC offered ongoing consultation on pain management in the context of OUD. As the veteran’s cancer progressed and functional decline prohibited his daily attendance at the community methadone clinic, palliative care and ORC met with the methadone clinic to arrange a less frequent methadone pickup schedule (the patient previously needed daily pickup). Non-VA settings may not have access to these resources to safely treat the biopsychosocial issues that arise in complex cases.

Substance Use and Cancer Treatments

This case raises several critical questions for oncologic care. Cocaine and fluorouracil are both associated with cardiotoxicity, and many oncologists would not feel it is safe to administer a regimen containing fluorouracil to a patient with active cocaine use. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) panel recommends FOLFIRINOX as a preferred category 1 recommendation for first-line treatment of patients with advanced pancreas cancer with good performance status.¹⁰ This recommendation is based on the PRODIGE trial, which has shown improved overall survival (OS): 11.1 vs 6.8 months for patients who received single-agent gemcitabine.¹¹ If patients are not candidates for FOLFIRINOX and have good performance status, the NCCN recommends gemcitabine plus albumin-bound paclitaxel with category 1 level of evidence based on the IMPACT trial, which showed improvement in OS (8.7 vs 6.6 months compared with single-agent gemcitabine).¹²

Some oncologists may have additional concerns administering fluorouracil treatment alternatives (such as gemcitabine and albumin-bound paclitaxel) to individuals with active SUD because of concerns about altered mental status impacting the ability to report important adverse effects. In the absence of sufficient data, HCPs must determine whether they feel it is safe to administer these agents in individuals with active cocaine use. However, denying these patients the possible benefits of standard-of-care life-prolonging therapies without established data raises concerns regarding the ethics of such practices. There is concern that the stigma surrounding cocaine use might contribute to withholding treatment, while treatment is continued for individuals taking prescribed stimulant medications that also have cardiotoxicity risks. VA health care facilities are uniquely situated to use all available resources to address these issues using interprofessional patient-centered care and determine the most optimal treatment based on a risk/benefit discussion between the patient and the HCP.

SUD Screening

This case begs the question of whether oncologists are adequately screening for a range of SUDs, and when they encounter an issue, how they are addressing it. Many oncologists do not receive adequate training on assessment of current or recent substance use. There are health care and systems-level practices that may increase patient safety for individuals with ongoing substance use who are undergoing cancer treatment. Training on obtaining appropriate substance use histories, motivational interviewing to resolve ambivalence about substance use in the direction of change, and shared decision making about treatment options could increase confidence in understanding and addressing substance use issues. It is also important to educate oncologists on how to address patients who return to or continued substance use during treatment. In this case the collaboration from palliative care, psychology, addiction medicine, and addiction psychiatry through the ORC was essential in assisting with ongoing assessment of substance use, guiding difficult conversations about the impact of substance use on the treatment plan, and identifying risk-mitigation strategies. Close collaboration and full utilization of all VA resources allowed this patient to receive first-line treatment for pancreatic cancer in order to reach his goal of prolonging his life while maintaining acceptable quality of life. Table 2 provides best practices for management of patients with comorbid SUD and cancer.

More research is needed into cancer treatment for patients with SUD, especially in the current era of cancer care using novel cancer treatments leading to significantly improved survival in many cancer types. Ideally, oncologists should be routinely or consistently screening patients for substance use, including alcohol. The patient should participate in this decision-making process after being educated about the risks and benefits. These patients can be followed using a multimodal approach to increase their rates of success and improve their quality of life. Although the literature is limited and no formal guidelines are available, VA oncologists are fortunate to have a range of resources available to them to navigate these difficult cases. Veterans have elevated rates of SUD, making this a critical issue to consider in the VA.¹³ It is the hope that this case can highlight how to take advantage of the many VA resources in order to ensure equitable cancer care for all veterans.

Conclusions

This case demonstrates that cancer-directed treatment is safe and feasible in a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer and coexisting active SUD by using a multidisciplinary approach. The multidisciplinary team included palliative care, oncology, psychology, addiction medicine, and addiction psychiatry. Critical steps for a successful outcome include gathering history about SUD; motivational interviewing to resolve ambivalence about treatment for SUD; shared decision making about cancer treatment; and risk-reduction strategies in pain and SUD management.

Treatment advancements in many cancer types have led to significantly longer survival, and it is critical to develop safe protocols to treat patients with active SUD so they also can derive benefit from these very significant medical advancements.

Acknowledgments

Michal Rose, MD, Director of VACHS Cancer Center, and Chandrika Kumar, MD, Director of VACHS Community Living Center, for their collaboration in care for this veteran.

Substance use disorders (SUDs) are an important but understudied aspect of treating patients diagnosed with cancer. Substance use can affect cancer treatment outcomes, including morbidity and mortality.^1,2 Additionally, patients with cancer and SUD may have unique psychosocial needs that require close attention and management. There is a paucity of data regarding the best approach to treating such patients. For example, cocaine use may increase the cardiovascular and hematologic risk of some traditional chemotherapy agents.^3,4 Newer targeted agents and immunotherapies remain understudied with respect to SUD risk.

Although the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has established helpful clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of SUD, there are no guidelines for treating patients with SUD and cancer.⁵ Clinicians have limited confidence in treatment approach, and treatment is inconsistent among oncologists nationwide even within the same practice. Furthermore, it can be challenging to safely prescribe opioids for cancer-related pain in individuals with SUD. There is a high risk of SUD and mental health disorders in veterans, making this population particularly vulnerable. We report a case of a male with metastatic pancreatic cancer, severe opioid use disorder (OUD) and moderate cocaine use disorder (CUD) who received pain management and cancer treatment under the direction of a multidisciplinary team approach.

Case Report

A 63-year-old male with a medical history of HIV treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), compensated cirrhosis, severe OUD, moderate CUD, and sedative use disorder in sustained remission was admitted to the West Haven campus of the VA Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS) with abdominal pain, weight loss and fatigue. He used heroin 1 month prior to his admission and reported regular cocaine and marijuana use (Table 1). He was diagnosed with HIV in 1989, and his medical history included herpes zoster and oral candidiasis but no other opportunistic infections. Several months prior to this admission, he had an undetectable viral load and CD4 count of 688.

At the time of this admission, the patient was adherent to methadone treatment. He reported increased abdominal pain. Computed tomography (CT) showed a 2.4-cm mass in the pancreatic uncinate process, multiple liver metastases, retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy, and small lung nodules. A CT-guided liver biopsy showed adenocarcinoma consistent with a primary cancer of the pancreas. Given the complexity of the case, a multidisciplinary team approach was used to treat his cancer and the sequelae safely, including the oncology team, community living center team, palliative care team, and interprofessional opioid reassessment clinic team (ORC).

Cancer Treatment

Chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin calcium, fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplatin) was recommended. The first cycle of treatment originally was planned for the outpatient setting, and a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line was placed. However, after a urine toxicology test was positive for cocaine, the PICC line was removed due to concern for possible use of PICC line for nonprescribed substance use. The patient expressed suicidal ideation at the time and was admitted for psychiatric consult and pain control. Cycle 1 FOLFIRINOX was started during this admission. A PICC line was again put in place and then removed before discharge. A celiac plexus block was performed several days after this admission for pain control.

Given concern about cocaine use increasing the risk of cardiac toxicity with FOLFIRINOX treatment, treating providers sconsulted with the community living center (CLC) about possible admission for future chemotherapy administration and pain management. The CLC at VACHS has 38 beds for rehabilitation, long-term care, and hospice with the mission to restore each veteran to his or her highest level of well-being. After discussion with this patient and CLC staff, he agreed to a CLC admission. The patient agreed to remain in the facility, wear a secure care device, and not leave without staff accompaniment. He was able to obtain a 2-hour pass to pay bills and rent. During the 2 months he was admitted to the CLC he would present to the VACHS Cancer Center for chemotherapy every 2 weeks. He completed 6 cycles of chemotherapy while admitted. During the admission, he was transferred to active medical service for 2 days for fever and malaise, and then returned to the CLC. The patient elected to leave the CLC after 2 months as the inability to see close friends was interfering with his quality of life.

Upon being discharged from the CLC, shared decision making took place with the patient to establish a new treatment plan. In collaboration with the patient, a plan was made to admit him every 2 weeks for continued chemotherapy. A PICC line was placed on each day of admission and removed prior to discharge. It was also agreed that treatment would be delayed if a urine drug test was positive for cocaine on the morning of admission. The patient was also seen by ORC every 2 weeks after being discharged from the CLC.

Imaging after cycle 6 showed decreased size of liver metastases, retroperitoneal lymph nodes, and pancreas mass. Cancer antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) tumor marker was reduced from 3513 U/mL pretreatment to 50 U/mL after cycle 7. Chemotherapy cycle 7 was delayed 6 days due to active cocaine and heroin use. A repeat urine was obtained several days later, which was negative for cocaine, and he was admitted for cycle 7 chemotherapy. Using this treatment approach of admissions for every cycle, the patient was able to receive 11 cycles of FOLFIRINOX with clinical benefit.

Palliative Care/Pain Management

Safely treating the patient’s malignant pain in the context of his OUD was critically important. In order to do this the palliative care team worked closely alongside ORC, is a multidisciplinary team consisting of health care providers (HCPs) from addiction psychiatry, internal medicine, health psychology and pharmacy who are consulted to evaluate veterans’ current opioid regimens and make recommendations to optimize both safety and efficacy. ORC followed this particular veteran as an outpatient and consulted on pain issues during his admission. They recommended the continuation of methadone at 120 mg daily and increased oral oxycodone to 30 mg every 6 hours, and then further increased to 45 mg every 6 hours. He continued to have increased pain despite higher doses of oxycodone, and pain medication was changed to oral hydromorphone 28 mg every 6 hours with the continuation of methadone. ORC and the palliative care team obtained consent from the veteran and a release of Information form signed by the patient to contact his community methadone clinic for further collaboration around pain management throughout the time caring for the veteran.

Even with improvement in disease based on imaging and tumor markers, opioid medications could not be decreased in this case. This is likely in part due to the multidimensional nature of pain. Careful assessment of the biologic, emotional, social, and spiritual contributors to pain is needed in the management of pain, especially at end of life.⁶ Nonpharmacologic pain management strategies used in this case included a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation unit, moist heat, celiac plexus block, and emotional support.

Psychosocial Issues/Substance Use

Psychosocial support for the patient was provided by the interdisciplinary palliative care team and the ORC team in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. Despite efforts from case management to get the veteran home services once discharged from the CLC, he declined repeatedly. Thus, the CLC social worker obtained a guardian alert for the veteran on discharge.

Close outpatient follow-up for medical and psychosocial support was very critical. When an outpatient, the veteran was scheduled for biweekly appointments with palliative care or ORC. When admitted to the hospital, the palliative care team medical director and psychologist conducted joint visits with him. Although he denied depressed mood and anxiety throughout his treatment, he often reflected on regrets that he had as he faced the end of his life. Specifically, he shared thoughts about being estranged from his surviving brother given his long struggle with substance use. Although he did not think a relationship was possible with his brother at the end of life, he still cared deeply for him and wanted to make him aware of his pancreatic cancer diagnosis. This was particularly important to him because their late brother had also died of pancreatic cancer. It was the patient’s wish at the end of his life to alert his surviving brother of his diagnosis so he and his children could get adequate screening throughout their lives. Although he had spoken of this desire often, it wasn’t until his disease progressed and he elected to transition to hospice that he felt ready to write the letter. The palliative care team assisted the veteran in writing and mailing a letter to his brother informing him of his diagnosis and transition to hospice as well as communicating that his brother and his family had been in his thoughts at the end of his life. The patient’s brother received this letter and with assistance from the CLC social worker made arrangements to visit the veteran at bedside at the inpatient CLC hospice unit the final days of his life.

Discussion

There are very little data on the safety of cancer-directed therapy in patients with active SUD. The limited studies that have been done showed conflicting results.

A retrospective study among women with co-occurring SUD and locally advanced cervical cancer who were undergoing primary radiation therapy found that SUD was not associated with a difference in toxicity or survival outcomes.⁷ However, other research suggests that SUD may be associated with an increase in all-cause mortality as well as other adverse outcomes for patients and health care systems (eg, emergency department visits, hospitalizations).⁸ A retrospective study of patients with a history of SUD and nonsmall cell lung cancer showed that these patients had higher rates of depression, less family support, increased rates of missed appointments, more emergency department visits and more hospitalizations.⁹ Patients with chronic myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndromes who had long-term cocaine use had a 6-fold increased risk of death, which was not found in patients who had long-term alcohol or marijuana use.²

The limited data highlight the need for careful consideration of ways to mitigate potentially adverse outcomes in this population while still providing clinically indicated cancer treatment. Integrated VA health care systems provide unique resources that can maximize veteran safety during cancer treatment. Utilization of VA resources and close interdisciplinary collaboration across VA HCPs can help to ensure equitable access to state-of-the-art cancer therapies for veterans with comorbid SUD.

VA Services for Patients With Comorbidities

This case highlights several distinct aspects of VA health care that make it possible to safely treat individuals with complex comorbidities. One important aspect of this was collaboration with the CLC to admit the veteran for his initial treatment after a positive cocaine test. CLC admission was nonpunitive and allowed ongoing involvement in the VA community. This provided an essential, safe, and structured environment in which 6 cycles of chemotherapy could be delivered.

Although the patient left the CLC after 2 months due to floor restrictions negatively impacting his quality of life and ability to spend time with close friends, several important events occurred during this stay. First, the patient established close relationships with the CLC staff and the palliative care team; both groups followed him throughout his inpatient and outpatient care. These relationships proved essential throughout his care as they were the foundation of difficult conversations about substance use, treatment adherence, and eventually, transition to hospice.

In addition, the opportunity to administer 6 cycles of chemotherapy at the CLC was enough to lead to clinical benefit and radiographic response to treatment. Clinical benefits while in the CLC included maintenance of a good appetite, 15-lb weight gain and preserved performance status (ECOG [Eastern Cooperative Group]-1), which allowed him to actively participate in multiple social and recreational activities while in the CLC. From early conversations, this patient was clear that he wanted treatment as long as his life could be prolonged with good quality of life. Having evidence of the benefit of treatment, at least initially, increased the patient’s confidence in treatment. There were a few conversations when the challenges of treatment mounted (eg, pain, needs for abstinence from cocaine prior to admission for chemotherapy, frequent doctor appointments), and the patient would remind himself of these data to recommit himself to treatment. The opportunity to admit him to the inpatient VA facility, including bed availability for 3 days during his treatment once he left the CLC was important. This plan to admit the patient following a negative urine toxicology test for cocaine was made collaboratively with the veteran and the oncology and palliative care teams. The plan allowed the patient to achieve his treatment goals while maintaining his safety and reducing theoretical cardiac toxicities with his cancer treatment.

Finally, the availability of a multidisciplinary team approach including palliative care, oncology, psychology, addiction medicine and addiction psychiatry, was critical for addressing the veteran’s malignant pain. Palliative care worked in close collaboration with the ORC to prescribe and renew pain medications. ORC offered ongoing consultation on pain management in the context of OUD. As the veteran’s cancer progressed and functional decline prohibited his daily attendance at the community methadone clinic, palliative care and ORC met with the methadone clinic to arrange a less frequent methadone pickup schedule (the patient previously needed daily pickup). Non-VA settings may not have access to these resources to safely treat the biopsychosocial issues that arise in complex cases.

Substance Use and Cancer Treatments

This case raises several critical questions for oncologic care. Cocaine and fluorouracil are both associated with cardiotoxicity, and many oncologists would not feel it is safe to administer a regimen containing fluorouracil to a patient with active cocaine use. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) panel recommends FOLFIRINOX as a preferred category 1 recommendation for first-line treatment of patients with advanced pancreas cancer with good performance status.¹⁰ This recommendation is based on the PRODIGE trial, which has shown improved overall survival (OS): 11.1 vs 6.8 months for patients who received single-agent gemcitabine.¹¹ If patients are not candidates for FOLFIRINOX and have good performance status, the NCCN recommends gemcitabine plus albumin-bound paclitaxel with category 1 level of evidence based on the IMPACT trial, which showed improvement in OS (8.7 vs 6.6 months compared with single-agent gemcitabine).¹²

Some oncologists may have additional concerns administering fluorouracil treatment alternatives (such as gemcitabine and albumin-bound paclitaxel) to individuals with active SUD because of concerns about altered mental status impacting the ability to report important adverse effects. In the absence of sufficient data, HCPs must determine whether they feel it is safe to administer these agents in individuals with active cocaine use. However, denying these patients the possible benefits of standard-of-care life-prolonging therapies without established data raises concerns regarding the ethics of such practices. There is concern that the stigma surrounding cocaine use might contribute to withholding treatment, while treatment is continued for individuals taking prescribed stimulant medications that also have cardiotoxicity risks. VA health care facilities are uniquely situated to use all available resources to address these issues using interprofessional patient-centered care and determine the most optimal treatment based on a risk/benefit discussion between the patient and the HCP.

SUD Screening

This case begs the question of whether oncologists are adequately screening for a range of SUDs, and when they encounter an issue, how they are addressing it. Many oncologists do not receive adequate training on assessment of current or recent substance use. There are health care and systems-level practices that may increase patient safety for individuals with ongoing substance use who are undergoing cancer treatment. Training on obtaining appropriate substance use histories, motivational interviewing to resolve ambivalence about substance use in the direction of change, and shared decision making about treatment options could increase confidence in understanding and addressing substance use issues. It is also important to educate oncologists on how to address patients who return to or continued substance use during treatment. In this case the collaboration from palliative care, psychology, addiction medicine, and addiction psychiatry through the ORC was essential in assisting with ongoing assessment of substance use, guiding difficult conversations about the impact of substance use on the treatment plan, and identifying risk-mitigation strategies. Close collaboration and full utilization of all VA resources allowed this patient to receive first-line treatment for pancreatic cancer in order to reach his goal of prolonging his life while maintaining acceptable quality of life. Table 2 provides best practices for management of patients with comorbid SUD and cancer.

More research is needed into cancer treatment for patients with SUD, especially in the current era of cancer care using novel cancer treatments leading to significantly improved survival in many cancer types. Ideally, oncologists should be routinely or consistently screening patients for substance use, including alcohol. The patient should participate in this decision-making process after being educated about the risks and benefits. These patients can be followed using a multimodal approach to increase their rates of success and improve their quality of life. Although the literature is limited and no formal guidelines are available, VA oncologists are fortunate to have a range of resources available to them to navigate these difficult cases. Veterans have elevated rates of SUD, making this a critical issue to consider in the VA.¹³ It is the hope that this case can highlight how to take advantage of the many VA resources in order to ensure equitable cancer care for all veterans.

Conclusions

This case demonstrates that cancer-directed treatment is safe and feasible in a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer and coexisting active SUD by using a multidisciplinary approach. The multidisciplinary team included palliative care, oncology, psychology, addiction medicine, and addiction psychiatry. Critical steps for a successful outcome include gathering history about SUD; motivational interviewing to resolve ambivalence about treatment for SUD; shared decision making about cancer treatment; and risk-reduction strategies in pain and SUD management.

Treatment advancements in many cancer types have led to significantly longer survival, and it is critical to develop safe protocols to treat patients with active SUD so they also can derive benefit from these very significant medical advancements.

Acknowledgments

Michal Rose, MD, Director of VACHS Cancer Center, and Chandrika Kumar, MD, Director of VACHS Community Living Center, for their collaboration in care for this veteran.

Veterans living with cancer need comprehensive assessment that includes supportive psychosocial care. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer require accredited cancer centers to evaluate psychosocial distress and provide appropriate triage and treatment for all patients.^1-3 Implementing psychosocial distress screening can be difficult because of procedural barriers and time constraints, clinic and supportive care resources, and lack of knowledge about how to access supportive services.

Distress screening protocols must be designed to address the specific needs of each population. To improve screening for cancer-related distress, deliver effective supportive services, and gain agreement on distress screening standards of care, the Coleman Foundation supported development of the Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC), a project of 135 interdisciplinary health care professionals from 25 Chicago-area cancer care institutions.⁴

The Jesse Brown US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (JBVAMC) was chosen to assess cancer-related concerns among veterans using the CSOC screening tool and to improve access to supportive oncology. JBVAMC provides care to approximately 49,000 veterans in Chicago, Illinois, and northwestern Indiana. The JBVAMC patient population includes a large number of veterans with dual diagnoses (co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders) and veterans experiencing homelessness.

Delivering integrated screening and oncologic care that is culture and age appropriate is particularly important for veterans given their unique risk factors. The veteran population is considered vulnerable in terms of health status, psychological functioning, and social context. Veterans who use the VA health system as a principal source of care have poorer health, greater comorbid medical conditions, and an increased risk of mortality and suicide compared with the general population.^5,6 Poorer health status in veterans also may relate to old age, low income, poor education, psychological health, and minority race.^7-9

Past studies point to unique risk factors for cancer and poor cancer adjustment among veterans, which may complicate cancer treatment and end-of-life/survivorship care. Veteran-specific risk factors include military-related exposures, particularly Agent Orange and morbidity/mortality secondary to comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions (eg, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, and posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]).^10-12 Moreover, the geriatric veteran population continues to grow,with increasing rates of cancer that require unique considerations for effective cancer care.^13,14 Despite this, there are minimal data to inform best practices and supportive care approaches for veterans with cancer. Lack of guidelines specific to veterans and other populations with increased psychosocial challenges may impede successful cancer care, making distress screening procedures particularly important. This is especially the case for the JBVAMC, which serves primarily African American urban-dwelling veterans who experience high rates of cancer disparities, including increased rates of mortality and increased levels of psychosocial distress.^15,16

The goals of this program were to (1) examine levels of psychological, physical, financial, and treatment-related distress in a large sample of urban-dwelling veterans; (2) create a streamlined, sustainable process to screen a large number of veterans receiving cancer care in the outpatient setting and connect them with available supportive services; and (3) educate oncology physicians, nurses, and other staff about cancer-related distress and concerns using in-service trainings and interpersonal interactions to improve patient care. Our program was based on a Primary Care Mental Health Integration (PCMHI) model that embeds health psychologists in general medical clinics to better reach veterans dealing with mental health issues. We tailored for palliative care involvement.

Studies of this model have shown that mental health integration improves access to mental health services and mental health treatment outcomes and has higher patient and provider satisfaction.¹⁷ We were also influenced by the construct of the patient aligned care team (PACT) social worker who, in this veteran-centered approach, often functions as a care coordinator. Social work responsibilities include assessment of patients’ stressors including adjusting to the medical conditions, identifying untreated or undertreated mental health or substance abuse issues, economic instability, legal problems, and inadequate housing and transportation, which can often be exacerbated during cancer treatment.¹⁸

Methods

This institutional review board at JBVAMC reviewed and exempted this quality improvement program using the SQUIRE framework.¹⁹ It was led by a group of palliative care clinicians, psychologists, and administrators who have worked with the oncology service for many years, primarily in the care of hospitalized patients. Common palliative care services include providing care for patients with serious illness diagnosis through the illness trajectory.

Setting

At the start of this program, we assessed the current clinic workflow to determine how to best screen and assist veterans experiencing distress. We met with team members individually to identify the best method of clinic integration, including attending medical oncologists, medical oncology fellows, psychology interns, oncology nursing staff, the oncology nurse coordinator, and clinic clerks.

The JBVAMC provides cancer care through 4 half-day medical hematology-oncology clinics that serve about 50 patients per half-day clinic. The clinics are staffed by hematology-oncology fellows supervised by hematology-oncology attending physicians, who are affiliated with 2 academic medical centers. These clinics are staffed by 3 registered nurses (RNs) and a licensed practical nurse (LPN) and are adjacent to a chemotherapy infusion clinic with unique nursing staff. The JBVAMC also provides a variety of supportive care services, including extensive mental health and substance use treatment, physical and occupational therapy, acupuncture, nutrition, social work, and housing services. Following our assessment, it was evident that there were a low number of referrals from oncology clinics to supportive care services, mostly due to lack of knowledge of resources and unclear referral procedures.

Based on clinical volume, we determined that our screening program could best be implemented through a stepped approach beginning in one clinic and expanding thereafter. We began by having a palliative care physician and health psychology intern embedded in 1 weekly half-day clinic and a health psychology intern embedded in a second weekly half-day clinic. Our program included 2 health psychology interns (for each academic year of the program) who were supervised by a JBVA health psychologist.

About 15 months after successful integration within the first 2 half-day clinics, we expanded the screening program to staff an additional half-day medical oncology clinic with a palliative care APRN. This allowed us to expand the screening tool distribution and collection to 3 of 4 of the weekly half-day oncology clinics as well as to meet individually with veterans experiencing high levels of distress. Veterans were flagged as having high distress levels by either the results of their completed screening tool or by referral from a medical oncology physician. We initially established screening in clinics that were sufficiently staffed to ensure that screens were appropriately distributed and reviewed. Patients seen in nonparticipating clinics were referred to outpatient social work, mental health and/or outpatient palliative care according to oncology fellows’ clinical assessments of the patient. All oncology fellows received education about distress screening and methods for referring to supportive care. Our clinic screening program extended from February 2017 through January 2020.

Screening

Program staff screened patients with new cancer diagnoses, then identified patients for follow-up screens. This tracking allowed staff to identify patients with oncology appointments that day and cross-reference patients needing a follow-up screen.

Following feedback from the clinic nurses, we determined that nurses would provide the distress tool to patients in paper form after they completed their assessment of vitals and waited to be seen by their medical oncologist. The patient would then deliver their completed form to the nurse who would combine it with the patient’s clinic notes for the oncologist to review. Veterans who reported elevated 4-question Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) scores ≥ 6 were seen immediately by program staff. Veterans were referred to social work or psychiatry services for a same day visit if they endorsed a high level of psychological distress during clinical examination. They were referred for other supportive care services if they were determined to have practical, family, or nutrition unmet distress needs by either the program staff or oncology fellows. Program staff provided guidance to medical oncology fellows for needed referrals including social work, mental health, and palliative care follow ups (eAppendix A available at doi:10.12788/fp.0158).

Veterans referred for supportive care services were contacted by the relevant clinical administrator by phone to schedule an intake; for social work referrals, patients were either seen in a walk-in office located in a colocated building or contacted by a social worker by phone.

Our screening tool was the Coleman Foundation Supportive Oncology Collaborative Screening Tool, compiled from validated instruments. Patients completed this screening tool, which includes the PHQ-4, NCCN problem list concerns, adapted Mini Nutrition Assessment and PROMIS Pain and Fatigue measure (eAppendix B available at doi:10.12788/fp.0158).^20-22

We also worked with the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) to create an electronic template for the screening tool. Completed screening tools were manually entered by the physician, psychologists, or APRN into the CPRS chart.

We analyzed the different supportive care services available at the JBVAMC and noticed that many supportive services were available, yet these services were often separated. Therefore, we created a consult flowsheet to assist oncologists in placing referrals. These supportive care services include mental health services, a cancer support group, home health care, social services, nutrition, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and other specialty services.

Patient Education

The psychology and nursing staff created a patient information bulletin board where patients could access information about supportive services available at JBVAMC. This board required frequent replenishment of handouts because patients consulted the board regularly. Handouts and folders about common clinical issues also were placed in the clinic treatment rooms. We partnered with 2 local cancer support centers, Gilda’s Club and the Cancer Support Center, to make referrals for family members and/or caregivers who would benefit from additional support.

We provided in-service trainings for oncology fellows, including trainings on PTSD and substance abuse and their relationship to cancer care at the VA. These topics were chosen based on the feedback program staff received about perceived knowledge gaps from the oncology fellows. This program allowed for multiple informal conversations between that program staff and oncology fellows about overall patient care. We held trainings with the cancer coordinator and clinical nursing staff on strategies to identify and follow-up on cancer-related distress, and with oncology fellows to review the importance of distress screening and to instruct fellows on instructions for the consult flowsheet.

Funding

This program was funded by the Chicago-based Coleman Foundation as part of the CSOC. Funding was used to support a portion of time for administrative and clinical work of program staff, as well as data collection and analysis.

Results

We established 3 half-day integrated clinics where patients were screened and referred for services based on supportive oncology needs. In addition to our primary activities to screen and refer veterans, we held multiple educational sessions for colleagues, developed a workflow template, and integrated patient education materials into the clinics.

Screening

Veterans completed 1010 distress screens in 3 of 4 half-day oncology clinics over the 2.5-year project period. Veterans were screened at initial diagnosis and every 3 months, or during changes in their clinical care or disease status. As a result, 579 patients completed screening, with some patients doing several follow-up screens during their care. Integration of palliative care providers and health psychologists was instrumental in facilitating screening in these busy general medical oncology clinics. Most veterans were receptive to completing surveys with few refusing to fill out the survey.²³ Medical oncology fellows often used the completed screener to inform their review of systems (by reviewing the Coleman screener Physical and Other Concerns section) and connect with the supportive care staff present in clinic for patient’s identifying severe needs (ie, mental health distress or complex psychosocial needs). Veterans’ rates of distress needs and successfuloutcomes of integration with mental health and social work services have been reported elsewhere.²³

The mean (SD) age for veterans in this cohort was 72 (9.5) years. Participants were primarily African American veterans (70%), with mostly advanced disease (Table 1). Participants endorsed elevated distress needs compared with other patient populations screened in Chicago through the CSOC for depressed mood, pain, housing, transportation, and physical, nutrition, and treatment concerns.²³ Elevated presence of needs was especially prominent for food, housing and insurance/medical needs; physical concerns; nutrition, and treatment- or care-related concerns. Veterans in this cohort reported extensive financial and housing concerns: 10.4% reported food and housing concerns, 18.6% reported transportation concerns, and 9.0% reported issues paying for medical care or medications (Table 2).²⁰ Anecdotally, many experienced job loss or strain with their cancer diagnosis or were living at the poverty level before their diagnosis.

Discussion

This project created a successful program to screen veterans for psychosocial distress and triage them to appropriate services. During the project, patients in VA-outpatient oncology clinics reported significant cancer-related distress due to baseline psychosocial needs, changes in emotional and physical functioning, logistical and financial challenges of receiving cancer care, and lack of instrumental support.²³

Staff education supported successful buy-in, development and implementation of supportive oncology programs. We used a combination of in-service trainings, online trainings, and handouts to provide evidence for distress screening.²⁴ Highlighting the evidence-base that demonstrates how cancer-related distress screening improves cancer and quality of life outcomes helped to address physician reluctance to accept the additional requirements needed to address veterans’ psychosocial needs and care concerns. To increase buy-in and collaboration among team members and foster heightened understanding between providers and patients, we recommend creating accessible education for all staff levels.

One specific area of education we focused on was primary palliative care, which includes the core competencies of communication and symptom management recommended for generalists and specialists of all disciplines.²⁵ Program staff supported oncology fellows in developing their primary palliative care skills by being available to discuss basic symptom management and communication issues. VA cancer care programs could benefit from ongoing palliative care education of oncology staff to facilitate primary palliative care as well as earlier integration of secondary palliative care when needed.²⁶ Secondary palliative care or care provided directly by the palliative care team assists with complex symptom management or communication issues. For these needs, oncology fellows were encouraged to refer to either the palliative care staff available in one of the half-day clinics or to the outpatient palliative care clinic. As a unique strength, the VA allows veterans to receive concurrent cancer-directed therapy and hospice care, which enables earlier referrals to hospice care and higher quality end-of-life care and emphasizes the need for primary palliative care in oncology.^27,28

Integrating supportive oncology team members, such as licensed clinical social worker and psychology interns, was successful. This was modeled on the VA PACT, which focuses on prevention, health promotion, coordination and chronic disease management.²⁹ Social determinants of health have a major impact on health outcomes especially in veteran-specific and African American populations, making screening for distress critical.^30-32 The VA Office of Health Equity actively addresses health inequities by supporting initiation of screening programs for social determinants of health, including education, employment, exposure to abuse and violence, food insecurity, housing instability, legal needs, social isolation, transportation needs, and utility needs. This is especially needed for African-American individuals who are not only more likely to experience cancer, but also more likely to be negatively impacted by the consequences of cancer diagnosis/treatment, such as complications related to one’s job security, access to care, adverse effects, and other highly distressing needs.^33,34

Our program found that veterans with cancer often had concerns associated with food and housing insecurity, transportation and paying for medication or medical care, and screening allowed health care providers to detect and address these social determinants of health through referrals to VA and community-specific programs. Social workers integrated into VA cancer clinics are uniquely equipped to coordinate distress screening and support continuity of care by virtue of their training, connections to preexisting VA supportive services, and knowledge of community resources. This model could be used in other VA specialty clinics serving veterans with chronic illness and those with high levels of physical frailty.³⁵

Our ability to roll out distress screening was scaffolded by technological integration into existing VA systems (eg, screening results in CPRS and electronic referrals). Screening procedures could have been even more efficient with improved technology (Table 3). For example, technological limitations made it challenging to easily identify patients due for screening, requiring a cumbersome process of tracking, collecting and entering patients’ paper forms. Health care providers seeking to develop a distress screening program should consider investing in technology that allows for identification of patients requiring screening at a predetermined interval, completion of screening via tablet or personal device, integration of screening responses into the electronic health record, and automatic generation of notifications to the treating physician and appropriate support services.

Conclusions

Veterans with cancer benefited from enhanced screening and psychosocial service availability, similar to a PCMHI model. Robust screening programs helped advocate for veterans dealing with the effects of poverty through identification of need and referral to existing VA programs and services quickly and efficiently. Providing comprehensive care within ambulatory cancer clinics can address cancer-related distress and any potential barriers to care in real time. VA hospitals typically offer an array of supportive services to address veterans’ psychosocial needs, yet these services tend to be siloed. Integrated referrals can help to resolve such access barriers. Since many veterans with burdensome cancers are not able to see their VA primary care physician regularly, offering comprehensive care within medical oncology ensures complete and integrated care that includes psychosocial screening.

We believe that this program is an example of a mechanism for oncologists and palliative care clinicians to integrate their care in a way that identifies needs and triages services for vulnerable veterans. As colleagues have written, “it is fundamental to our commitment to veterans that we ensure comparable, high quality care regardless of a veteran’s gender, race, or where they live.^”34 Health care providers may underestimate the extensive change a cancer diagnosis can have on a patient’s quality of life. Cancer diagnosis and treatment have a large impact on all individuals, but this impact may be greater for individuals in poverty due to inability to work from home, inflexible work hours, and limited support structures. By creating screening programs with psychosocial integration in oncology clinics such as we have described, we hope to improve access to more equitable care for vulnerable veterans.

Veterans living with cancer need comprehensive assessment that includes supportive psychosocial care. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer require accredited cancer centers to evaluate psychosocial distress and provide appropriate triage and treatment for all patients.^1-3 Implementing psychosocial distress screening can be difficult because of procedural barriers and time constraints, clinic and supportive care resources, and lack of knowledge about how to access supportive services.

Distress screening protocols must be designed to address the specific needs of each population. To improve screening for cancer-related distress, deliver effective supportive services, and gain agreement on distress screening standards of care, the Coleman Foundation supported development of the Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC), a project of 135 interdisciplinary health care professionals from 25 Chicago-area cancer care institutions.⁴

The Jesse Brown US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (JBVAMC) was chosen to assess cancer-related concerns among veterans using the CSOC screening tool and to improve access to supportive oncology. JBVAMC provides care to approximately 49,000 veterans in Chicago, Illinois, and northwestern Indiana. The JBVAMC patient population includes a large number of veterans with dual diagnoses (co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders) and veterans experiencing homelessness.

Delivering integrated screening and oncologic care that is culture and age appropriate is particularly important for veterans given their unique risk factors. The veteran population is considered vulnerable in terms of health status, psychological functioning, and social context. Veterans who use the VA health system as a principal source of care have poorer health, greater comorbid medical conditions, and an increased risk of mortality and suicide compared with the general population.^5,6 Poorer health status in veterans also may relate to old age, low income, poor education, psychological health, and minority race.^7-9

Past studies point to unique risk factors for cancer and poor cancer adjustment among veterans, which may complicate cancer treatment and end-of-life/survivorship care. Veteran-specific risk factors include military-related exposures, particularly Agent Orange and morbidity/mortality secondary to comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions (eg, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, and posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]).^10-12 Moreover, the geriatric veteran population continues to grow,with increasing rates of cancer that require unique considerations for effective cancer care.^13,14 Despite this, there are minimal data to inform best practices and supportive care approaches for veterans with cancer. Lack of guidelines specific to veterans and other populations with increased psychosocial challenges may impede successful cancer care, making distress screening procedures particularly important. This is especially the case for the JBVAMC, which serves primarily African American urban-dwelling veterans who experience high rates of cancer disparities, including increased rates of mortality and increased levels of psychosocial distress.^15,16

The goals of this program were to (1) examine levels of psychological, physical, financial, and treatment-related distress in a large sample of urban-dwelling veterans; (2) create a streamlined, sustainable process to screen a large number of veterans receiving cancer care in the outpatient setting and connect them with available supportive services; and (3) educate oncology physicians, nurses, and other staff about cancer-related distress and concerns using in-service trainings and interpersonal interactions to improve patient care. Our program was based on a Primary Care Mental Health Integration (PCMHI) model that embeds health psychologists in general medical clinics to better reach veterans dealing with mental health issues. We tailored for palliative care involvement.

Studies of this model have shown that mental health integration improves access to mental health services and mental health treatment outcomes and has higher patient and provider satisfaction.¹⁷ We were also influenced by the construct of the patient aligned care team (PACT) social worker who, in this veteran-centered approach, often functions as a care coordinator. Social work responsibilities include assessment of patients’ stressors including adjusting to the medical conditions, identifying untreated or undertreated mental health or substance abuse issues, economic instability, legal problems, and inadequate housing and transportation, which can often be exacerbated during cancer treatment.¹⁸

Methods

This institutional review board at JBVAMC reviewed and exempted this quality improvement program using the SQUIRE framework.¹⁹ It was led by a group of palliative care clinicians, psychologists, and administrators who have worked with the oncology service for many years, primarily in the care of hospitalized patients. Common palliative care services include providing care for patients with serious illness diagnosis through the illness trajectory.

Setting

At the start of this program, we assessed the current clinic workflow to determine how to best screen and assist veterans experiencing distress. We met with team members individually to identify the best method of clinic integration, including attending medical oncologists, medical oncology fellows, psychology interns, oncology nursing staff, the oncology nurse coordinator, and clinic clerks.

The JBVAMC provides cancer care through 4 half-day medical hematology-oncology clinics that serve about 50 patients per half-day clinic. The clinics are staffed by hematology-oncology fellows supervised by hematology-oncology attending physicians, who are affiliated with 2 academic medical centers. These clinics are staffed by 3 registered nurses (RNs) and a licensed practical nurse (LPN) and are adjacent to a chemotherapy infusion clinic with unique nursing staff. The JBVAMC also provides a variety of supportive care services, including extensive mental health and substance use treatment, physical and occupational therapy, acupuncture, nutrition, social work, and housing services. Following our assessment, it was evident that there were a low number of referrals from oncology clinics to supportive care services, mostly due to lack of knowledge of resources and unclear referral procedures.

Based on clinical volume, we determined that our screening program could best be implemented through a stepped approach beginning in one clinic and expanding thereafter. We began by having a palliative care physician and health psychology intern embedded in 1 weekly half-day clinic and a health psychology intern embedded in a second weekly half-day clinic. Our program included 2 health psychology interns (for each academic year of the program) who were supervised by a JBVA health psychologist.

About 15 months after successful integration within the first 2 half-day clinics, we expanded the screening program to staff an additional half-day medical oncology clinic with a palliative care APRN. This allowed us to expand the screening tool distribution and collection to 3 of 4 of the weekly half-day oncology clinics as well as to meet individually with veterans experiencing high levels of distress. Veterans were flagged as having high distress levels by either the results of their completed screening tool or by referral from a medical oncology physician. We initially established screening in clinics that were sufficiently staffed to ensure that screens were appropriately distributed and reviewed. Patients seen in nonparticipating clinics were referred to outpatient social work, mental health and/or outpatient palliative care according to oncology fellows’ clinical assessments of the patient. All oncology fellows received education about distress screening and methods for referring to supportive care. Our clinic screening program extended from February 2017 through January 2020.

Screening

Program staff screened patients with new cancer diagnoses, then identified patients for follow-up screens. This tracking allowed staff to identify patients with oncology appointments that day and cross-reference patients needing a follow-up screen.

Following feedback from the clinic nurses, we determined that nurses would provide the distress tool to patients in paper form after they completed their assessment of vitals and waited to be seen by their medical oncologist. The patient would then deliver their completed form to the nurse who would combine it with the patient’s clinic notes for the oncologist to review. Veterans who reported elevated 4-question Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) scores ≥ 6 were seen immediately by program staff. Veterans were referred to social work or psychiatry services for a same day visit if they endorsed a high level of psychological distress during clinical examination. They were referred for other supportive care services if they were determined to have practical, family, or nutrition unmet distress needs by either the program staff or oncology fellows. Program staff provided guidance to medical oncology fellows for needed referrals including social work, mental health, and palliative care follow ups (eAppendix A available at doi:10.12788/fp.0158).

Veterans referred for supportive care services were contacted by the relevant clinical administrator by phone to schedule an intake; for social work referrals, patients were either seen in a walk-in office located in a colocated building or contacted by a social worker by phone.

Our screening tool was the Coleman Foundation Supportive Oncology Collaborative Screening Tool, compiled from validated instruments. Patients completed this screening tool, which includes the PHQ-4, NCCN problem list concerns, adapted Mini Nutrition Assessment and PROMIS Pain and Fatigue measure (eAppendix B available at doi:10.12788/fp.0158).^20-22

We also worked with the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) to create an electronic template for the screening tool. Completed screening tools were manually entered by the physician, psychologists, or APRN into the CPRS chart.

We analyzed the different supportive care services available at the JBVAMC and noticed that many supportive services were available, yet these services were often separated. Therefore, we created a consult flowsheet to assist oncologists in placing referrals. These supportive care services include mental health services, a cancer support group, home health care, social services, nutrition, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and other specialty services.

Patient Education

The psychology and nursing staff created a patient information bulletin board where patients could access information about supportive services available at JBVAMC. This board required frequent replenishment of handouts because patients consulted the board regularly. Handouts and folders about common clinical issues also were placed in the clinic treatment rooms. We partnered with 2 local cancer support centers, Gilda’s Club and the Cancer Support Center, to make referrals for family members and/or caregivers who would benefit from additional support.

We provided in-service trainings for oncology fellows, including trainings on PTSD and substance abuse and their relationship to cancer care at the VA. These topics were chosen based on the feedback program staff received about perceived knowledge gaps from the oncology fellows. This program allowed for multiple informal conversations between that program staff and oncology fellows about overall patient care. We held trainings with the cancer coordinator and clinical nursing staff on strategies to identify and follow-up on cancer-related distress, and with oncology fellows to review the importance of distress screening and to instruct fellows on instructions for the consult flowsheet.

Funding

This program was funded by the Chicago-based Coleman Foundation as part of the CSOC. Funding was used to support a portion of time for administrative and clinical work of program staff, as well as data collection and analysis.

Results

We established 3 half-day integrated clinics where patients were screened and referred for services based on supportive oncology needs. In addition to our primary activities to screen and refer veterans, we held multiple educational sessions for colleagues, developed a workflow template, and integrated patient education materials into the clinics.

Screening

Veterans completed 1010 distress screens in 3 of 4 half-day oncology clinics over the 2.5-year project period. Veterans were screened at initial diagnosis and every 3 months, or during changes in their clinical care or disease status. As a result, 579 patients completed screening, with some patients doing several follow-up screens during their care. Integration of palliative care providers and health psychologists was instrumental in facilitating screening in these busy general medical oncology clinics. Most veterans were receptive to completing surveys with few refusing to fill out the survey.²³ Medical oncology fellows often used the completed screener to inform their review of systems (by reviewing the Coleman screener Physical and Other Concerns section) and connect with the supportive care staff present in clinic for patient’s identifying severe needs (ie, mental health distress or complex psychosocial needs). Veterans’ rates of distress needs and successfuloutcomes of integration with mental health and social work services have been reported elsewhere.²³

The mean (SD) age for veterans in this cohort was 72 (9.5) years. Participants were primarily African American veterans (70%), with mostly advanced disease (Table 1). Participants endorsed elevated distress needs compared with other patient populations screened in Chicago through the CSOC for depressed mood, pain, housing, transportation, and physical, nutrition, and treatment concerns.²³ Elevated presence of needs was especially prominent for food, housing and insurance/medical needs; physical concerns; nutrition, and treatment- or care-related concerns. Veterans in this cohort reported extensive financial and housing concerns: 10.4% reported food and housing concerns, 18.6% reported transportation concerns, and 9.0% reported issues paying for medical care or medications (Table 2).²⁰ Anecdotally, many experienced job loss or strain with their cancer diagnosis or were living at the poverty level before their diagnosis.

Discussion

This project created a successful program to screen veterans for psychosocial distress and triage them to appropriate services. During the project, patients in VA-outpatient oncology clinics reported significant cancer-related distress due to baseline psychosocial needs, changes in emotional and physical functioning, logistical and financial challenges of receiving cancer care, and lack of instrumental support.²³

Staff education supported successful buy-in, development and implementation of supportive oncology programs. We used a combination of in-service trainings, online trainings, and handouts to provide evidence for distress screening.²⁴ Highlighting the evidence-base that demonstrates how cancer-related distress screening improves cancer and quality of life outcomes helped to address physician reluctance to accept the additional requirements needed to address veterans’ psychosocial needs and care concerns. To increase buy-in and collaboration among team members and foster heightened understanding between providers and patients, we recommend creating accessible education for all staff levels.

One specific area of education we focused on was primary palliative care, which includes the core competencies of communication and symptom management recommended for generalists and specialists of all disciplines.²⁵ Program staff supported oncology fellows in developing their primary palliative care skills by being available to discuss basic symptom management and communication issues. VA cancer care programs could benefit from ongoing palliative care education of oncology staff to facilitate primary palliative care as well as earlier integration of secondary palliative care when needed.²⁶ Secondary palliative care or care provided directly by the palliative care team assists with complex symptom management or communication issues. For these needs, oncology fellows were encouraged to refer to either the palliative care staff available in one of the half-day clinics or to the outpatient palliative care clinic. As a unique strength, the VA allows veterans to receive concurrent cancer-directed therapy and hospice care, which enables earlier referrals to hospice care and higher quality end-of-life care and emphasizes the need for primary palliative care in oncology.^27,28

Integrating supportive oncology team members, such as licensed clinical social worker and psychology interns, was successful. This was modeled on the VA PACT, which focuses on prevention, health promotion, coordination and chronic disease management.²⁹ Social determinants of health have a major impact on health outcomes especially in veteran-specific and African American populations, making screening for distress critical.^30-32 The VA Office of Health Equity actively addresses health inequities by supporting initiation of screening programs for social determinants of health, including education, employment, exposure to abuse and violence, food insecurity, housing instability, legal needs, social isolation, transportation needs, and utility needs. This is especially needed for African-American individuals who are not only more likely to experience cancer, but also more likely to be negatively impacted by the consequences of cancer diagnosis/treatment, such as complications related to one’s job security, access to care, adverse effects, and other highly distressing needs.^33,34

Our program found that veterans with cancer often had concerns associated with food and housing insecurity, transportation and paying for medication or medical care, and screening allowed health care providers to detect and address these social determinants of health through referrals to VA and community-specific programs. Social workers integrated into VA cancer clinics are uniquely equipped to coordinate distress screening and support continuity of care by virtue of their training, connections to preexisting VA supportive services, and knowledge of community resources. This model could be used in other VA specialty clinics serving veterans with chronic illness and those with high levels of physical frailty.³⁵

Our ability to roll out distress screening was scaffolded by technological integration into existing VA systems (eg, screening results in CPRS and electronic referrals). Screening procedures could have been even more efficient with improved technology (Table 3). For example, technological limitations made it challenging to easily identify patients due for screening, requiring a cumbersome process of tracking, collecting and entering patients’ paper forms. Health care providers seeking to develop a distress screening program should consider investing in technology that allows for identification of patients requiring screening at a predetermined interval, completion of screening via tablet or personal device, integration of screening responses into the electronic health record, and automatic generation of notifications to the treating physician and appropriate support services.

Conclusions

Veterans with cancer benefited from enhanced screening and psychosocial service availability, similar to a PCMHI model. Robust screening programs helped advocate for veterans dealing with the effects of poverty through identification of need and referral to existing VA programs and services quickly and efficiently. Providing comprehensive care within ambulatory cancer clinics can address cancer-related distress and any potential barriers to care in real time. VA hospitals typically offer an array of supportive services to address veterans’ psychosocial needs, yet these services tend to be siloed. Integrated referrals can help to resolve such access barriers. Since many veterans with burdensome cancers are not able to see their VA primary care physician regularly, offering comprehensive care within medical oncology ensures complete and integrated care that includes psychosocial screening.

We believe that this program is an example of a mechanism for oncologists and palliative care clinicians to integrate their care in a way that identifies needs and triages services for vulnerable veterans. As colleagues have written, “it is fundamental to our commitment to veterans that we ensure comparable, high quality care regardless of a veteran’s gender, race, or where they live.^”34 Health care providers may underestimate the extensive change a cancer diagnosis can have on a patient’s quality of life. Cancer diagnosis and treatment have a large impact on all individuals, but this impact may be greater for individuals in poverty due to inability to work from home, inflexible work hours, and limited support structures. By creating screening programs with psychosocial integration in oncology clinics such as we have described, we hope to improve access to more equitable care for vulnerable veterans.

Veterans living with cancer need comprehensive assessment that includes supportive psychosocial care. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer require accredited cancer centers to evaluate psychosocial distress and provide appropriate triage and treatment for all patients.^1-3 Implementing psychosocial distress screening can be difficult because of procedural barriers and time constraints, clinic and supportive care resources, and lack of knowledge about how to access supportive services.

Distress screening protocols must be designed to address the specific needs of each population. To improve screening for cancer-related distress, deliver effective supportive services, and gain agreement on distress screening standards of care, the Coleman Foundation supported development of the Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC), a project of 135 interdisciplinary health care professionals from 25 Chicago-area cancer care institutions.⁴

The Jesse Brown US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (JBVAMC) was chosen to assess cancer-related concerns among veterans using the CSOC screening tool and to improve access to supportive oncology. JBVAMC provides care to approximately 49,000 veterans in Chicago, Illinois, and northwestern Indiana. The JBVAMC patient population includes a large number of veterans with dual diagnoses (co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders) and veterans experiencing homelessness.

Delivering integrated screening and oncologic care that is culture and age appropriate is particularly important for veterans given their unique risk factors. The veteran population is considered vulnerable in terms of health status, psychological functioning, and social context. Veterans who use the VA health system as a principal source of care have poorer health, greater comorbid medical conditions, and an increased risk of mortality and suicide compared with the general population.^5,6 Poorer health status in veterans also may relate to old age, low income, poor education, psychological health, and minority race.^7-9

Past studies point to unique risk factors for cancer and poor cancer adjustment among veterans, which may complicate cancer treatment and end-of-life/survivorship care. Veteran-specific risk factors include military-related exposures, particularly Agent Orange and morbidity/mortality secondary to comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions (eg, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, and posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD]).^10-12 Moreover, the geriatric veteran population continues to grow,with increasing rates of cancer that require unique considerations for effective cancer care.^13,14 Despite this, there are minimal data to inform best practices and supportive care approaches for veterans with cancer. Lack of guidelines specific to veterans and other populations with increased psychosocial challenges may impede successful cancer care, making distress screening procedures particularly important. This is especially the case for the JBVAMC, which serves primarily African American urban-dwelling veterans who experience high rates of cancer disparities, including increased rates of mortality and increased levels of psychosocial distress.^15,16

The goals of this program were to (1) examine levels of psychological, physical, financial, and treatment-related distress in a large sample of urban-dwelling veterans; (2) create a streamlined, sustainable process to screen a large number of veterans receiving cancer care in the outpatient setting and connect them with available supportive services; and (3) educate oncology physicians, nurses, and other staff about cancer-related distress and concerns using in-service trainings and interpersonal interactions to improve patient care. Our program was based on a Primary Care Mental Health Integration (PCMHI) model that embeds health psychologists in general medical clinics to better reach veterans dealing with mental health issues. We tailored for palliative care involvement.

Studies of this model have shown that mental health integration improves access to mental health services and mental health treatment outcomes and has higher patient and provider satisfaction.¹⁷ We were also influenced by the construct of the patient aligned care team (PACT) social worker who, in this veteran-centered approach, often functions as a care coordinator. Social work responsibilities include assessment of patients’ stressors including adjusting to the medical conditions, identifying untreated or undertreated mental health or substance abuse issues, economic instability, legal problems, and inadequate housing and transportation, which can often be exacerbated during cancer treatment.¹⁸

Methods

This institutional review board at JBVAMC reviewed and exempted this quality improvement program using the SQUIRE framework.¹⁹ It was led by a group of palliative care clinicians, psychologists, and administrators who have worked with the oncology service for many years, primarily in the care of hospitalized patients. Common palliative care services include providing care for patients with serious illness diagnosis through the illness trajectory.

Setting

At the start of this program, we assessed the current clinic workflow to determine how to best screen and assist veterans experiencing distress. We met with team members individually to identify the best method of clinic integration, including attending medical oncologists, medical oncology fellows, psychology interns, oncology nursing staff, the oncology nurse coordinator, and clinic clerks.

The JBVAMC provides cancer care through 4 half-day medical hematology-oncology clinics that serve about 50 patients per half-day clinic. The clinics are staffed by hematology-oncology fellows supervised by hematology-oncology attending physicians, who are affiliated with 2 academic medical centers. These clinics are staffed by 3 registered nurses (RNs) and a licensed practical nurse (LPN) and are adjacent to a chemotherapy infusion clinic with unique nursing staff. The JBVAMC also provides a variety of supportive care services, including extensive mental health and substance use treatment, physical and occupational therapy, acupuncture, nutrition, social work, and housing services. Following our assessment, it was evident that there were a low number of referrals from oncology clinics to supportive care services, mostly due to lack of knowledge of resources and unclear referral procedures.

Based on clinical volume, we determined that our screening program could best be implemented through a stepped approach beginning in one clinic and expanding thereafter. We began by having a palliative care physician and health psychology intern embedded in 1 weekly half-day clinic and a health psychology intern embedded in a second weekly half-day clinic. Our program included 2 health psychology interns (for each academic year of the program) who were supervised by a JBVA health psychologist.

About 15 months after successful integration within the first 2 half-day clinics, we expanded the screening program to staff an additional half-day medical oncology clinic with a palliative care APRN. This allowed us to expand the screening tool distribution and collection to 3 of 4 of the weekly half-day oncology clinics as well as to meet individually with veterans experiencing high levels of distress. Veterans were flagged as having high distress levels by either the results of their completed screening tool or by referral from a medical oncology physician. We initially established screening in clinics that were sufficiently staffed to ensure that screens were appropriately distributed and reviewed. Patients seen in nonparticipating clinics were referred to outpatient social work, mental health and/or outpatient palliative care according to oncology fellows’ clinical assessments of the patient. All oncology fellows received education about distress screening and methods for referring to supportive care. Our clinic screening program extended from February 2017 through January 2020.

Screening

Program staff screened patients with new cancer diagnoses, then identified patients for follow-up screens. This tracking allowed staff to identify patients with oncology appointments that day and cross-reference patients needing a follow-up screen.

Following feedback from the clinic nurses, we determined that nurses would provide the distress tool to patients in paper form after they completed their assessment of vitals and waited to be seen by their medical oncologist. The patient would then deliver their completed form to the nurse who would combine it with the patient’s clinic notes for the oncologist to review. Veterans who reported elevated 4-question Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) scores ≥ 6 were seen immediately by program staff. Veterans were referred to social work or psychiatry services for a same day visit if they endorsed a high level of psychological distress during clinical examination. They were referred for other supportive care services if they were determined to have practical, family, or nutrition unmet distress needs by either the program staff or oncology fellows. Program staff provided guidance to medical oncology fellows for needed referrals including social work, mental health, and palliative care follow ups (eAppendix A available at doi:10.12788/fp.0158).

Veterans referred for supportive care services were contacted by the relevant clinical administrator by phone to schedule an intake; for social work referrals, patients were either seen in a walk-in office located in a colocated building or contacted by a social worker by phone.

Our screening tool was the Coleman Foundation Supportive Oncology Collaborative Screening Tool, compiled from validated instruments. Patients completed this screening tool, which includes the PHQ-4, NCCN problem list concerns, adapted Mini Nutrition Assessment and PROMIS Pain and Fatigue measure (eAppendix B available at doi:10.12788/fp.0158).^20-22

We also worked with the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) to create an electronic template for the screening tool. Completed screening tools were manually entered by the physician, psychologists, or APRN into the CPRS chart.

We analyzed the different supportive care services available at the JBVAMC and noticed that many supportive services were available, yet these services were often separated. Therefore, we created a consult flowsheet to assist oncologists in placing referrals. These supportive care services include mental health services, a cancer support group, home health care, social services, nutrition, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and other specialty services.

Patient Education

The psychology and nursing staff created a patient information bulletin board where patients could access information about supportive services available at JBVAMC. This board required frequent replenishment of handouts because patients consulted the board regularly. Handouts and folders about common clinical issues also were placed in the clinic treatment rooms. We partnered with 2 local cancer support centers, Gilda’s Club and the Cancer Support Center, to make referrals for family members and/or caregivers who would benefit from additional support.

We provided in-service trainings for oncology fellows, including trainings on PTSD and substance abuse and their relationship to cancer care at the VA. These topics were chosen based on the feedback program staff received about perceived knowledge gaps from the oncology fellows. This program allowed for multiple informal conversations between that program staff and oncology fellows about overall patient care. We held trainings with the cancer coordinator and clinical nursing staff on strategies to identify and follow-up on cancer-related distress, and with oncology fellows to review the importance of distress screening and to instruct fellows on instructions for the consult flowsheet.

Funding

This program was funded by the Chicago-based Coleman Foundation as part of the CSOC. Funding was used to support a portion of time for administrative and clinical work of program staff, as well as data collection and analysis.

Results

We established 3 half-day integrated clinics where patients were screened and referred for services based on supportive oncology needs. In addition to our primary activities to screen and refer veterans, we held multiple educational sessions for colleagues, developed a workflow template, and integrated patient education materials into the clinics.

Screening

Veterans completed 1010 distress screens in 3 of 4 half-day oncology clinics over the 2.5-year project period. Veterans were screened at initial diagnosis and every 3 months, or during changes in their clinical care or disease status. As a result, 579 patients completed screening, with some patients doing several follow-up screens during their care. Integration of palliative care providers and health psychologists was instrumental in facilitating screening in these busy general medical oncology clinics. Most veterans were receptive to completing surveys with few refusing to fill out the survey.²³ Medical oncology fellows often used the completed screener to inform their review of systems (by reviewing the Coleman screener Physical and Other Concerns section) and connect with the supportive care staff present in clinic for patient’s identifying severe needs (ie, mental health distress or complex psychosocial needs). Veterans’ rates of distress needs and successfuloutcomes of integration with mental health and social work services have been reported elsewhere.²³

The mean (SD) age for veterans in this cohort was 72 (9.5) years. Participants were primarily African American veterans (70%), with mostly advanced disease (Table 1). Participants endorsed elevated distress needs compared with other patient populations screened in Chicago through the CSOC for depressed mood, pain, housing, transportation, and physical, nutrition, and treatment concerns.²³ Elevated presence of needs was especially prominent for food, housing and insurance/medical needs; physical concerns; nutrition, and treatment- or care-related concerns. Veterans in this cohort reported extensive financial and housing concerns: 10.4% reported food and housing concerns, 18.6% reported transportation concerns, and 9.0% reported issues paying for medical care or medications (Table 2).²⁰ Anecdotally, many experienced job loss or strain with their cancer diagnosis or were living at the poverty level before their diagnosis.

Discussion

This project created a successful program to screen veterans for psychosocial distress and triage them to appropriate services. During the project, patients in VA-outpatient oncology clinics reported significant cancer-related distress due to baseline psychosocial needs, changes in emotional and physical functioning, logistical and financial challenges of receiving cancer care, and lack of instrumental support.²³

Staff education supported successful buy-in, development and implementation of supportive oncology programs. We used a combination of in-service trainings, online trainings, and handouts to provide evidence for distress screening.²⁴ Highlighting the evidence-base that demonstrates how cancer-related distress screening improves cancer and quality of life outcomes helped to address physician reluctance to accept the additional requirements needed to address veterans’ psychosocial needs and care concerns. To increase buy-in and collaboration among team members and foster heightened understanding between providers and patients, we recommend creating accessible education for all staff levels.

One specific area of education we focused on was primary palliative care, which includes the core competencies of communication and symptom management recommended for generalists and specialists of all disciplines.²⁵ Program staff supported oncology fellows in developing their primary palliative care skills by being available to discuss basic symptom management and communication issues. VA cancer care programs could benefit from ongoing palliative care education of oncology staff to facilitate primary palliative care as well as earlier integration of secondary palliative care when needed.²⁶ Secondary palliative care or care provided directly by the palliative care team assists with complex symptom management or communication issues. For these needs, oncology fellows were encouraged to refer to either the palliative care staff available in one of the half-day clinics or to the outpatient palliative care clinic. As a unique strength, the VA allows veterans to receive concurrent cancer-directed therapy and hospice care, which enables earlier referrals to hospice care and higher quality end-of-life care and emphasizes the need for primary palliative care in oncology.^27,28

Integrating supportive oncology team members, such as licensed clinical social worker and psychology interns, was successful. This was modeled on the VA PACT, which focuses on prevention, health promotion, coordination and chronic disease management.²⁹ Social determinants of health have a major impact on health outcomes especially in veteran-specific and African American populations, making screening for distress critical.^30-32 The VA Office of Health Equity actively addresses health inequities by supporting initiation of screening programs for social determinants of health, including education, employment, exposure to abuse and violence, food insecurity, housing instability, legal needs, social isolation, transportation needs, and utility needs. This is especially needed for African-American individuals who are not only more likely to experience cancer, but also more likely to be negatively impacted by the consequences of cancer diagnosis/treatment, such as complications related to one’s job security, access to care, adverse effects, and other highly distressing needs.^33,34

Our program found that veterans with cancer often had concerns associated with food and housing insecurity, transportation and paying for medication or medical care, and screening allowed health care providers to detect and address these social determinants of health through referrals to VA and community-specific programs. Social workers integrated into VA cancer clinics are uniquely equipped to coordinate distress screening and support continuity of care by virtue of their training, connections to preexisting VA supportive services, and knowledge of community resources. This model could be used in other VA specialty clinics serving veterans with chronic illness and those with high levels of physical frailty.³⁵

Our ability to roll out distress screening was scaffolded by technological integration into existing VA systems (eg, screening results in CPRS and electronic referrals). Screening procedures could have been even more efficient with improved technology (Table 3). For example, technological limitations made it challenging to easily identify patients due for screening, requiring a cumbersome process of tracking, collecting and entering patients’ paper forms. Health care providers seeking to develop a distress screening program should consider investing in technology that allows for identification of patients requiring screening at a predetermined interval, completion of screening via tablet or personal device, integration of screening responses into the electronic health record, and automatic generation of notifications to the treating physician and appropriate support services.

Conclusions

Veterans with cancer benefited from enhanced screening and psychosocial service availability, similar to a PCMHI model. Robust screening programs helped advocate for veterans dealing with the effects of poverty through identification of need and referral to existing VA programs and services quickly and efficiently. Providing comprehensive care within ambulatory cancer clinics can address cancer-related distress and any potential barriers to care in real time. VA hospitals typically offer an array of supportive services to address veterans’ psychosocial needs, yet these services tend to be siloed. Integrated referrals can help to resolve such access barriers. Since many veterans with burdensome cancers are not able to see their VA primary care physician regularly, offering comprehensive care within medical oncology ensures complete and integrated care that includes psychosocial screening.

We believe that this program is an example of a mechanism for oncologists and palliative care clinicians to integrate their care in a way that identifies needs and triages services for vulnerable veterans. As colleagues have written, “it is fundamental to our commitment to veterans that we ensure comparable, high quality care regardless of a veteran’s gender, race, or where they live.^”34 Health care providers may underestimate the extensive change a cancer diagnosis can have on a patient’s quality of life. Cancer diagnosis and treatment have a large impact on all individuals, but this impact may be greater for individuals in poverty due to inability to work from home, inflexible work hours, and limited support structures. By creating screening programs with psychosocial integration in oncology clinics such as we have described, we hope to improve access to more equitable care for vulnerable veterans.

Known as the “6 rainbow herbicides,” based on their identifying color on storage containers, the United States widely deployed the herbicides agents orange, green, pink, purple, white, and blue during the Vietnam War to deny the enemy cover and destroy crops.¹ Unfortunately, all these herbicides were found to have contained some form of carcinogen. Agent Blue’s active ingredient consisted of sodium cacodylate trihydrate (C₂H₆AsNaO₂), a compound that is metabolized into the organic form of the carcinogen arsenic before eventually converting into its relatively less toxic inorganic form.² Agent Orange’s defoliating agent is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). All rainbow herbicides except Agent Blue were unintentionally contaminated with carcinogenic dioxins. Agent Blue contained the carcinogen cacodylic acid, an organoarsenic acid. Today, herbicides no longer contain polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins such as TCDD or arsenic due to strict manufacturing restrictions.^2,3 In the treatment of veteran populations, knowledge of the 6 rainbow herbicides’ carcinogenic potential is important.

Between 1962 and 1971, the United States sprayed more than 45 million liters of Agent Orange on Vietnam and at least 366 kg of TCDD on South Vietnam.^1,4 However, because Agent Orange was not a known carcinogen during the Vietnam War, records of exposure are poor. Additionally, individuals in Vietnam during this period were not the only ones exposed to this carcinogen as Agent Orange also was sprayed in Thailand and Korea.⁵ Even today there are still locations in Vietnam where Agent Orange concentrations exceed internationally acceptable levels. The Da Nang, Bien Hoa, and Phu Cat airports in Vietnam have been found to have dioxin levels exceeding 1000 ppt (parts of dioxin per trillion parts of lipid) toxicity equivalence in the soil. Although the Vietnam government is working toward decontaminating these and many other dioxin hotspots, residents in these locations are exposed to higher than internationally acceptable levels of dioxin.⁶

Despite receiving less media attention, Vietnam War veterans and Vietnamese soldiers and civilians were exposed to significant amounts of arsenic-based Agent Blue. Arsenic is a compound which has no environmental half-life and is carcinogenic humans if inhaled or ingested.² Between 1962 and 1971, the United States distributed 7.8 million liters of Agent Blue containing 1,232,400 kg of arsenic across 300,000 hectares of rice paddies, 100,000 hectares of forest, and perimeters of all military bases during the Vietnam War.^2,5 According to a review by Saha and colleagues, lower levels of arsenic exposure are associated with acute and chronic diseases, including cancers, of all organ systems.⁷

The following case presentation involves a Vietnam War veteran aged 70 years who was exposed to Agent Orange and developed 3 primary cancers, including cutaneous large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), high-grade urothelial carcinoma, and anal carcinoma in situ. Epidemiologically, this is an uncommon occurrence as only 8% of cancer survivors in the United States have been diagnosed with > 1 cancer.⁸

With no family history of cancer, the development of multiple malignancies raises concern for a history of toxin exposure. This report of a Vietnam War veteran with multiple conditions found to be associated with Agent Orange exposure provides an opportunity to discuss the role this exposure may have on the development of a comprehensive list of medical conditions as described by the literature. Additionally, the potential contributions of other confounding toxin exposures such as cigarette smoking, excessive alcohol use, and potential Agent Blue exposure on our patients’ health will be discussed.

Case Presentation

A male aged 70 years with Stage IV primary cutaneous large B-cell NHL, incompletely resected high-grade urothelial cancer, carcinoma in situ of the anal canal, and peripheral arterial disease (PAD) presented to the primary care clinic at the Washington DC Veterans Affairs Medical Center (DCVAMC) with concern for left leg ischemia. He also reported 2 large telangiectasias on his back for 6 months accompanied by lymphadenopathy and intermittent night sweats.

He was last seen at the DCVAMC 15 months prior after his twelfth dose of rituximab treatment for NHL. However, the patient failed to return for completion of his treatment due to frustration with the lengthy chemotherapy and follow-up process. Additionally, the patient's history included 3 failed arterial stents with complete nonadherence to the prescribed clopidogrel, resulting in the failure of 3 more subsequent graft placements. On presentation, the patient continued to report nonadherence with the clopidogrel.

The patient’s medical history included coronary artery disease (CAD) status after 2 stents in the left anterior descending artery and 1 stent in the proximal circumflex artery placed 4 years prior. He also had a history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), amyloid light-chain (AL) amyloidosis, aortic aneurysm, cataracts, obesity, treated hepatitis B and C, and posttraumatic stress disorder. He had no family history of cancer or AL amyloidosis; however, he noted that he was estranged from his family.

His social history was notable for active cigarette smoking up to 3 packs per day for 40 years and consuming large quantities of alcohol—at one point as many as 20 beers per day over a period of 4.5 years. He had a distant history of cocaine use but no current use, which was supported with negative urinary toxicology screens for illicit drugs over the past year.

Our patient also reported a history of Agent Orange exposure. As an artilleryman in the US Army III Corps, he was deployed for about 1 year in the most heavily sprayed regions of Vietnam, including Bien Hua, Long Binh, Xuan Loc, and Camp Zion for about 2 to 4 months at each location.

Hospital Course

The patient was treated on an inpatient basis for expedited workup and treatment for his urothelial carcinoma, NHL, and ischemic limb. His urothelial carcinoma was successfully resected, and the telangiectasias on his back were biopsied and found to be consistent with his known cutaneous large B-cell NHL, for which plans to resume outpatient chemotherapy were made. The patient’s 3 arterial grafts in his left leg were confirmed to have failed, and the patient was counseled that he would soon likely require an amputation of his ischemic leg.

Discussion

We must rely on our patient’s historical recall as there are no widely available laboratory tests or physical examination findings to confirm and/or determine the magnitude of TCDD or arsenic exposure.^9-11

Exposures

The patient was stationed in Bien Hoa, the second highest dioxin-contaminated air base in Vietnam (Figure).⁶ Dioxin also is known to be a particularly persistent environmental pollutant, such that in January 2018, Bien Hoa was found to still have dioxin levels higher than what is considered internationally acceptable. In fact, these levels were deemed significant enough to lead the United States and Vietnamese government to sign a memorandum of intent to begin cleanup of this airport.⁶ TCDD is known to have a half-life of about 7.6 years, and its long half-life is mainly attributed to its slow elimination process from its stores within the liver and fat, consisting of passive excretion through the gut wall and slow metabolism by the liver.^12,13 Thus, as an artilleryman mainly operating 105 howitzers within the foliage of Vietnam, our patient was exposed not only to high levels of this persistent environmental pollutant on a daily basis, but this toxin likely remained within his system for many years after his return from Vietnam.

Our patient also had a convincing history for potential Agent Blue exposure through both inhalation and ingestion of contaminated food and water. Additionally, his description of deforestations occurring within a matter of days increased the level of suspicion for Agent Blue exposure. This is because Agent Blue was the herbicide of choice for missions requiring rapid deforestation, achieving defoliation as quickly as 1 to 2 days.¹⁴ Additionally, our patient was stationed within cities in southern Vietnam near Agent Blue hot spots, such as Da Nang and Saigon, and Agent Blue was sprayed along the perimeter of all military bases.²

Levels of Evidence

Using the Veterans and Agent Orange Update in 2018 as our guide, we reviewed the quality of evidence suggesting an association between many of our patient’s comorbidities to Agent Orange exposure.⁵ This publication categorizes the level of evidence for association between health conditions and Agent Orange exposure in 4 main categories (Table 1).

In the Veterans and Agent Orange Update, NHL notably has a sufficient level of evidence of association with Agent Orange exposure.⁵ Although our patient’s extensive history of polysubstance use confounds the effect Agent Orange may have had on his health, cutaneous large B-cell NHL is an interesting exception as literature does not support even a correlative link between smoking and excessive alcohol use with primary cutaneous large B-cell NHL. Several case-control studies have found little to no association with cigarette smoking and the large B-cell subtype of NHL.^15,16 Moreover, several studies have found that moderate- to-heavy alcohol use, especially beer, may have a protective effect against the development of NHL.¹⁷ Of note, our patient’s alcoholic beverage of choice was beer. Regarding our patient’s distant history of cocaine use, it has been reported that cocaine use, in the absence of an HIV infection, has not been found to increase the risk of developing NHL.¹⁸ Similarly, arsenic exposure has not been associated with NHL in the literature.^19,20

The 2018 update also upgraded bladder carcinoma from having inadequate or insufficient to a limited or suggestive level of evidence for association.⁵ However, our patient’s most significant risk factor for bladder cancer was smoking, with a meta-analysis of 430,000 patients reporting a risk ratio (RR) of 3.14 for current cigarette smokers.²¹ The patient’s arsenic exposure from Agent Blue also increased his risk of developing bladder cancer. Several studies suggest a strong association between environmental arsenic exposure and bladder cancer.^22-26 A 30-year meta-analysis of 40 studies by Saint-Jacques and colleagues reported that the incidence of bladder cancer was found to increase in a dose-dependent manner, with higher concentrations of arsenic contaminated wate, with incidence rising from 2.7 to 5.8 times as the amount of arsenic contamination water increased from 10 to 150 mg/L.

Our patient’s history is concerning for higher than average Agent Blue exposure compared with that of most Vietnam War veterans. Given the dose-dependent effect of arsenic on bladder cancer risk, both our patient’s history of smoking and Agent Blue exposure are risk factors in the development of his bladder cancer.²² These likely played a more significant role in his development of bladder cancer than did his Agent Orange exposure.

Finally, smoking is the most significant risk factor in our patient’s development of anal carcinoma in situ. The 2018 Agent Orange update does report limited/suggested evidence of no association between Agent Orange and anal carcinoma.⁵ It also is unknown whether Agent Blue exposure is a contributing cause to his development of anal carcinoma in situ.²⁷ However, current smokers are at significant risk of developing anal cancer independent of age.^28-30 Given our patient’s extensive smoking history, this is the most likely contributing factor.

Conclusions

This case describes a Vietnam War veteran with significant exposure to rainbow herbicides and considerable polysubstance who developed 3 primary cancers and several chronic medical conditions. His exposure to Agents Orange and Blue likely contributed to his medical problems, but these associations are confounded by his substance use, particularly cigarette smoking. Of all his comorbidities, our patient’s NHL is the condition most likely to be associated with his history of Agent Orange exposure. His Agent Blue exposure also increased his risk for developing bladder cancer, cardiovascular disease, and PAD.

This case also highlights the importance of evaluating Vietnam War veterans for rainbow herbicide exposure and the complexity associated with attributing diseases to these exposures. All veterans who served in the inland waterways of Vietnam between 1962 and 1975; in the Korean Demilitarized Zone between April 1, 1968 and August 31, 1971; or in Thailand between February 28, 1961 and May 7, 1975 were at risk of rainbow herbicide exposure. These veterans may not only be eligible for disability compensation but also should be screened for associated comorbidities as outlined by current research.⁴² We hope that this report will serve as an aid in achieving this mission.

Known as the “6 rainbow herbicides,” based on their identifying color on storage containers, the United States widely deployed the herbicides agents orange, green, pink, purple, white, and blue during the Vietnam War to deny the enemy cover and destroy crops.¹ Unfortunately, all these herbicides were found to have contained some form of carcinogen. Agent Blue’s active ingredient consisted of sodium cacodylate trihydrate (C₂H₆AsNaO₂), a compound that is metabolized into the organic form of the carcinogen arsenic before eventually converting into its relatively less toxic inorganic form.² Agent Orange’s defoliating agent is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). All rainbow herbicides except Agent Blue were unintentionally contaminated with carcinogenic dioxins. Agent Blue contained the carcinogen cacodylic acid, an organoarsenic acid. Today, herbicides no longer contain polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins such as TCDD or arsenic due to strict manufacturing restrictions.^2,3 In the treatment of veteran populations, knowledge of the 6 rainbow herbicides’ carcinogenic potential is important.

Between 1962 and 1971, the United States sprayed more than 45 million liters of Agent Orange on Vietnam and at least 366 kg of TCDD on South Vietnam.^1,4 However, because Agent Orange was not a known carcinogen during the Vietnam War, records of exposure are poor. Additionally, individuals in Vietnam during this period were not the only ones exposed to this carcinogen as Agent Orange also was sprayed in Thailand and Korea.⁵ Even today there are still locations in Vietnam where Agent Orange concentrations exceed internationally acceptable levels. The Da Nang, Bien Hoa, and Phu Cat airports in Vietnam have been found to have dioxin levels exceeding 1000 ppt (parts of dioxin per trillion parts of lipid) toxicity equivalence in the soil. Although the Vietnam government is working toward decontaminating these and many other dioxin hotspots, residents in these locations are exposed to higher than internationally acceptable levels of dioxin.⁶

Despite receiving less media attention, Vietnam War veterans and Vietnamese soldiers and civilians were exposed to significant amounts of arsenic-based Agent Blue. Arsenic is a compound which has no environmental half-life and is carcinogenic humans if inhaled or ingested.² Between 1962 and 1971, the United States distributed 7.8 million liters of Agent Blue containing 1,232,400 kg of arsenic across 300,000 hectares of rice paddies, 100,000 hectares of forest, and perimeters of all military bases during the Vietnam War.^2,5 According to a review by Saha and colleagues, lower levels of arsenic exposure are associated with acute and chronic diseases, including cancers, of all organ systems.⁷

The following case presentation involves a Vietnam War veteran aged 70 years who was exposed to Agent Orange and developed 3 primary cancers, including cutaneous large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), high-grade urothelial carcinoma, and anal carcinoma in situ. Epidemiologically, this is an uncommon occurrence as only 8% of cancer survivors in the United States have been diagnosed with > 1 cancer.⁸

With no family history of cancer, the development of multiple malignancies raises concern for a history of toxin exposure. This report of a Vietnam War veteran with multiple conditions found to be associated with Agent Orange exposure provides an opportunity to discuss the role this exposure may have on the development of a comprehensive list of medical conditions as described by the literature. Additionally, the potential contributions of other confounding toxin exposures such as cigarette smoking, excessive alcohol use, and potential Agent Blue exposure on our patients’ health will be discussed.

Case Presentation

A male aged 70 years with Stage IV primary cutaneous large B-cell NHL, incompletely resected high-grade urothelial cancer, carcinoma in situ of the anal canal, and peripheral arterial disease (PAD) presented to the primary care clinic at the Washington DC Veterans Affairs Medical Center (DCVAMC) with concern for left leg ischemia. He also reported 2 large telangiectasias on his back for 6 months accompanied by lymphadenopathy and intermittent night sweats.

He was last seen at the DCVAMC 15 months prior after his twelfth dose of rituximab treatment for NHL. However, the patient failed to return for completion of his treatment due to frustration with the lengthy chemotherapy and follow-up process. Additionally, the patient's history included 3 failed arterial stents with complete nonadherence to the prescribed clopidogrel, resulting in the failure of 3 more subsequent graft placements. On presentation, the patient continued to report nonadherence with the clopidogrel.

The patient’s medical history included coronary artery disease (CAD) status after 2 stents in the left anterior descending artery and 1 stent in the proximal circumflex artery placed 4 years prior. He also had a history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), amyloid light-chain (AL) amyloidosis, aortic aneurysm, cataracts, obesity, treated hepatitis B and C, and posttraumatic stress disorder. He had no family history of cancer or AL amyloidosis; however, he noted that he was estranged from his family.

His social history was notable for active cigarette smoking up to 3 packs per day for 40 years and consuming large quantities of alcohol—at one point as many as 20 beers per day over a period of 4.5 years. He had a distant history of cocaine use but no current use, which was supported with negative urinary toxicology screens for illicit drugs over the past year.

Our patient also reported a history of Agent Orange exposure. As an artilleryman in the US Army III Corps, he was deployed for about 1 year in the most heavily sprayed regions of Vietnam, including Bien Hua, Long Binh, Xuan Loc, and Camp Zion for about 2 to 4 months at each location.

Hospital Course

The patient was treated on an inpatient basis for expedited workup and treatment for his urothelial carcinoma, NHL, and ischemic limb. His urothelial carcinoma was successfully resected, and the telangiectasias on his back were biopsied and found to be consistent with his known cutaneous large B-cell NHL, for which plans to resume outpatient chemotherapy were made. The patient’s 3 arterial grafts in his left leg were confirmed to have failed, and the patient was counseled that he would soon likely require an amputation of his ischemic leg.

Discussion

We must rely on our patient’s historical recall as there are no widely available laboratory tests or physical examination findings to confirm and/or determine the magnitude of TCDD or arsenic exposure.^9-11

Exposures

The patient was stationed in Bien Hoa, the second highest dioxin-contaminated air base in Vietnam (Figure).⁶ Dioxin also is known to be a particularly persistent environmental pollutant, such that in January 2018, Bien Hoa was found to still have dioxin levels higher than what is considered internationally acceptable. In fact, these levels were deemed significant enough to lead the United States and Vietnamese government to sign a memorandum of intent to begin cleanup of this airport.⁶ TCDD is known to have a half-life of about 7.6 years, and its long half-life is mainly attributed to its slow elimination process from its stores within the liver and fat, consisting of passive excretion through the gut wall and slow metabolism by the liver.^12,13 Thus, as an artilleryman mainly operating 105 howitzers within the foliage of Vietnam, our patient was exposed not only to high levels of this persistent environmental pollutant on a daily basis, but this toxin likely remained within his system for many years after his return from Vietnam.

Our patient also had a convincing history for potential Agent Blue exposure through both inhalation and ingestion of contaminated food and water. Additionally, his description of deforestations occurring within a matter of days increased the level of suspicion for Agent Blue exposure. This is because Agent Blue was the herbicide of choice for missions requiring rapid deforestation, achieving defoliation as quickly as 1 to 2 days.¹⁴ Additionally, our patient was stationed within cities in southern Vietnam near Agent Blue hot spots, such as Da Nang and Saigon, and Agent Blue was sprayed along the perimeter of all military bases.²

Levels of Evidence

Using the Veterans and Agent Orange Update in 2018 as our guide, we reviewed the quality of evidence suggesting an association between many of our patient’s comorbidities to Agent Orange exposure.⁵ This publication categorizes the level of evidence for association between health conditions and Agent Orange exposure in 4 main categories (Table 1).

In the Veterans and Agent Orange Update, NHL notably has a sufficient level of evidence of association with Agent Orange exposure.⁵ Although our patient’s extensive history of polysubstance use confounds the effect Agent Orange may have had on his health, cutaneous large B-cell NHL is an interesting exception as literature does not support even a correlative link between smoking and excessive alcohol use with primary cutaneous large B-cell NHL. Several case-control studies have found little to no association with cigarette smoking and the large B-cell subtype of NHL.^15,16 Moreover, several studies have found that moderate- to-heavy alcohol use, especially beer, may have a protective effect against the development of NHL.¹⁷ Of note, our patient’s alcoholic beverage of choice was beer. Regarding our patient’s distant history of cocaine use, it has been reported that cocaine use, in the absence of an HIV infection, has not been found to increase the risk of developing NHL.¹⁸ Similarly, arsenic exposure has not been associated with NHL in the literature.^19,20

The 2018 update also upgraded bladder carcinoma from having inadequate or insufficient to a limited or suggestive level of evidence for association.⁵ However, our patient’s most significant risk factor for bladder cancer was smoking, with a meta-analysis of 430,000 patients reporting a risk ratio (RR) of 3.14 for current cigarette smokers.²¹ The patient’s arsenic exposure from Agent Blue also increased his risk of developing bladder cancer. Several studies suggest a strong association between environmental arsenic exposure and bladder cancer.^22-26 A 30-year meta-analysis of 40 studies by Saint-Jacques and colleagues reported that the incidence of bladder cancer was found to increase in a dose-dependent manner, with higher concentrations of arsenic contaminated wate, with incidence rising from 2.7 to 5.8 times as the amount of arsenic contamination water increased from 10 to 150 mg/L.

Our patient’s history is concerning for higher than average Agent Blue exposure compared with that of most Vietnam War veterans. Given the dose-dependent effect of arsenic on bladder cancer risk, both our patient’s history of smoking and Agent Blue exposure are risk factors in the development of his bladder cancer.²² These likely played a more significant role in his development of bladder cancer than did his Agent Orange exposure.

Finally, smoking is the most significant risk factor in our patient’s development of anal carcinoma in situ. The 2018 Agent Orange update does report limited/suggested evidence of no association between Agent Orange and anal carcinoma.⁵ It also is unknown whether Agent Blue exposure is a contributing cause to his development of anal carcinoma in situ.²⁷ However, current smokers are at significant risk of developing anal cancer independent of age.^28-30 Given our patient’s extensive smoking history, this is the most likely contributing factor.

Conclusions

This case describes a Vietnam War veteran with significant exposure to rainbow herbicides and considerable polysubstance who developed 3 primary cancers and several chronic medical conditions. His exposure to Agents Orange and Blue likely contributed to his medical problems, but these associations are confounded by his substance use, particularly cigarette smoking. Of all his comorbidities, our patient’s NHL is the condition most likely to be associated with his history of Agent Orange exposure. His Agent Blue exposure also increased his risk for developing bladder cancer, cardiovascular disease, and PAD.

This case also highlights the importance of evaluating Vietnam War veterans for rainbow herbicide exposure and the complexity associated with attributing diseases to these exposures. All veterans who served in the inland waterways of Vietnam between 1962 and 1975; in the Korean Demilitarized Zone between April 1, 1968 and August 31, 1971; or in Thailand between February 28, 1961 and May 7, 1975 were at risk of rainbow herbicide exposure. These veterans may not only be eligible for disability compensation but also should be screened for associated comorbidities as outlined by current research.⁴² We hope that this report will serve as an aid in achieving this mission.

Known as the “6 rainbow herbicides,” based on their identifying color on storage containers, the United States widely deployed the herbicides agents orange, green, pink, purple, white, and blue during the Vietnam War to deny the enemy cover and destroy crops.¹ Unfortunately, all these herbicides were found to have contained some form of carcinogen. Agent Blue’s active ingredient consisted of sodium cacodylate trihydrate (C₂H₆AsNaO₂), a compound that is metabolized into the organic form of the carcinogen arsenic before eventually converting into its relatively less toxic inorganic form.² Agent Orange’s defoliating agent is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD). All rainbow herbicides except Agent Blue were unintentionally contaminated with carcinogenic dioxins. Agent Blue contained the carcinogen cacodylic acid, an organoarsenic acid. Today, herbicides no longer contain polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins such as TCDD or arsenic due to strict manufacturing restrictions.^2,3 In the treatment of veteran populations, knowledge of the 6 rainbow herbicides’ carcinogenic potential is important.

Between 1962 and 1971, the United States sprayed more than 45 million liters of Agent Orange on Vietnam and at least 366 kg of TCDD on South Vietnam.^1,4 However, because Agent Orange was not a known carcinogen during the Vietnam War, records of exposure are poor. Additionally, individuals in Vietnam during this period were not the only ones exposed to this carcinogen as Agent Orange also was sprayed in Thailand and Korea.⁵ Even today there are still locations in Vietnam where Agent Orange concentrations exceed internationally acceptable levels. The Da Nang, Bien Hoa, and Phu Cat airports in Vietnam have been found to have dioxin levels exceeding 1000 ppt (parts of dioxin per trillion parts of lipid) toxicity equivalence in the soil. Although the Vietnam government is working toward decontaminating these and many other dioxin hotspots, residents in these locations are exposed to higher than internationally acceptable levels of dioxin.⁶

Despite receiving less media attention, Vietnam War veterans and Vietnamese soldiers and civilians were exposed to significant amounts of arsenic-based Agent Blue. Arsenic is a compound which has no environmental half-life and is carcinogenic humans if inhaled or ingested.² Between 1962 and 1971, the United States distributed 7.8 million liters of Agent Blue containing 1,232,400 kg of arsenic across 300,000 hectares of rice paddies, 100,000 hectares of forest, and perimeters of all military bases during the Vietnam War.^2,5 According to a review by Saha and colleagues, lower levels of arsenic exposure are associated with acute and chronic diseases, including cancers, of all organ systems.⁷

The following case presentation involves a Vietnam War veteran aged 70 years who was exposed to Agent Orange and developed 3 primary cancers, including cutaneous large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), high-grade urothelial carcinoma, and anal carcinoma in situ. Epidemiologically, this is an uncommon occurrence as only 8% of cancer survivors in the United States have been diagnosed with > 1 cancer.⁸

With no family history of cancer, the development of multiple malignancies raises concern for a history of toxin exposure. This report of a Vietnam War veteran with multiple conditions found to be associated with Agent Orange exposure provides an opportunity to discuss the role this exposure may have on the development of a comprehensive list of medical conditions as described by the literature. Additionally, the potential contributions of other confounding toxin exposures such as cigarette smoking, excessive alcohol use, and potential Agent Blue exposure on our patients’ health will be discussed.

Case Presentation

A male aged 70 years with Stage IV primary cutaneous large B-cell NHL, incompletely resected high-grade urothelial cancer, carcinoma in situ of the anal canal, and peripheral arterial disease (PAD) presented to the primary care clinic at the Washington DC Veterans Affairs Medical Center (DCVAMC) with concern for left leg ischemia. He also reported 2 large telangiectasias on his back for 6 months accompanied by lymphadenopathy and intermittent night sweats.

He was last seen at the DCVAMC 15 months prior after his twelfth dose of rituximab treatment for NHL. However, the patient failed to return for completion of his treatment due to frustration with the lengthy chemotherapy and follow-up process. Additionally, the patient's history included 3 failed arterial stents with complete nonadherence to the prescribed clopidogrel, resulting in the failure of 3 more subsequent graft placements. On presentation, the patient continued to report nonadherence with the clopidogrel.

The patient’s medical history included coronary artery disease (CAD) status after 2 stents in the left anterior descending artery and 1 stent in the proximal circumflex artery placed 4 years prior. He also had a history of hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), amyloid light-chain (AL) amyloidosis, aortic aneurysm, cataracts, obesity, treated hepatitis B and C, and posttraumatic stress disorder. He had no family history of cancer or AL amyloidosis; however, he noted that he was estranged from his family.

His social history was notable for active cigarette smoking up to 3 packs per day for 40 years and consuming large quantities of alcohol—at one point as many as 20 beers per day over a period of 4.5 years. He had a distant history of cocaine use but no current use, which was supported with negative urinary toxicology screens for illicit drugs over the past year.

Our patient also reported a history of Agent Orange exposure. As an artilleryman in the US Army III Corps, he was deployed for about 1 year in the most heavily sprayed regions of Vietnam, including Bien Hua, Long Binh, Xuan Loc, and Camp Zion for about 2 to 4 months at each location.

Hospital Course

The patient was treated on an inpatient basis for expedited workup and treatment for his urothelial carcinoma, NHL, and ischemic limb. His urothelial carcinoma was successfully resected, and the telangiectasias on his back were biopsied and found to be consistent with his known cutaneous large B-cell NHL, for which plans to resume outpatient chemotherapy were made. The patient’s 3 arterial grafts in his left leg were confirmed to have failed, and the patient was counseled that he would soon likely require an amputation of his ischemic leg.

Discussion

We must rely on our patient’s historical recall as there are no widely available laboratory tests or physical examination findings to confirm and/or determine the magnitude of TCDD or arsenic exposure.^9-11

Exposures

The patient was stationed in Bien Hoa, the second highest dioxin-contaminated air base in Vietnam (Figure).⁶ Dioxin also is known to be a particularly persistent environmental pollutant, such that in January 2018, Bien Hoa was found to still have dioxin levels higher than what is considered internationally acceptable. In fact, these levels were deemed significant enough to lead the United States and Vietnamese government to sign a memorandum of intent to begin cleanup of this airport.⁶ TCDD is known to have a half-life of about 7.6 years, and its long half-life is mainly attributed to its slow elimination process from its stores within the liver and fat, consisting of passive excretion through the gut wall and slow metabolism by the liver.^12,13 Thus, as an artilleryman mainly operating 105 howitzers within the foliage of Vietnam, our patient was exposed not only to high levels of this persistent environmental pollutant on a daily basis, but this toxin likely remained within his system for many years after his return from Vietnam.

Our patient also had a convincing history for potential Agent Blue exposure through both inhalation and ingestion of contaminated food and water. Additionally, his description of deforestations occurring within a matter of days increased the level of suspicion for Agent Blue exposure. This is because Agent Blue was the herbicide of choice for missions requiring rapid deforestation, achieving defoliation as quickly as 1 to 2 days.¹⁴ Additionally, our patient was stationed within cities in southern Vietnam near Agent Blue hot spots, such as Da Nang and Saigon, and Agent Blue was sprayed along the perimeter of all military bases.²

Levels of Evidence

Using the Veterans and Agent Orange Update in 2018 as our guide, we reviewed the quality of evidence suggesting an association between many of our patient’s comorbidities to Agent Orange exposure.⁵ This publication categorizes the level of evidence for association between health conditions and Agent Orange exposure in 4 main categories (Table 1).

In the Veterans and Agent Orange Update, NHL notably has a sufficient level of evidence of association with Agent Orange exposure.⁵ Although our patient’s extensive history of polysubstance use confounds the effect Agent Orange may have had on his health, cutaneous large B-cell NHL is an interesting exception as literature does not support even a correlative link between smoking and excessive alcohol use with primary cutaneous large B-cell NHL. Several case-control studies have found little to no association with cigarette smoking and the large B-cell subtype of NHL.^15,16 Moreover, several studies have found that moderate- to-heavy alcohol use, especially beer, may have a protective effect against the development of NHL.¹⁷ Of note, our patient’s alcoholic beverage of choice was beer. Regarding our patient’s distant history of cocaine use, it has been reported that cocaine use, in the absence of an HIV infection, has not been found to increase the risk of developing NHL.¹⁸ Similarly, arsenic exposure has not been associated with NHL in the literature.^19,20

The 2018 update also upgraded bladder carcinoma from having inadequate or insufficient to a limited or suggestive level of evidence for association.⁵ However, our patient’s most significant risk factor for bladder cancer was smoking, with a meta-analysis of 430,000 patients reporting a risk ratio (RR) of 3.14 for current cigarette smokers.²¹ The patient’s arsenic exposure from Agent Blue also increased his risk of developing bladder cancer. Several studies suggest a strong association between environmental arsenic exposure and bladder cancer.^22-26 A 30-year meta-analysis of 40 studies by Saint-Jacques and colleagues reported that the incidence of bladder cancer was found to increase in a dose-dependent manner, with higher concentrations of arsenic contaminated wate, with incidence rising from 2.7 to 5.8 times as the amount of arsenic contamination water increased from 10 to 150 mg/L.

Our patient’s history is concerning for higher than average Agent Blue exposure compared with that of most Vietnam War veterans. Given the dose-dependent effect of arsenic on bladder cancer risk, both our patient’s history of smoking and Agent Blue exposure are risk factors in the development of his bladder cancer.²² These likely played a more significant role in his development of bladder cancer than did his Agent Orange exposure.

Finally, smoking is the most significant risk factor in our patient’s development of anal carcinoma in situ. The 2018 Agent Orange update does report limited/suggested evidence of no association between Agent Orange and anal carcinoma.⁵ It also is unknown whether Agent Blue exposure is a contributing cause to his development of anal carcinoma in situ.²⁷ However, current smokers are at significant risk of developing anal cancer independent of age.^28-30 Given our patient’s extensive smoking history, this is the most likely contributing factor.

Conclusions

This case describes a Vietnam War veteran with significant exposure to rainbow herbicides and considerable polysubstance who developed 3 primary cancers and several chronic medical conditions. His exposure to Agents Orange and Blue likely contributed to his medical problems, but these associations are confounded by his substance use, particularly cigarette smoking. Of all his comorbidities, our patient’s NHL is the condition most likely to be associated with his history of Agent Orange exposure. His Agent Blue exposure also increased his risk for developing bladder cancer, cardiovascular disease, and PAD.

This case also highlights the importance of evaluating Vietnam War veterans for rainbow herbicide exposure and the complexity associated with attributing diseases to these exposures. All veterans who served in the inland waterways of Vietnam between 1962 and 1975; in the Korean Demilitarized Zone between April 1, 1968 and August 31, 1971; or in Thailand between February 28, 1961 and May 7, 1975 were at risk of rainbow herbicide exposure. These veterans may not only be eligible for disability compensation but also should be screened for associated comorbidities as outlined by current research.⁴² We hope that this report will serve as an aid in achieving this mission.