AVAHO

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a drastic reduction in lung cancer screening, but the rate of decline was similar between Whites and non-Whites and between rural and nonrural populations. All groups saw their rates of lung cancer screening (LCS) return to near prepandemic levels by June 2020, according to a new analysis of two academic and two community imaging sites in North Carolina.

The study was led by Louise Henderson, PhD, of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, and M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, of the department of medicine, division of pulmonary disease and critical care medicine, both at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The findings appeared online in Chest.

“I am [not] surprised by the decline, but I am certainly reassured,” Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. Dr. Begnaud is assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. She was not involved in the study.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a drastic reduction in lung cancer screening, but the rate of decline was similar between Whites and non-Whites and between rural and nonrural populations. All groups saw their rates of lung cancer screening (LCS) return to near prepandemic levels by June 2020, according to a new analysis of two academic and two community imaging sites in North Carolina.

The study was led by Louise Henderson, PhD, of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, and M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, of the department of medicine, division of pulmonary disease and critical care medicine, both at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The findings appeared online in Chest.

“I am [not] surprised by the decline, but I am certainly reassured,” Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. Dr. Begnaud is assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. She was not involved in the study.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a drastic reduction in lung cancer screening, but the rate of decline was similar between Whites and non-Whites and between rural and nonrural populations. All groups saw their rates of lung cancer screening (LCS) return to near prepandemic levels by June 2020, according to a new analysis of two academic and two community imaging sites in North Carolina.

The study was led by Louise Henderson, PhD, of the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, and M. Patricia Rivera, MD, FCCP, of the department of medicine, division of pulmonary disease and critical care medicine, both at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The findings appeared online in Chest.

“I am [not] surprised by the decline, but I am certainly reassured,” Abbie Begnaud, MD, FCCP, said in an interview. Dr. Begnaud is assistant professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. She was not involved in the study.

When the COVID-19 pandemic first hit, cancer screening in the United States came to an abrupt halt. That experience, coupled with the financial fallout of the pandemic, has led some doctors to reassess business as usual.

In particular, a trio has taken aim at skin cancer screening – arguing that it should stop – in a ‘sounding board’ commentary published online Jan. 7 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has functionally stopped skin cancer screening; what is important is not to restart it,” wrote the authors, led by H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Welch has often raised questions about cancer screening and highlighted the issue of overdiagnosis.

In this latest essay, Dr. Welch teamed up with pathologist Benjamin Mazer, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who writes commentaries for this news organization, and dermatologist Adewole S. Adamson, MD, University of Texas, Austin, to argue that screening for skin cancer has led to an overdiagnosis of melanoma.

However, two melanoma experts pointed out flaws in some of their arguments, and said the issue is more nuanced than they present.


 

Arguing that melanoma is overdiagnosed

The incidence of melanoma is six times as high as it was 40 years ago, making it the third most common cancer in the United States, the investigators pointed out. However, while case rates have skyrocketed, death rates from melanoma have remained about the same, which points to overdiagnosis.

They described a cycle of increased diagnostic scrutiny that is driving overdiagnosis of melanoma. This includes heightened awareness (perhaps overly) among patients, widespread skin screenings, lower clinical thresholds for biopsy, and lower thresholds among pathologists for diagnosis of melanoma. Fear of missing cancer, legal concerns, and financial incentives may all contribute.

“We view the rise in the incidence of melanoma as a sentinel event, a warning that an epidemic of inspection, surveillance, and biopsy of pigmented skin lesions is permeating through the general population,” they wrote.

Furthermore, overdiagnosis could contribute to unnecessary intervention.

Between 2004 and 2017, rates of biopsy among fee-for-service Medicare recipients almost doubled (from 5% to 8%), according to coding trends data cited in the article. Overdiagnosis and unnecessary intervention could cause psychological, financial, and physical harm to the patient, and the authors argued for interrupting the cycle.

“The most important step to break the cycle of melanoma overdiagnosis is to stop population-wide screening for skin cancer,” they wrote.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force currently states that there is insufficient evidence to weigh the balances versus the harms of skin cancer screening, leaving it open to interpretation.

“[T]he increase in melanoma diagnoses by a factor of 6, with at least an order of magnitude more persons undergoing a biopsy and no apparent effect on mortality, is more than enough to recommend against population-wide screening,” Dr. Welch and colleagues concluded.

But the issue may be more nuanced, argued a melanoma expert.

“Everyone agrees that screening high-risk groups has the greatest chance of reducing cancer mortality. In melanoma, the strongest risk factor is the number of moles and presence of clinically atypical moles,” David Polsky, MD, PhD, commented in an interview. Dr. Polsky is a professor of dermatologic oncology at the Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Langone Health.

However, population-based studies have shown that at least half of melanoma patients are not considered high risk based on the appearance of the mole, he explained.

“Studies to identify genetic risk factors for melanoma have not yet progressed to the point where these can be tested in the clinic. We clearly have a knowledge gap that needs to be addressed,” he said.

Moreover, it’s not easy to predict which early melanomas will metastasize, said dermatologist Jennifer Stein, MD, PhD, who specializes in treating patients at high risk for melanoma at NYU Langone.

“This paper suggests that it may not be important to detect and treat melanoma in situ, and that the increase in diagnosis of melanoma in situ has led to more harms than good,” she said. “There is evidence that most melanomas do originate as in situ lesions. Unfortunately, we cannot predict which ones will become more aggressive. For this reason, we treat melanoma in situ.”
 

Taking issue with some of the arguments

Both Dr. Polsky and Dr. Stein took issue with several of the arguments put forward by Dr. Welch and colleagues.

For instance, Dr. Welch and colleagues cited research suggesting that UV light is a weak risk factor for melanoma, but Dr. Polsky disagreed. “There are many lines of evidence ranging from epidemiological, clinical, and biological studies that prove the causative association between ultraviolet light and melanoma, while acknowledging that other factors, such as genetic predisposition, play an important role,” he said. “Since ultraviolet light in the form of outdoor sunburns or indoor tanning exposure are modifiable risk factors, it is important that we continue with our current public messaging on their causal role in the development of melanoma.”

Furthermore, the 2012 study that the authors cited to support their argument that pathologists today are more likely to diagnose melanoma than in years past is flawed, according to Dr. Stein. The study was very small and included just nine contemporary pathologists. Unlike in real life, pathologists in the study could not diagnose lesions as “atypical,” and may have erred on the side of caution by calling them malignant.

“There were multiple limitations to this study that were acknowledged by its authors, who stated that it was a hypothesis-generating study and may not be generalizable,” Dr. Stein said.

In addition, Dr. Polsky took issue with the suggestion that awareness about melanoma among the general public is overly heightened.

“Reducing melanoma awareness would not be wise,” he said. “Studies have shown that awareness of melanoma is associated with the diagnosis of earlier-stage lesions that can be cured by simple skin surgery, without the need for more costly interventions utilized for more advanced melanomas.”

Dr. Mazer reported receiving travel compensation from Hillcrest Healthcare Systems, and is a commentator for this new organization. Dr. Welch has written three books on the subjects of overdiagnosis and testing for cancer. Dr. Adamson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When the COVID-19 pandemic first hit, cancer screening in the United States came to an abrupt halt. That experience, coupled with the financial fallout of the pandemic, has led some doctors to reassess business as usual.

In particular, a trio has taken aim at skin cancer screening – arguing that it should stop – in a ‘sounding board’ commentary published online Jan. 7 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has functionally stopped skin cancer screening; what is important is not to restart it,” wrote the authors, led by H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Welch has often raised questions about cancer screening and highlighted the issue of overdiagnosis.

In this latest essay, Dr. Welch teamed up with pathologist Benjamin Mazer, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who writes commentaries for this news organization, and dermatologist Adewole S. Adamson, MD, University of Texas, Austin, to argue that screening for skin cancer has led to an overdiagnosis of melanoma.

However, two melanoma experts pointed out flaws in some of their arguments, and said the issue is more nuanced than they present.


 

Arguing that melanoma is overdiagnosed

The incidence of melanoma is six times as high as it was 40 years ago, making it the third most common cancer in the United States, the investigators pointed out. However, while case rates have skyrocketed, death rates from melanoma have remained about the same, which points to overdiagnosis.

They described a cycle of increased diagnostic scrutiny that is driving overdiagnosis of melanoma. This includes heightened awareness (perhaps overly) among patients, widespread skin screenings, lower clinical thresholds for biopsy, and lower thresholds among pathologists for diagnosis of melanoma. Fear of missing cancer, legal concerns, and financial incentives may all contribute.

“We view the rise in the incidence of melanoma as a sentinel event, a warning that an epidemic of inspection, surveillance, and biopsy of pigmented skin lesions is permeating through the general population,” they wrote.

Furthermore, overdiagnosis could contribute to unnecessary intervention.

Between 2004 and 2017, rates of biopsy among fee-for-service Medicare recipients almost doubled (from 5% to 8%), according to coding trends data cited in the article. Overdiagnosis and unnecessary intervention could cause psychological, financial, and physical harm to the patient, and the authors argued for interrupting the cycle.

“The most important step to break the cycle of melanoma overdiagnosis is to stop population-wide screening for skin cancer,” they wrote.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force currently states that there is insufficient evidence to weigh the balances versus the harms of skin cancer screening, leaving it open to interpretation.

“[T]he increase in melanoma diagnoses by a factor of 6, with at least an order of magnitude more persons undergoing a biopsy and no apparent effect on mortality, is more than enough to recommend against population-wide screening,” Dr. Welch and colleagues concluded.

But the issue may be more nuanced, argued a melanoma expert.

“Everyone agrees that screening high-risk groups has the greatest chance of reducing cancer mortality. In melanoma, the strongest risk factor is the number of moles and presence of clinically atypical moles,” David Polsky, MD, PhD, commented in an interview. Dr. Polsky is a professor of dermatologic oncology at the Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Langone Health.

However, population-based studies have shown that at least half of melanoma patients are not considered high risk based on the appearance of the mole, he explained.

“Studies to identify genetic risk factors for melanoma have not yet progressed to the point where these can be tested in the clinic. We clearly have a knowledge gap that needs to be addressed,” he said.

Moreover, it’s not easy to predict which early melanomas will metastasize, said dermatologist Jennifer Stein, MD, PhD, who specializes in treating patients at high risk for melanoma at NYU Langone.

“This paper suggests that it may not be important to detect and treat melanoma in situ, and that the increase in diagnosis of melanoma in situ has led to more harms than good,” she said. “There is evidence that most melanomas do originate as in situ lesions. Unfortunately, we cannot predict which ones will become more aggressive. For this reason, we treat melanoma in situ.”
 

Taking issue with some of the arguments

Both Dr. Polsky and Dr. Stein took issue with several of the arguments put forward by Dr. Welch and colleagues.

For instance, Dr. Welch and colleagues cited research suggesting that UV light is a weak risk factor for melanoma, but Dr. Polsky disagreed. “There are many lines of evidence ranging from epidemiological, clinical, and biological studies that prove the causative association between ultraviolet light and melanoma, while acknowledging that other factors, such as genetic predisposition, play an important role,” he said. “Since ultraviolet light in the form of outdoor sunburns or indoor tanning exposure are modifiable risk factors, it is important that we continue with our current public messaging on their causal role in the development of melanoma.”

Furthermore, the 2012 study that the authors cited to support their argument that pathologists today are more likely to diagnose melanoma than in years past is flawed, according to Dr. Stein. The study was very small and included just nine contemporary pathologists. Unlike in real life, pathologists in the study could not diagnose lesions as “atypical,” and may have erred on the side of caution by calling them malignant.

“There were multiple limitations to this study that were acknowledged by its authors, who stated that it was a hypothesis-generating study and may not be generalizable,” Dr. Stein said.

In addition, Dr. Polsky took issue with the suggestion that awareness about melanoma among the general public is overly heightened.

“Reducing melanoma awareness would not be wise,” he said. “Studies have shown that awareness of melanoma is associated with the diagnosis of earlier-stage lesions that can be cured by simple skin surgery, without the need for more costly interventions utilized for more advanced melanomas.”

Dr. Mazer reported receiving travel compensation from Hillcrest Healthcare Systems, and is a commentator for this new organization. Dr. Welch has written three books on the subjects of overdiagnosis and testing for cancer. Dr. Adamson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When the COVID-19 pandemic first hit, cancer screening in the United States came to an abrupt halt. That experience, coupled with the financial fallout of the pandemic, has led some doctors to reassess business as usual.

In particular, a trio has taken aim at skin cancer screening – arguing that it should stop – in a ‘sounding board’ commentary published online Jan. 7 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has functionally stopped skin cancer screening; what is important is not to restart it,” wrote the authors, led by H. Gilbert Welch, MD, MPH, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Welch has often raised questions about cancer screening and highlighted the issue of overdiagnosis.

In this latest essay, Dr. Welch teamed up with pathologist Benjamin Mazer, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., who writes commentaries for this news organization, and dermatologist Adewole S. Adamson, MD, University of Texas, Austin, to argue that screening for skin cancer has led to an overdiagnosis of melanoma.

However, two melanoma experts pointed out flaws in some of their arguments, and said the issue is more nuanced than they present.


 

Arguing that melanoma is overdiagnosed

The incidence of melanoma is six times as high as it was 40 years ago, making it the third most common cancer in the United States, the investigators pointed out. However, while case rates have skyrocketed, death rates from melanoma have remained about the same, which points to overdiagnosis.

They described a cycle of increased diagnostic scrutiny that is driving overdiagnosis of melanoma. This includes heightened awareness (perhaps overly) among patients, widespread skin screenings, lower clinical thresholds for biopsy, and lower thresholds among pathologists for diagnosis of melanoma. Fear of missing cancer, legal concerns, and financial incentives may all contribute.

“We view the rise in the incidence of melanoma as a sentinel event, a warning that an epidemic of inspection, surveillance, and biopsy of pigmented skin lesions is permeating through the general population,” they wrote.

Furthermore, overdiagnosis could contribute to unnecessary intervention.

Between 2004 and 2017, rates of biopsy among fee-for-service Medicare recipients almost doubled (from 5% to 8%), according to coding trends data cited in the article. Overdiagnosis and unnecessary intervention could cause psychological, financial, and physical harm to the patient, and the authors argued for interrupting the cycle.

“The most important step to break the cycle of melanoma overdiagnosis is to stop population-wide screening for skin cancer,” they wrote.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force currently states that there is insufficient evidence to weigh the balances versus the harms of skin cancer screening, leaving it open to interpretation.

“[T]he increase in melanoma diagnoses by a factor of 6, with at least an order of magnitude more persons undergoing a biopsy and no apparent effect on mortality, is more than enough to recommend against population-wide screening,” Dr. Welch and colleagues concluded.

But the issue may be more nuanced, argued a melanoma expert.

“Everyone agrees that screening high-risk groups has the greatest chance of reducing cancer mortality. In melanoma, the strongest risk factor is the number of moles and presence of clinically atypical moles,” David Polsky, MD, PhD, commented in an interview. Dr. Polsky is a professor of dermatologic oncology at the Perlmutter Cancer Center at New York University Langone Health.

However, population-based studies have shown that at least half of melanoma patients are not considered high risk based on the appearance of the mole, he explained.

“Studies to identify genetic risk factors for melanoma have not yet progressed to the point where these can be tested in the clinic. We clearly have a knowledge gap that needs to be addressed,” he said.

Moreover, it’s not easy to predict which early melanomas will metastasize, said dermatologist Jennifer Stein, MD, PhD, who specializes in treating patients at high risk for melanoma at NYU Langone.

“This paper suggests that it may not be important to detect and treat melanoma in situ, and that the increase in diagnosis of melanoma in situ has led to more harms than good,” she said. “There is evidence that most melanomas do originate as in situ lesions. Unfortunately, we cannot predict which ones will become more aggressive. For this reason, we treat melanoma in situ.”
 

Taking issue with some of the arguments

Both Dr. Polsky and Dr. Stein took issue with several of the arguments put forward by Dr. Welch and colleagues.

For instance, Dr. Welch and colleagues cited research suggesting that UV light is a weak risk factor for melanoma, but Dr. Polsky disagreed. “There are many lines of evidence ranging from epidemiological, clinical, and biological studies that prove the causative association between ultraviolet light and melanoma, while acknowledging that other factors, such as genetic predisposition, play an important role,” he said. “Since ultraviolet light in the form of outdoor sunburns or indoor tanning exposure are modifiable risk factors, it is important that we continue with our current public messaging on their causal role in the development of melanoma.”

Furthermore, the 2012 study that the authors cited to support their argument that pathologists today are more likely to diagnose melanoma than in years past is flawed, according to Dr. Stein. The study was very small and included just nine contemporary pathologists. Unlike in real life, pathologists in the study could not diagnose lesions as “atypical,” and may have erred on the side of caution by calling them malignant.

“There were multiple limitations to this study that were acknowledged by its authors, who stated that it was a hypothesis-generating study and may not be generalizable,” Dr. Stein said.

In addition, Dr. Polsky took issue with the suggestion that awareness about melanoma among the general public is overly heightened.

“Reducing melanoma awareness would not be wise,” he said. “Studies have shown that awareness of melanoma is associated with the diagnosis of earlier-stage lesions that can be cured by simple skin surgery, without the need for more costly interventions utilized for more advanced melanomas.”

Dr. Mazer reported receiving travel compensation from Hillcrest Healthcare Systems, and is a commentator for this new organization. Dr. Welch has written three books on the subjects of overdiagnosis and testing for cancer. Dr. Adamson disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Preliminary data suggest that a certain pattern of gut microbes may be useful in predicting which patients with advanced gastric cancer are likely to benefit from treatment with the immunotherapy nivolumab.

Researchers have demonstrated bacterial invasion of the epithelial cell pathway in the gut microbiome and suggest that this could potentially become a novel biomarker.

“In addition, we found gastric cancer–specific gut microbiome predictive of responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” said study author Yu Sunakawa, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the department of clinical oncology at St. Marianna University, Kawasaki, Japan.

Dr. Sunakawa presented the study’s results at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The gut microbiome holds great interest as a potential biomarker for response. Previous studies suggested that it may hold the key to immunotherapy responses. The concept has been demonstrated in several studies involving patients with melanoma, but this is the first study in patients with gastric cancer.

Nivolumab monotherapy has been shown to provide a survival benefit with a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer, Dr. Sunakawa noted. However, fewer than half of patients responded to therapy.

“The disease control rate was about 40%, and many patients did not experience any tumor degradation,” he said. “About 60% of the patients did not respond to nivolumab as a late-line therapy.”

In the observational/translational DELIVER trial, investigators enrolled 501 patients with recurrent or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or GEJ. The patients were recruited from 50 sites in Japan.

The primary endpoint was the relationship between the genomic pathway in the gut microbiome and efficacy of nivolumab and whether there was progressive disease or not at the first evaluation, as determined in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria.

Genomic data were measured by genome shotgun sequence at a central laboratory. Biomarkers were analyzed by Wilcoxon rank sum test in the first 200 patients, who constituted the training cohort. The top 30 biomarker candidates were validated in the last 300 patients (the validation cohort) using the Bonferroni method.

Clinical and genomic data were available for 437 patients (87%). Of this group, 180 constituted the training cohort, and 257, the validation cohort.

The phylogenetic composition of common bacterial taxa was similar for both cohorts.

In the training cohort, 62.2% of patients had progressive disease, as did 53.2% in the validation cohort. The microbiome was more diverse among the patients who did not have progressive disease than among those who did have progressive disease.

The authors noted that, although there was no statistically significant pathway to be validated for a primary endpoint using the Bonferroni method, bacterial invasion of epithelial cells in the KEGG pathway was associated with clinical outcomes in both the training cohort (P = .057) and the validation cohort (P = .014). However, these pathways were not significantly associated with progressive disease after Bonferroni correction, a conservative test that adjusts for multiple comparisons.

An exploratory analysis of genus showed that Odoribacter and Veillonella species were associated with tumor response to nivolumab in both cohorts.

Dr. Sunakawa noted that biomarker analyses are ongoing. The researchers are investigating the relationships between microbiome and survival times, as well as other endpoints.
 

Still some gaps

In a discussion of the study, Jonathan Yeung, MD, PhD, of Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, congratulated the investigators on their study, noting that “the logistical hurdles must have been tremendous to obtain these data.”

However, Dr. Yeung pointed out some limitations and gaps in the data that were presented. For example, he found that the ratio of the training set to the validation set was unusual. “The training set is usually larger and usually an 80/20 ratio,” he said. “In their design, the validation set is larger, and I’m quite curious about their rationale.

“The conclusion of the study is that a more diverse microbiome was observed in patients with a tumor response than in those without a response,” he continued, “but they don’t actually show the statistical test used to make this conclusion. There is considerable overlap between the groups, and more compelling data are needed to make that conclusion.”

Another limitation was the marked imbalance in the number of patients whose condition responded to nivolumab in comparison with those whose condition did not (20 vs. 417 patients). This could have affected the statistical power of the study.

But overall, Dr. Yeung congratulated the authors for presenting a very impressive dataset. “The preliminary data are very interesting, and I look forward to the final results,” he said.

The study was funded by Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb, which markets nivolumab. Dr. Sunakawa has received honoraria from Bayer Yakuhin, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Lilly Japan, Nippon Kayaku, Sanofi, Taiho, Takeda, and Yakult Honsha. He has held a consulting or advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Daiichi Sankyo, and Takeda and has received research funding from Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly Japan, Sanofi, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Takeda. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

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

Preliminary data suggest that a certain pattern of gut microbes may be useful in predicting which patients with advanced gastric cancer are likely to benefit from treatment with the immunotherapy nivolumab.

Researchers have demonstrated bacterial invasion of the epithelial cell pathway in the gut microbiome and suggest that this could potentially become a novel biomarker.

“In addition, we found gastric cancer–specific gut microbiome predictive of responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” said study author Yu Sunakawa, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the department of clinical oncology at St. Marianna University, Kawasaki, Japan.

Dr. Sunakawa presented the study’s results at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The gut microbiome holds great interest as a potential biomarker for response. Previous studies suggested that it may hold the key to immunotherapy responses. The concept has been demonstrated in several studies involving patients with melanoma, but this is the first study in patients with gastric cancer.

Nivolumab monotherapy has been shown to provide a survival benefit with a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer, Dr. Sunakawa noted. However, fewer than half of patients responded to therapy.

“The disease control rate was about 40%, and many patients did not experience any tumor degradation,” he said. “About 60% of the patients did not respond to nivolumab as a late-line therapy.”

In the observational/translational DELIVER trial, investigators enrolled 501 patients with recurrent or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or GEJ. The patients were recruited from 50 sites in Japan.

The primary endpoint was the relationship between the genomic pathway in the gut microbiome and efficacy of nivolumab and whether there was progressive disease or not at the first evaluation, as determined in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria.

Genomic data were measured by genome shotgun sequence at a central laboratory. Biomarkers were analyzed by Wilcoxon rank sum test in the first 200 patients, who constituted the training cohort. The top 30 biomarker candidates were validated in the last 300 patients (the validation cohort) using the Bonferroni method.

Clinical and genomic data were available for 437 patients (87%). Of this group, 180 constituted the training cohort, and 257, the validation cohort.

The phylogenetic composition of common bacterial taxa was similar for both cohorts.

In the training cohort, 62.2% of patients had progressive disease, as did 53.2% in the validation cohort. The microbiome was more diverse among the patients who did not have progressive disease than among those who did have progressive disease.

The authors noted that, although there was no statistically significant pathway to be validated for a primary endpoint using the Bonferroni method, bacterial invasion of epithelial cells in the KEGG pathway was associated with clinical outcomes in both the training cohort (P = .057) and the validation cohort (P = .014). However, these pathways were not significantly associated with progressive disease after Bonferroni correction, a conservative test that adjusts for multiple comparisons.

An exploratory analysis of genus showed that Odoribacter and Veillonella species were associated with tumor response to nivolumab in both cohorts.

Dr. Sunakawa noted that biomarker analyses are ongoing. The researchers are investigating the relationships between microbiome and survival times, as well as other endpoints.
 

Still some gaps

In a discussion of the study, Jonathan Yeung, MD, PhD, of Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, congratulated the investigators on their study, noting that “the logistical hurdles must have been tremendous to obtain these data.”

However, Dr. Yeung pointed out some limitations and gaps in the data that were presented. For example, he found that the ratio of the training set to the validation set was unusual. “The training set is usually larger and usually an 80/20 ratio,” he said. “In their design, the validation set is larger, and I’m quite curious about their rationale.

“The conclusion of the study is that a more diverse microbiome was observed in patients with a tumor response than in those without a response,” he continued, “but they don’t actually show the statistical test used to make this conclusion. There is considerable overlap between the groups, and more compelling data are needed to make that conclusion.”

Another limitation was the marked imbalance in the number of patients whose condition responded to nivolumab in comparison with those whose condition did not (20 vs. 417 patients). This could have affected the statistical power of the study.

But overall, Dr. Yeung congratulated the authors for presenting a very impressive dataset. “The preliminary data are very interesting, and I look forward to the final results,” he said.

The study was funded by Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb, which markets nivolumab. Dr. Sunakawa has received honoraria from Bayer Yakuhin, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Lilly Japan, Nippon Kayaku, Sanofi, Taiho, Takeda, and Yakult Honsha. He has held a consulting or advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Daiichi Sankyo, and Takeda and has received research funding from Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly Japan, Sanofi, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Takeda. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

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

Preliminary data suggest that a certain pattern of gut microbes may be useful in predicting which patients with advanced gastric cancer are likely to benefit from treatment with the immunotherapy nivolumab.

Researchers have demonstrated bacterial invasion of the epithelial cell pathway in the gut microbiome and suggest that this could potentially become a novel biomarker.

“In addition, we found gastric cancer–specific gut microbiome predictive of responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors,” said study author Yu Sunakawa, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the department of clinical oncology at St. Marianna University, Kawasaki, Japan.

Dr. Sunakawa presented the study’s results at the 2021 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The gut microbiome holds great interest as a potential biomarker for response. Previous studies suggested that it may hold the key to immunotherapy responses. The concept has been demonstrated in several studies involving patients with melanoma, but this is the first study in patients with gastric cancer.

Nivolumab monotherapy has been shown to provide a survival benefit with a manageable safety profile in previously treated patients with gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer, Dr. Sunakawa noted. However, fewer than half of patients responded to therapy.

“The disease control rate was about 40%, and many patients did not experience any tumor degradation,” he said. “About 60% of the patients did not respond to nivolumab as a late-line therapy.”

In the observational/translational DELIVER trial, investigators enrolled 501 patients with recurrent or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or GEJ. The patients were recruited from 50 sites in Japan.

The primary endpoint was the relationship between the genomic pathway in the gut microbiome and efficacy of nivolumab and whether there was progressive disease or not at the first evaluation, as determined in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria.

Genomic data were measured by genome shotgun sequence at a central laboratory. Biomarkers were analyzed by Wilcoxon rank sum test in the first 200 patients, who constituted the training cohort. The top 30 biomarker candidates were validated in the last 300 patients (the validation cohort) using the Bonferroni method.

Clinical and genomic data were available for 437 patients (87%). Of this group, 180 constituted the training cohort, and 257, the validation cohort.

The phylogenetic composition of common bacterial taxa was similar for both cohorts.

In the training cohort, 62.2% of patients had progressive disease, as did 53.2% in the validation cohort. The microbiome was more diverse among the patients who did not have progressive disease than among those who did have progressive disease.

The authors noted that, although there was no statistically significant pathway to be validated for a primary endpoint using the Bonferroni method, bacterial invasion of epithelial cells in the KEGG pathway was associated with clinical outcomes in both the training cohort (P = .057) and the validation cohort (P = .014). However, these pathways were not significantly associated with progressive disease after Bonferroni correction, a conservative test that adjusts for multiple comparisons.

An exploratory analysis of genus showed that Odoribacter and Veillonella species were associated with tumor response to nivolumab in both cohorts.

Dr. Sunakawa noted that biomarker analyses are ongoing. The researchers are investigating the relationships between microbiome and survival times, as well as other endpoints.
 

Still some gaps

In a discussion of the study, Jonathan Yeung, MD, PhD, of Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, congratulated the investigators on their study, noting that “the logistical hurdles must have been tremendous to obtain these data.”

However, Dr. Yeung pointed out some limitations and gaps in the data that were presented. For example, he found that the ratio of the training set to the validation set was unusual. “The training set is usually larger and usually an 80/20 ratio,” he said. “In their design, the validation set is larger, and I’m quite curious about their rationale.

“The conclusion of the study is that a more diverse microbiome was observed in patients with a tumor response than in those without a response,” he continued, “but they don’t actually show the statistical test used to make this conclusion. There is considerable overlap between the groups, and more compelling data are needed to make that conclusion.”

Another limitation was the marked imbalance in the number of patients whose condition responded to nivolumab in comparison with those whose condition did not (20 vs. 417 patients). This could have affected the statistical power of the study.

But overall, Dr. Yeung congratulated the authors for presenting a very impressive dataset. “The preliminary data are very interesting, and I look forward to the final results,” he said.

The study was funded by Ono Pharmaceutical and Bristol-Myers Squibb, which markets nivolumab. Dr. Sunakawa has received honoraria from Bayer Yakuhin, Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Chugai, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Lilly Japan, Nippon Kayaku, Sanofi, Taiho, Takeda, and Yakult Honsha. He has held a consulting or advisory role for Bristol-Myers Squibb Japan, Daiichi Sankyo, and Takeda and has received research funding from Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly Japan, Sanofi, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Takeda. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

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

New guidelines issued jointly by four major international hematology groups focus on the management of patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common bleeding disorder in the world.

The evidence-based guidelines, published in Blood Advances, were developed in collaboration by the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. They outline key recommendations spanning the care of patients with a broad range of therapeutic needs.

“We addressed some of the questions that were most important to the community, but certainly there are a lot of areas that we couldn’t cover” said coauthor Veronica H. Flood, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

The guidelines process began with a survey sent to the von Willebrand disease community, including patients, caregivers, nurses, physicians, and scientists. The respondents were asked to prioritize issues that they felt should be addressed in the guidelines.

“Interestingly, some of the issues were the same between patients and caregivers and physicians, and some were different, but there were obviously some areas that we just couldn’t cover,” she said in an interview.

One of the areas of greatest concern for respondents was bleeding in women, and many of the recommendations include specific considerations for management of gynecologic and obstetric patients, Dr. Flood said.

“We also tried to make the questions applicable to as many patients with von Willebrand disease as possible,” she added.

Some of the questions, such as recommendation 1, regarding prophylaxis, are geared toward management of patients with severe disease, while others, such as recommendations for treatment of menstrual bleeding, are more suited for patients with milder VWD.

All of the recommendations in the guidelines are “conditional” (suggested), due to very low certainty in the evidence of effects, the authors noted.
 

Prophylaxis

The guidelines suggest long-term prophylaxis for patients with a history of severe and frequent bleeds, with periodic assessment of the need for prophylaxis.

Desmopressin

For those patients who may benefit from the use of desmopressin, primarily those with type 1 VWD, and who have a baseline von Willebrand factor (VWF) level below 0.30 IU/mL, the panel issued a conditional recommendation for a desmopressin trial with treatment based on the patient’s results compared with not performing a trial and treating with tranexamic acid or factor concentrate. The guidelines also advise against treating with desmopressin in the absence of a trial. In a section of “good practice statements,” the guidelines indicate that using desmopressin in patients with type 2B VWD is generally contraindicated, because of the risk of thrombocytopenia as a result of increased platelet binding. In addition, desmopressin is generally contraindicated in patients with active cardiovascular disease, patients with seizure disorders, patients less than 2 years old, and patients with type 1C VWD in the setting of surgery.

Antithrombotic therapy

The guideline panelists conditionally recommend antithrombotic therapy with either antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, with an emphasis on reassessing bleeding risk throughout the course of treatment.

An accompanying good practice statement calls for individualized assessments of risks and benefits of specific antithrombotic therapies by a multidisciplinary team including hematologists, cardiovascular specialists, and the patient.
 

Major surgery

This section includes a recommendation for targeting both factor VIII and VWF activity levels to a minimum of 50 IU/mL for at least 3 days after surgery, and a suggestion against using factor VIII target levels alone.

Minor surgery/invasive procedures

The panelists suggest increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum of 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate with the addition of tranexamic acid over raising VWF levels to at least 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate alone.

In addition, the panelists suggest “giving tranexamic acid alone over increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum threshold of 0.50 IU/mL with any intervention in patients with type 1 VWD with baseline VWF activity levels of 0.30 IU/mL and a mild bleeding phenotype undergoing minor mucosal procedures.”
 

Heavy menstrual bleeding

In women with heavy menstrual bleeding who do not plan to conceive, the panel suggests either combined hormonal therapy or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, or tranexamic acid over desmopressin.

In women who wish to conceive, the panel suggests using tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
 

Neuraxial anesthesia during labor

For women in labor for whom neuraxial anesthesia is considered, the guidelines suggest targeting a VWF activity level from 0.50 to 1.50 IU/mL over targeting a level above 1.50 IU/mL.

Postpartum management

“The guideline panel suggests the use of tranexamic acid over not using it in women with type 1 VWD or low VWF levels (and this may also apply to types 2 and 3 VWD) during the postpartum period,” the guidelines say.

An accompanying good practice statement says that tranexamic acid can be provided orally or intravenously. The oral dose is 25 mg/kg three times daily for 10-14 days, or longer if blood loss remains heavy.

Dr. Flood said that the guidelines were developed under the assumption that they would apply to care of patients in regions with a high or moderately high degree of clinical resources.

“We recognize that this eliminates a great deal of the globe, and our hope is that ASH and the other sponsoring organizations are going to let us revise this and do a version for lower-resourced settings,” she said.

New guidelines issued jointly by four major international hematology groups focus on the management of patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common bleeding disorder in the world.

The evidence-based guidelines, published in Blood Advances, were developed in collaboration by the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. They outline key recommendations spanning the care of patients with a broad range of therapeutic needs.

“We addressed some of the questions that were most important to the community, but certainly there are a lot of areas that we couldn’t cover” said coauthor Veronica H. Flood, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

The guidelines process began with a survey sent to the von Willebrand disease community, including patients, caregivers, nurses, physicians, and scientists. The respondents were asked to prioritize issues that they felt should be addressed in the guidelines.

“Interestingly, some of the issues were the same between patients and caregivers and physicians, and some were different, but there were obviously some areas that we just couldn’t cover,” she said in an interview.

One of the areas of greatest concern for respondents was bleeding in women, and many of the recommendations include specific considerations for management of gynecologic and obstetric patients, Dr. Flood said.

“We also tried to make the questions applicable to as many patients with von Willebrand disease as possible,” she added.

Some of the questions, such as recommendation 1, regarding prophylaxis, are geared toward management of patients with severe disease, while others, such as recommendations for treatment of menstrual bleeding, are more suited for patients with milder VWD.

All of the recommendations in the guidelines are “conditional” (suggested), due to very low certainty in the evidence of effects, the authors noted.
 

Prophylaxis

The guidelines suggest long-term prophylaxis for patients with a history of severe and frequent bleeds, with periodic assessment of the need for prophylaxis.

Desmopressin

For those patients who may benefit from the use of desmopressin, primarily those with type 1 VWD, and who have a baseline von Willebrand factor (VWF) level below 0.30 IU/mL, the panel issued a conditional recommendation for a desmopressin trial with treatment based on the patient’s results compared with not performing a trial and treating with tranexamic acid or factor concentrate. The guidelines also advise against treating with desmopressin in the absence of a trial. In a section of “good practice statements,” the guidelines indicate that using desmopressin in patients with type 2B VWD is generally contraindicated, because of the risk of thrombocytopenia as a result of increased platelet binding. In addition, desmopressin is generally contraindicated in patients with active cardiovascular disease, patients with seizure disorders, patients less than 2 years old, and patients with type 1C VWD in the setting of surgery.

Antithrombotic therapy

The guideline panelists conditionally recommend antithrombotic therapy with either antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, with an emphasis on reassessing bleeding risk throughout the course of treatment.

An accompanying good practice statement calls for individualized assessments of risks and benefits of specific antithrombotic therapies by a multidisciplinary team including hematologists, cardiovascular specialists, and the patient.
 

Major surgery

This section includes a recommendation for targeting both factor VIII and VWF activity levels to a minimum of 50 IU/mL for at least 3 days after surgery, and a suggestion against using factor VIII target levels alone.

Minor surgery/invasive procedures

The panelists suggest increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum of 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate with the addition of tranexamic acid over raising VWF levels to at least 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate alone.

In addition, the panelists suggest “giving tranexamic acid alone over increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum threshold of 0.50 IU/mL with any intervention in patients with type 1 VWD with baseline VWF activity levels of 0.30 IU/mL and a mild bleeding phenotype undergoing minor mucosal procedures.”
 

Heavy menstrual bleeding

In women with heavy menstrual bleeding who do not plan to conceive, the panel suggests either combined hormonal therapy or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, or tranexamic acid over desmopressin.

In women who wish to conceive, the panel suggests using tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
 

Neuraxial anesthesia during labor

For women in labor for whom neuraxial anesthesia is considered, the guidelines suggest targeting a VWF activity level from 0.50 to 1.50 IU/mL over targeting a level above 1.50 IU/mL.

Postpartum management

“The guideline panel suggests the use of tranexamic acid over not using it in women with type 1 VWD or low VWF levels (and this may also apply to types 2 and 3 VWD) during the postpartum period,” the guidelines say.

An accompanying good practice statement says that tranexamic acid can be provided orally or intravenously. The oral dose is 25 mg/kg three times daily for 10-14 days, or longer if blood loss remains heavy.

Dr. Flood said that the guidelines were developed under the assumption that they would apply to care of patients in regions with a high or moderately high degree of clinical resources.

“We recognize that this eliminates a great deal of the globe, and our hope is that ASH and the other sponsoring organizations are going to let us revise this and do a version for lower-resourced settings,” she said.

New guidelines issued jointly by four major international hematology groups focus on the management of patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common bleeding disorder in the world.

The evidence-based guidelines, published in Blood Advances, were developed in collaboration by the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. They outline key recommendations spanning the care of patients with a broad range of therapeutic needs.

“We addressed some of the questions that were most important to the community, but certainly there are a lot of areas that we couldn’t cover” said coauthor Veronica H. Flood, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

The guidelines process began with a survey sent to the von Willebrand disease community, including patients, caregivers, nurses, physicians, and scientists. The respondents were asked to prioritize issues that they felt should be addressed in the guidelines.

“Interestingly, some of the issues were the same between patients and caregivers and physicians, and some were different, but there were obviously some areas that we just couldn’t cover,” she said in an interview.

One of the areas of greatest concern for respondents was bleeding in women, and many of the recommendations include specific considerations for management of gynecologic and obstetric patients, Dr. Flood said.

“We also tried to make the questions applicable to as many patients with von Willebrand disease as possible,” she added.

Some of the questions, such as recommendation 1, regarding prophylaxis, are geared toward management of patients with severe disease, while others, such as recommendations for treatment of menstrual bleeding, are more suited for patients with milder VWD.

All of the recommendations in the guidelines are “conditional” (suggested), due to very low certainty in the evidence of effects, the authors noted.
 

Prophylaxis

The guidelines suggest long-term prophylaxis for patients with a history of severe and frequent bleeds, with periodic assessment of the need for prophylaxis.

Desmopressin

For those patients who may benefit from the use of desmopressin, primarily those with type 1 VWD, and who have a baseline von Willebrand factor (VWF) level below 0.30 IU/mL, the panel issued a conditional recommendation for a desmopressin trial with treatment based on the patient’s results compared with not performing a trial and treating with tranexamic acid or factor concentrate. The guidelines also advise against treating with desmopressin in the absence of a trial. In a section of “good practice statements,” the guidelines indicate that using desmopressin in patients with type 2B VWD is generally contraindicated, because of the risk of thrombocytopenia as a result of increased platelet binding. In addition, desmopressin is generally contraindicated in patients with active cardiovascular disease, patients with seizure disorders, patients less than 2 years old, and patients with type 1C VWD in the setting of surgery.

Antithrombotic therapy

The guideline panelists conditionally recommend antithrombotic therapy with either antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, with an emphasis on reassessing bleeding risk throughout the course of treatment.

An accompanying good practice statement calls for individualized assessments of risks and benefits of specific antithrombotic therapies by a multidisciplinary team including hematologists, cardiovascular specialists, and the patient.
 

Major surgery

This section includes a recommendation for targeting both factor VIII and VWF activity levels to a minimum of 50 IU/mL for at least 3 days after surgery, and a suggestion against using factor VIII target levels alone.

Minor surgery/invasive procedures

The panelists suggest increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum of 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate with the addition of tranexamic acid over raising VWF levels to at least 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate alone.

In addition, the panelists suggest “giving tranexamic acid alone over increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum threshold of 0.50 IU/mL with any intervention in patients with type 1 VWD with baseline VWF activity levels of 0.30 IU/mL and a mild bleeding phenotype undergoing minor mucosal procedures.”
 

Heavy menstrual bleeding

In women with heavy menstrual bleeding who do not plan to conceive, the panel suggests either combined hormonal therapy or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, or tranexamic acid over desmopressin.

In women who wish to conceive, the panel suggests using tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
 

Neuraxial anesthesia during labor

For women in labor for whom neuraxial anesthesia is considered, the guidelines suggest targeting a VWF activity level from 0.50 to 1.50 IU/mL over targeting a level above 1.50 IU/mL.

Postpartum management

“The guideline panel suggests the use of tranexamic acid over not using it in women with type 1 VWD or low VWF levels (and this may also apply to types 2 and 3 VWD) during the postpartum period,” the guidelines say.

An accompanying good practice statement says that tranexamic acid can be provided orally or intravenously. The oral dose is 25 mg/kg three times daily for 10-14 days, or longer if blood loss remains heavy.

Dr. Flood said that the guidelines were developed under the assumption that they would apply to care of patients in regions with a high or moderately high degree of clinical resources.

“We recognize that this eliminates a great deal of the globe, and our hope is that ASH and the other sponsoring organizations are going to let us revise this and do a version for lower-resourced settings,” she said.

For the second year in a row, mortality from cancer has fallen in the United States, driven largely by reductions in the incidence of, and death from, non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in men and women, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society.

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

“Mortality rates are a better indicator of progress against cancer than incidence or survival because they are less affected by biases resulting from changes in detection practices,” wrote the authors, led by Rebecca Siegel, MPH, American Cancer Society, Atlanta.  

“The overall drop of 31% as of 2018 [since the early 1990s] translates to an estimated 3,188,500 fewer cancer deaths (2,170,700 in men and 1,017,800 in women) than what would have occurred if mortality rates had remained at their peak,” the researchers added.

Lung cancer accounted for 46% of the total decline in cancer mortality in the past 5 years, with a record, single-year drop of 2.4% between 2017 and 2018.

The recent and rapid reductions in lung cancer mortality reflect better treatments for NSCLC, the authors suggested. For example, survival rates at 2 years have increased from 34% for patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2009 and 2010 to 42% for those diagnosed during 2015 and 2016 – an absolute gain of 5%-6% in survival odds for every stage of diagnosis.

On a more somber note, the authors warned that COVID-19 is predicted to have a negative impact on both the diagnosis and outcomes of patients with cancer in the near future.  

“We anticipate that disruptions in access to cancer care in 2020 will lead to downstream increases in advanced stage diagnoses that may impede progress in reducing cancer mortality rates in the years to come,” Ms. Siegel said in a statement.
 

New cancer cases

The report provides an estimated number of new cancer cases and deaths in 2021 in the United States (nationally and state-by-state) based on the most current population-based data for cancer incidence through 2017 and for mortality through 2018. “An estimated 608,570 Americans will die from cancer in 2021, corresponding to more than 1600 deaths per day,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues reported.

The greatest number of deaths are predicted to be from the most common cancers: Lung, prostate, and colorectal cancer in men and lung, breast, and colorectal cancer in women, they added. However, the mortality rates for all four cancers are continuing to fall.

As of 2018, the death rate from lung cancer had dropped by 54% among males and by 30% among females over the past few decades, the investigators noted.

Mortality from female breast cancer has dropped by 41% since 1989; by 52% for prostate cancer since 1993; and by 53% and 59% for colorectal cancer for men (since 1980) and women (since 1969), respectively.

“However, in recent years, mortality declines have slowed for breast cancer and [colorectal cancer] and have halted for prostate cancer,” the researchers noted.

In contrast, the pace of the annual decline in lung cancer mortality doubled among men from 3.1% between 2009 and 2013 to 5.5% between 2014 and 2018, and from 1.8% to 4.4% among women during the same time intervals.
 

Increase in incidence at common sites

Despite the steady progress in mortality for most cancers, “rates continue to increase for some common sites,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues reported.

For example, death rates from uterine corpus cancer have accelerated from the late 1990s at twice the pace of the increase in its incidence. Death rates also have increased for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx – although in this cancer, increases in mortality parallel an increase in its incidence. 

“Pancreatic cancer death rates [in turn] continued to increase slowly in men ... but remained stable in women, despite incidence [rates] rising by about 1% per year in both sexes,” the authors observed.

Meanwhile, the incidence of cervical cancer, although declining for decades overall, is increasing for patients who present with more distant-stage disease as well as cervical adenocarcinoma, both of which are often undetected by cytology.

“These findings underscore the need for more targeted efforts to increase both HPV [human papillomavirus] vaccination among all individuals aged [26 and younger] and primary HPV testing or HPV/cytology co-testing every 5 years among women beginning at age 25,” the authors emphasized.

On a more positive note, the long-term increase in mortality from liver cancer has recently slowed among women and has stabilized among men, they added.

Once again, disparities in both cancer occurrence and outcomes varied considerably between racial and ethnic groups. For example, cancer is the leading cause of death in people who are Hispanic, Asian American, and Alaska Native. Survival rates at 5 years for almost all cancers are still higher for White patients than for Black patients, although the disparity in cancer mortality between Black persons and White persons has declined to 13% from a peak of 33% in 1993.

Geographic disparities in cancer mortality rates still prevail; the rates are largest for preventable cancers such as lung and cervical cancer, for which mortality varies by as much as fivefold across states.

And although cancer remains the second most common cause of death among children, death rates from cancer have continuously declined over time among both children and adolescents, largely the result of dramatic declines in death rates from leukemia in both age groups.

The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For the second year in a row, mortality from cancer has fallen in the United States, driven largely by reductions in the incidence of, and death from, non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in men and women, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society.

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

“Mortality rates are a better indicator of progress against cancer than incidence or survival because they are less affected by biases resulting from changes in detection practices,” wrote the authors, led by Rebecca Siegel, MPH, American Cancer Society, Atlanta.  

“The overall drop of 31% as of 2018 [since the early 1990s] translates to an estimated 3,188,500 fewer cancer deaths (2,170,700 in men and 1,017,800 in women) than what would have occurred if mortality rates had remained at their peak,” the researchers added.

Lung cancer accounted for 46% of the total decline in cancer mortality in the past 5 years, with a record, single-year drop of 2.4% between 2017 and 2018.

The recent and rapid reductions in lung cancer mortality reflect better treatments for NSCLC, the authors suggested. For example, survival rates at 2 years have increased from 34% for patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2009 and 2010 to 42% for those diagnosed during 2015 and 2016 – an absolute gain of 5%-6% in survival odds for every stage of diagnosis.

On a more somber note, the authors warned that COVID-19 is predicted to have a negative impact on both the diagnosis and outcomes of patients with cancer in the near future.  

“We anticipate that disruptions in access to cancer care in 2020 will lead to downstream increases in advanced stage diagnoses that may impede progress in reducing cancer mortality rates in the years to come,” Ms. Siegel said in a statement.
 

New cancer cases

The report provides an estimated number of new cancer cases and deaths in 2021 in the United States (nationally and state-by-state) based on the most current population-based data for cancer incidence through 2017 and for mortality through 2018. “An estimated 608,570 Americans will die from cancer in 2021, corresponding to more than 1600 deaths per day,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues reported.

The greatest number of deaths are predicted to be from the most common cancers: Lung, prostate, and colorectal cancer in men and lung, breast, and colorectal cancer in women, they added. However, the mortality rates for all four cancers are continuing to fall.

As of 2018, the death rate from lung cancer had dropped by 54% among males and by 30% among females over the past few decades, the investigators noted.

Mortality from female breast cancer has dropped by 41% since 1989; by 52% for prostate cancer since 1993; and by 53% and 59% for colorectal cancer for men (since 1980) and women (since 1969), respectively.

“However, in recent years, mortality declines have slowed for breast cancer and [colorectal cancer] and have halted for prostate cancer,” the researchers noted.

In contrast, the pace of the annual decline in lung cancer mortality doubled among men from 3.1% between 2009 and 2013 to 5.5% between 2014 and 2018, and from 1.8% to 4.4% among women during the same time intervals.
 

Increase in incidence at common sites

Despite the steady progress in mortality for most cancers, “rates continue to increase for some common sites,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues reported.

For example, death rates from uterine corpus cancer have accelerated from the late 1990s at twice the pace of the increase in its incidence. Death rates also have increased for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx – although in this cancer, increases in mortality parallel an increase in its incidence. 

“Pancreatic cancer death rates [in turn] continued to increase slowly in men ... but remained stable in women, despite incidence [rates] rising by about 1% per year in both sexes,” the authors observed.

Meanwhile, the incidence of cervical cancer, although declining for decades overall, is increasing for patients who present with more distant-stage disease as well as cervical adenocarcinoma, both of which are often undetected by cytology.

“These findings underscore the need for more targeted efforts to increase both HPV [human papillomavirus] vaccination among all individuals aged [26 and younger] and primary HPV testing or HPV/cytology co-testing every 5 years among women beginning at age 25,” the authors emphasized.

On a more positive note, the long-term increase in mortality from liver cancer has recently slowed among women and has stabilized among men, they added.

Once again, disparities in both cancer occurrence and outcomes varied considerably between racial and ethnic groups. For example, cancer is the leading cause of death in people who are Hispanic, Asian American, and Alaska Native. Survival rates at 5 years for almost all cancers are still higher for White patients than for Black patients, although the disparity in cancer mortality between Black persons and White persons has declined to 13% from a peak of 33% in 1993.

Geographic disparities in cancer mortality rates still prevail; the rates are largest for preventable cancers such as lung and cervical cancer, for which mortality varies by as much as fivefold across states.

And although cancer remains the second most common cause of death among children, death rates from cancer have continuously declined over time among both children and adolescents, largely the result of dramatic declines in death rates from leukemia in both age groups.

The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For the second year in a row, mortality from cancer has fallen in the United States, driven largely by reductions in the incidence of, and death from, non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in men and women, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society.

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

“Mortality rates are a better indicator of progress against cancer than incidence or survival because they are less affected by biases resulting from changes in detection practices,” wrote the authors, led by Rebecca Siegel, MPH, American Cancer Society, Atlanta.  

“The overall drop of 31% as of 2018 [since the early 1990s] translates to an estimated 3,188,500 fewer cancer deaths (2,170,700 in men and 1,017,800 in women) than what would have occurred if mortality rates had remained at their peak,” the researchers added.

Lung cancer accounted for 46% of the total decline in cancer mortality in the past 5 years, with a record, single-year drop of 2.4% between 2017 and 2018.

The recent and rapid reductions in lung cancer mortality reflect better treatments for NSCLC, the authors suggested. For example, survival rates at 2 years have increased from 34% for patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2009 and 2010 to 42% for those diagnosed during 2015 and 2016 – an absolute gain of 5%-6% in survival odds for every stage of diagnosis.

On a more somber note, the authors warned that COVID-19 is predicted to have a negative impact on both the diagnosis and outcomes of patients with cancer in the near future.  

“We anticipate that disruptions in access to cancer care in 2020 will lead to downstream increases in advanced stage diagnoses that may impede progress in reducing cancer mortality rates in the years to come,” Ms. Siegel said in a statement.
 

New cancer cases

The report provides an estimated number of new cancer cases and deaths in 2021 in the United States (nationally and state-by-state) based on the most current population-based data for cancer incidence through 2017 and for mortality through 2018. “An estimated 608,570 Americans will die from cancer in 2021, corresponding to more than 1600 deaths per day,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues reported.

The greatest number of deaths are predicted to be from the most common cancers: Lung, prostate, and colorectal cancer in men and lung, breast, and colorectal cancer in women, they added. However, the mortality rates for all four cancers are continuing to fall.

As of 2018, the death rate from lung cancer had dropped by 54% among males and by 30% among females over the past few decades, the investigators noted.

Mortality from female breast cancer has dropped by 41% since 1989; by 52% for prostate cancer since 1993; and by 53% and 59% for colorectal cancer for men (since 1980) and women (since 1969), respectively.

“However, in recent years, mortality declines have slowed for breast cancer and [colorectal cancer] and have halted for prostate cancer,” the researchers noted.

In contrast, the pace of the annual decline in lung cancer mortality doubled among men from 3.1% between 2009 and 2013 to 5.5% between 2014 and 2018, and from 1.8% to 4.4% among women during the same time intervals.
 

Increase in incidence at common sites

Despite the steady progress in mortality for most cancers, “rates continue to increase for some common sites,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues reported.

For example, death rates from uterine corpus cancer have accelerated from the late 1990s at twice the pace of the increase in its incidence. Death rates also have increased for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx – although in this cancer, increases in mortality parallel an increase in its incidence. 

“Pancreatic cancer death rates [in turn] continued to increase slowly in men ... but remained stable in women, despite incidence [rates] rising by about 1% per year in both sexes,” the authors observed.

Meanwhile, the incidence of cervical cancer, although declining for decades overall, is increasing for patients who present with more distant-stage disease as well as cervical adenocarcinoma, both of which are often undetected by cytology.

“These findings underscore the need for more targeted efforts to increase both HPV [human papillomavirus] vaccination among all individuals aged [26 and younger] and primary HPV testing or HPV/cytology co-testing every 5 years among women beginning at age 25,” the authors emphasized.

On a more positive note, the long-term increase in mortality from liver cancer has recently slowed among women and has stabilized among men, they added.

Once again, disparities in both cancer occurrence and outcomes varied considerably between racial and ethnic groups. For example, cancer is the leading cause of death in people who are Hispanic, Asian American, and Alaska Native. Survival rates at 5 years for almost all cancers are still higher for White patients than for Black patients, although the disparity in cancer mortality between Black persons and White persons has declined to 13% from a peak of 33% in 1993.

Geographic disparities in cancer mortality rates still prevail; the rates are largest for preventable cancers such as lung and cervical cancer, for which mortality varies by as much as fivefold across states.

And although cancer remains the second most common cause of death among children, death rates from cancer have continuously declined over time among both children and adolescents, largely the result of dramatic declines in death rates from leukemia in both age groups.

The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A combination of biomarkers identifies patients with luminal early breast cancer who can safely skip chemotherapy after surgery, results from the ADAPT HR+/HER2– trial suggest.

The findings were reported at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“In early luminal breast cancer, optimal patient selection for omission of adjuvant chemotherapy, particularly in patients with one to three involved lymph nodes, is still unclear,” noted principal investigator Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, of the University of Munich.

Successive trials have used nodal status, genomic risk scores, and response to preoperative therapy to home in on subsets of women for whom this practice is safe.

The ADAPT HR+/HER2– trial is a phase 3 trial that enrolled 5,625 patients with luminal (hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative) early breast cancer who were candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy based on conventional criteria.

The trial combined a static biomarker – Oncotype Dx recurrence score (RS) in the baseline core biopsy – and a dynamic biomarker – Ki-67 response to a 3-week course of preoperative endocrine therapy – to personalize adjuvant therapy.

At SABCS 2020, Dr. Harbeck reported results for 2,290 patients having zero to three involved lymph nodes: 868 patients with RS 0-11 and 1,422 patients with RS 12-25 who had a response to brief preoperative endocrine therapy (a Ki-67 fraction ≤10% at surgery). All were treated with endocrine therapy alone as adjuvant therapy.
 

Similar outcomes

The median follow-up was 60 months. The 5-year rate of invasive disease–free survival was 93.9% for the group with RS 0-11 and 92.6% for the group with RS 12-25 and a response to the preoperative endocrine therapy.

The study met its primary endpoint, as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference between groups of –3.3% fell just within the predefined margin of –3.3% or less for noninferiority (P = .05).

The groups also had similarly “excellent” distant disease–free survival (96.3% for RS 0-11 and 95.6% for RS 12-25; P = .247) and overall survival (98.0% for RS 0-11 and 97.3% for RS 12-25; P = .160), Dr. Harbeck reported.

The similar distant disease–free survival was consistent regardless of whether women were younger or older than 50 years and regardless of whether women had involved nodes or not.

In multivariate analysis, women had greater risk of distant disease–free survival events if they had three positive lymph nodes versus zero to two (hazard ratio, 3.40) or a pathologic T stage of 2-4 versus 0-1 (HR, 2.24), whereas risk fell with increasing baseline progesterone receptor expression (HR, 0.92).

“Neither patient age nor study arm were prognostic factors for patient outcome,” Dr. Harbeck noted.

In stratified analysis, the negative impact of having three positive nodes was seen only in the group with RS 12-25 and response to preoperative endocrine therapy, suggesting this subgroup may not be good candidates for omission of chemotherapy, she said.
 

Applying results to practice

“In luminal early breast cancer, the following patients – irrespective of their age – can safely be treated by endocrine therapy alone: patients with zero to three involved lymph nodes and recurrence score 0-11, and those with limited nodal burden (zero to two lymph nodes), recurrence score 12-25, and endocrine response after short preoperative endocrine therapy,” Dr. Harbeck summarized.

“Oncotype Dx testing can spare chemotherapy for the majority of patients with up to three involved lymph nodes. Dynamic Ki-67 response testing is feasible in clinical routine and complements baseline risk assessment to define patient selection for therapy deescalation or escalation,” she added.

The investigators have used the trial’s data to develop an algorithm for predicting the probability of response to short-course preoperative endocrine therapy that is available free of charge online (www.enrep.info).

“This may support everyday clinical decision-making in luminal early breast cancer; for example, whether to start a short period of preoperative endocrine therapy at all, and whether to rely on adjuvant endocrine therapy alone, but also in times like these, whether it’s safe to delay surgery by putting patients on prolonged preoperative endocrine therapy if surgical resources are scarce,” Dr. Harbeck commented.

Her clinic is now recruiting patients for the ADAPT Cycle trial, which is testing an endocrine-based approach with a CDK4/6 inhibitor versus chemotherapy in patients who are not candidates for adjuvant endocrine therapy alone. Therefore, all eligible patients receive the short course of endocrine therapy up front as the standard.

“But if you don’t have a trial, what are you going to do on Monday morning? Please let your patient know whether her tumor is endocrine responsive by doing this 3-week preoperative endocrine therapy,” Dr. Harbeck recommended. “It’s easy to do, you can schedule your surgeries better, and in patients with up to three lymph nodes, it helps with your decision-making, not just in the postmenopausal patients but also in the premenopausal patients, regarding whether they can forgo chemotherapy.”

Findings in context

More than 75% of ADAPT patients with RS 12-25 had a response to short-course endocrine therapy, noted invited discussant Lajos Pusztai, MD, DPhil, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Conn.

“This implies that the endocrine challenge is not informative for most patients,” he said, adding that a related question is whether the 25% of patients who did not have a response and were therefore given chemotherapy benefited from that therapy.

Dr. Pusztai cautioned that, among patients in the group with RS 12-25 who had a response to preoperative endocrine therapy, certain subgroups were fairly or very small: those aged 50 years or younger (330 patients) and those with two or three positive nodes (75 and 22 patients, respectively).

And collective findings of the similar but much larger TAILORx trial and RxPONDER trial (also reported at SABCS 2020) do suggest a benefit of chemotherapy in younger women, regardless of the number of positive nodes.

“Selection of [estrogen receptor]–positive patients with zero to three lymph nodes for adjuvant chemotherapy currently should be based on age and baseline recurrence score or a similar validated molecular assay,” Dr. Pusztai recommended. “TAILORx results guide us in regard to the use of the recurrence score in node-negative patients with a recurrence score of less than 26, and the recently presented RxPONDER results provide evidence for the use of recurrence score in patients with one to three positive nodes with a recurrence score in the range of 0-26. Both of these trials showed benefit in younger women from adjuvant chemotherapy.”

The ADAPT trial was sponsored by Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Celgene, Bayer, Teva, and Amgen. Dr. Harbeck disclosed relationships with Agendia, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Samsung, Sandoz, and Seattle Genetics. Dr. Pusztai disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Athenex, Almac, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Biotheranostics, Clovis, Daiichi, Eisai, Genentech, H2Bio, H3 Biomedicine, Immunomedics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pieris, Radius Health, Syndax, and Seattle Genetics,.

A combination of biomarkers identifies patients with luminal early breast cancer who can safely skip chemotherapy after surgery, results from the ADAPT HR+/HER2– trial suggest.

The findings were reported at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“In early luminal breast cancer, optimal patient selection for omission of adjuvant chemotherapy, particularly in patients with one to three involved lymph nodes, is still unclear,” noted principal investigator Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, of the University of Munich.

Successive trials have used nodal status, genomic risk scores, and response to preoperative therapy to home in on subsets of women for whom this practice is safe.

The ADAPT HR+/HER2– trial is a phase 3 trial that enrolled 5,625 patients with luminal (hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative) early breast cancer who were candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy based on conventional criteria.

The trial combined a static biomarker – Oncotype Dx recurrence score (RS) in the baseline core biopsy – and a dynamic biomarker – Ki-67 response to a 3-week course of preoperative endocrine therapy – to personalize adjuvant therapy.

At SABCS 2020, Dr. Harbeck reported results for 2,290 patients having zero to three involved lymph nodes: 868 patients with RS 0-11 and 1,422 patients with RS 12-25 who had a response to brief preoperative endocrine therapy (a Ki-67 fraction ≤10% at surgery). All were treated with endocrine therapy alone as adjuvant therapy.
 

Similar outcomes

The median follow-up was 60 months. The 5-year rate of invasive disease–free survival was 93.9% for the group with RS 0-11 and 92.6% for the group with RS 12-25 and a response to the preoperative endocrine therapy.

The study met its primary endpoint, as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference between groups of –3.3% fell just within the predefined margin of –3.3% or less for noninferiority (P = .05).

The groups also had similarly “excellent” distant disease–free survival (96.3% for RS 0-11 and 95.6% for RS 12-25; P = .247) and overall survival (98.0% for RS 0-11 and 97.3% for RS 12-25; P = .160), Dr. Harbeck reported.

The similar distant disease–free survival was consistent regardless of whether women were younger or older than 50 years and regardless of whether women had involved nodes or not.

In multivariate analysis, women had greater risk of distant disease–free survival events if they had three positive lymph nodes versus zero to two (hazard ratio, 3.40) or a pathologic T stage of 2-4 versus 0-1 (HR, 2.24), whereas risk fell with increasing baseline progesterone receptor expression (HR, 0.92).

“Neither patient age nor study arm were prognostic factors for patient outcome,” Dr. Harbeck noted.

In stratified analysis, the negative impact of having three positive nodes was seen only in the group with RS 12-25 and response to preoperative endocrine therapy, suggesting this subgroup may not be good candidates for omission of chemotherapy, she said.
 

Applying results to practice

“In luminal early breast cancer, the following patients – irrespective of their age – can safely be treated by endocrine therapy alone: patients with zero to three involved lymph nodes and recurrence score 0-11, and those with limited nodal burden (zero to two lymph nodes), recurrence score 12-25, and endocrine response after short preoperative endocrine therapy,” Dr. Harbeck summarized.

“Oncotype Dx testing can spare chemotherapy for the majority of patients with up to three involved lymph nodes. Dynamic Ki-67 response testing is feasible in clinical routine and complements baseline risk assessment to define patient selection for therapy deescalation or escalation,” she added.

The investigators have used the trial’s data to develop an algorithm for predicting the probability of response to short-course preoperative endocrine therapy that is available free of charge online (www.enrep.info).

“This may support everyday clinical decision-making in luminal early breast cancer; for example, whether to start a short period of preoperative endocrine therapy at all, and whether to rely on adjuvant endocrine therapy alone, but also in times like these, whether it’s safe to delay surgery by putting patients on prolonged preoperative endocrine therapy if surgical resources are scarce,” Dr. Harbeck commented.

Her clinic is now recruiting patients for the ADAPT Cycle trial, which is testing an endocrine-based approach with a CDK4/6 inhibitor versus chemotherapy in patients who are not candidates for adjuvant endocrine therapy alone. Therefore, all eligible patients receive the short course of endocrine therapy up front as the standard.

“But if you don’t have a trial, what are you going to do on Monday morning? Please let your patient know whether her tumor is endocrine responsive by doing this 3-week preoperative endocrine therapy,” Dr. Harbeck recommended. “It’s easy to do, you can schedule your surgeries better, and in patients with up to three lymph nodes, it helps with your decision-making, not just in the postmenopausal patients but also in the premenopausal patients, regarding whether they can forgo chemotherapy.”

Findings in context

More than 75% of ADAPT patients with RS 12-25 had a response to short-course endocrine therapy, noted invited discussant Lajos Pusztai, MD, DPhil, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Conn.

“This implies that the endocrine challenge is not informative for most patients,” he said, adding that a related question is whether the 25% of patients who did not have a response and were therefore given chemotherapy benefited from that therapy.

Dr. Pusztai cautioned that, among patients in the group with RS 12-25 who had a response to preoperative endocrine therapy, certain subgroups were fairly or very small: those aged 50 years or younger (330 patients) and those with two or three positive nodes (75 and 22 patients, respectively).

And collective findings of the similar but much larger TAILORx trial and RxPONDER trial (also reported at SABCS 2020) do suggest a benefit of chemotherapy in younger women, regardless of the number of positive nodes.

“Selection of [estrogen receptor]–positive patients with zero to three lymph nodes for adjuvant chemotherapy currently should be based on age and baseline recurrence score or a similar validated molecular assay,” Dr. Pusztai recommended. “TAILORx results guide us in regard to the use of the recurrence score in node-negative patients with a recurrence score of less than 26, and the recently presented RxPONDER results provide evidence for the use of recurrence score in patients with one to three positive nodes with a recurrence score in the range of 0-26. Both of these trials showed benefit in younger women from adjuvant chemotherapy.”

The ADAPT trial was sponsored by Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Celgene, Bayer, Teva, and Amgen. Dr. Harbeck disclosed relationships with Agendia, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Samsung, Sandoz, and Seattle Genetics. Dr. Pusztai disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Athenex, Almac, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Biotheranostics, Clovis, Daiichi, Eisai, Genentech, H2Bio, H3 Biomedicine, Immunomedics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pieris, Radius Health, Syndax, and Seattle Genetics,.

A combination of biomarkers identifies patients with luminal early breast cancer who can safely skip chemotherapy after surgery, results from the ADAPT HR+/HER2– trial suggest.

The findings were reported at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

“In early luminal breast cancer, optimal patient selection for omission of adjuvant chemotherapy, particularly in patients with one to three involved lymph nodes, is still unclear,” noted principal investigator Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, of the University of Munich.

Successive trials have used nodal status, genomic risk scores, and response to preoperative therapy to home in on subsets of women for whom this practice is safe.

The ADAPT HR+/HER2– trial is a phase 3 trial that enrolled 5,625 patients with luminal (hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative) early breast cancer who were candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy based on conventional criteria.

The trial combined a static biomarker – Oncotype Dx recurrence score (RS) in the baseline core biopsy – and a dynamic biomarker – Ki-67 response to a 3-week course of preoperative endocrine therapy – to personalize adjuvant therapy.

At SABCS 2020, Dr. Harbeck reported results for 2,290 patients having zero to three involved lymph nodes: 868 patients with RS 0-11 and 1,422 patients with RS 12-25 who had a response to brief preoperative endocrine therapy (a Ki-67 fraction ≤10% at surgery). All were treated with endocrine therapy alone as adjuvant therapy.
 

Similar outcomes

The median follow-up was 60 months. The 5-year rate of invasive disease–free survival was 93.9% for the group with RS 0-11 and 92.6% for the group with RS 12-25 and a response to the preoperative endocrine therapy.

The study met its primary endpoint, as the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference between groups of –3.3% fell just within the predefined margin of –3.3% or less for noninferiority (P = .05).

The groups also had similarly “excellent” distant disease–free survival (96.3% for RS 0-11 and 95.6% for RS 12-25; P = .247) and overall survival (98.0% for RS 0-11 and 97.3% for RS 12-25; P = .160), Dr. Harbeck reported.

The similar distant disease–free survival was consistent regardless of whether women were younger or older than 50 years and regardless of whether women had involved nodes or not.

In multivariate analysis, women had greater risk of distant disease–free survival events if they had three positive lymph nodes versus zero to two (hazard ratio, 3.40) or a pathologic T stage of 2-4 versus 0-1 (HR, 2.24), whereas risk fell with increasing baseline progesterone receptor expression (HR, 0.92).

“Neither patient age nor study arm were prognostic factors for patient outcome,” Dr. Harbeck noted.

In stratified analysis, the negative impact of having three positive nodes was seen only in the group with RS 12-25 and response to preoperative endocrine therapy, suggesting this subgroup may not be good candidates for omission of chemotherapy, she said.
 

Applying results to practice

“In luminal early breast cancer, the following patients – irrespective of their age – can safely be treated by endocrine therapy alone: patients with zero to three involved lymph nodes and recurrence score 0-11, and those with limited nodal burden (zero to two lymph nodes), recurrence score 12-25, and endocrine response after short preoperative endocrine therapy,” Dr. Harbeck summarized.

“Oncotype Dx testing can spare chemotherapy for the majority of patients with up to three involved lymph nodes. Dynamic Ki-67 response testing is feasible in clinical routine and complements baseline risk assessment to define patient selection for therapy deescalation or escalation,” she added.

The investigators have used the trial’s data to develop an algorithm for predicting the probability of response to short-course preoperative endocrine therapy that is available free of charge online (www.enrep.info).

“This may support everyday clinical decision-making in luminal early breast cancer; for example, whether to start a short period of preoperative endocrine therapy at all, and whether to rely on adjuvant endocrine therapy alone, but also in times like these, whether it’s safe to delay surgery by putting patients on prolonged preoperative endocrine therapy if surgical resources are scarce,” Dr. Harbeck commented.

Her clinic is now recruiting patients for the ADAPT Cycle trial, which is testing an endocrine-based approach with a CDK4/6 inhibitor versus chemotherapy in patients who are not candidates for adjuvant endocrine therapy alone. Therefore, all eligible patients receive the short course of endocrine therapy up front as the standard.

“But if you don’t have a trial, what are you going to do on Monday morning? Please let your patient know whether her tumor is endocrine responsive by doing this 3-week preoperative endocrine therapy,” Dr. Harbeck recommended. “It’s easy to do, you can schedule your surgeries better, and in patients with up to three lymph nodes, it helps with your decision-making, not just in the postmenopausal patients but also in the premenopausal patients, regarding whether they can forgo chemotherapy.”

Findings in context

More than 75% of ADAPT patients with RS 12-25 had a response to short-course endocrine therapy, noted invited discussant Lajos Pusztai, MD, DPhil, of the Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Conn.

“This implies that the endocrine challenge is not informative for most patients,” he said, adding that a related question is whether the 25% of patients who did not have a response and were therefore given chemotherapy benefited from that therapy.

Dr. Pusztai cautioned that, among patients in the group with RS 12-25 who had a response to preoperative endocrine therapy, certain subgroups were fairly or very small: those aged 50 years or younger (330 patients) and those with two or three positive nodes (75 and 22 patients, respectively).

And collective findings of the similar but much larger TAILORx trial and RxPONDER trial (also reported at SABCS 2020) do suggest a benefit of chemotherapy in younger women, regardless of the number of positive nodes.

“Selection of [estrogen receptor]–positive patients with zero to three lymph nodes for adjuvant chemotherapy currently should be based on age and baseline recurrence score or a similar validated molecular assay,” Dr. Pusztai recommended. “TAILORx results guide us in regard to the use of the recurrence score in node-negative patients with a recurrence score of less than 26, and the recently presented RxPONDER results provide evidence for the use of recurrence score in patients with one to three positive nodes with a recurrence score in the range of 0-26. Both of these trials showed benefit in younger women from adjuvant chemotherapy.”

The ADAPT trial was sponsored by Roche, Genomic Health/Exact Sciences, Celgene, Bayer, Teva, and Amgen. Dr. Harbeck disclosed relationships with Agendia, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Odonate Therapeutics, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech, Samsung, Sandoz, and Seattle Genetics. Dr. Pusztai disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Athenex, Almac, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Biotheranostics, Clovis, Daiichi, Eisai, Genentech, H2Bio, H3 Biomedicine, Immunomedics, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pieris, Radius Health, Syndax, and Seattle Genetics,.

Patients with cancer, particularly those with solid tumors, mounted an immune response to COVID-19 similar to that seen in people without cancer, but among patients with hematologic cancers, immune responses were less pronounced and were highly variable, typically taking longer to clear the virus.

The findings come from a small U.K. study published online Jan. 4 in Cancer Cell as a fast-track preprint article.

The findings may have implications for vaccinating against COVID-19, said the researchers, led by Sheeba Irshad, MD, PhD, a Cancer Research UK clinician scientist based at King’s College London.

“Our study provides some confidence and reassurance to care providers that many of our patients with solid cancers will mount a good immune response against the virus, develop antibodies that last, and hopefully resume their cancer treatment as soon as possible,” Dr. Irshad said in a statement.

“These conclusions imply that many patients, despite being on immunosuppressive therapies, will respond satisfactorily to COVID-19 vaccines,” she added.

Although “the data would suggest that solid cancer patients are likely to mount an efficient immune response to the vaccine ... the same cannot be said for hematological cancers, especially those with B-cell malignancies,” Dr. Irshad said in an interview.

“They may be susceptible to persistent infection despite developing antibodies, so the next stage of our study will focus on monitoring their response to the vaccines.

“At present, the best way to protect them alongside vaccinating them may be to vaccinate all their health care providers and carers to achieve herd immunity and continue to respect the public health measures put in place,” such as wearing a mask, practicing social distancing, and testing asymptomatic persons, she commented.
 

Study details

This study, known as the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients study, involved 76 patients with cancer; 41 of these patients had COVID-19, and 35 served as non-COVID cancer control patients.

Peripheral blood was collected from all patients; multiple samples were taken every 2-4 days where possible.

The COVID-19 and control groups were matched for age, body mass index, and tumor type, and both groups included patients with solid and hematologic cancers.

The groups were also comparable in terms of the proportion of patients with stage IV disease, those who received palliative as opposed to radical treatment, and patients who were treated within 4 weeks of recruitment to the study.

The results showed that 24.4% of cancer patients who were exposed to COVID-19 remained asymptomatic, 21.9% had mild disease, 31.7% had moderate disease, and 21.9% had severe disease.

Patients with hematologic cancers were more likely to experience dyspnea than those with solid tumors, and 39% received corticosteroid/antiviral therapies that specifically targeted COVID-19 infection.

The median duration of virus shedding was 39 days across the whole cohort. It was notably longer among patients with hematologic cancers, at a median of 55 days versus 29 days for patients with solid tumors.

Of 46 patients who survived beyond 30 days and for whom complete data were available, the team found that those with moderate or severe COVID-19 were more likely to be diagnosed with progressive cancer at their next assessment in comparison with those who were asymptomatic with COVID-19 or with control patients.

Solid-cancer patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had sustained lymphopenia and increased neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios up to days 40-49 of the infection, whereas among those with mild infection, clinical blood parameters were typically in the normal range.

Although overall blood profiles of patients with hematologic cancers were similar to those of patients with solid cancers, the trajectories between mild and moderate/severe COVID-19 overlapped, and there was a large degree of heterogeneity between patients.

The team also reports that among patients with solid tumors, all parameters returned to values that were close to baseline 4-6 weeks after the patients tested negative for COVID-19 on nasopharyngeal swabbing; by contrast, many of the patients with hematologic cancers experienced ongoing immune dysregulation.

Further analysis revealed differences in immune signatures between patients with solid cancers who had active SARS-CoV-2 infection and noninfected control patients. The former showed, for example, interleukin-8, IL-6, and IL-10, IP-10 enrichment.

In contrast, there were few differences between infected and noninfected hematologic cancer patients.

Across both cohorts, approximately 75% of patients had detectable antibodies against COVID-19. Antibodies were sustained for up to 78 days after exposure to the virus.

However, patients with solid tumors showed earlier seroconversion than those with hematologic cancers. The latter had more varied responses to infection, displaying three distinct phenotypes: failure to mount an antibody response, with prolonged viral shedding, even beyond day 50 after the first positive swab; an antibody response but failure to clear the virus; and an antibody response and successful clearing of the virus.

The team noted that overall patients with hematologic cancers showed a mild response to COVID-19 in the active/early phases of the disease and that the response grew stronger over time, similar to the immune changes typically seen with chronic infections.

This was particularly the case for patients with cancers that affect B cells.

The team acknowledged that there are several limitations to the study, including its small sample size and lack of statistical power to detect differences between, for example, different treatment modalities.

“An important question which remains unanswered is if a ‘reinforced’ immune system following immunotherapy results in an under-/overactivation of the immune response” to COVID-19, the investigators commented. They note that one such patient had a good response.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity funds, MRC, Cancer Research UK, program grants from Breast Cancer Now at King’s College London and by grants to the Breast Cancer Now Toby Robin’s Research Center at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and the Wellcome Trust Investigator Award, and is supported by the Cancer Research UK Cancer Immunotherapy Accelerator and the UK COVID-Immunology-Consortium. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with cancer, particularly those with solid tumors, mounted an immune response to COVID-19 similar to that seen in people without cancer, but among patients with hematologic cancers, immune responses were less pronounced and were highly variable, typically taking longer to clear the virus.

The findings come from a small U.K. study published online Jan. 4 in Cancer Cell as a fast-track preprint article.

The findings may have implications for vaccinating against COVID-19, said the researchers, led by Sheeba Irshad, MD, PhD, a Cancer Research UK clinician scientist based at King’s College London.

“Our study provides some confidence and reassurance to care providers that many of our patients with solid cancers will mount a good immune response against the virus, develop antibodies that last, and hopefully resume their cancer treatment as soon as possible,” Dr. Irshad said in a statement.

“These conclusions imply that many patients, despite being on immunosuppressive therapies, will respond satisfactorily to COVID-19 vaccines,” she added.

Although “the data would suggest that solid cancer patients are likely to mount an efficient immune response to the vaccine ... the same cannot be said for hematological cancers, especially those with B-cell malignancies,” Dr. Irshad said in an interview.

“They may be susceptible to persistent infection despite developing antibodies, so the next stage of our study will focus on monitoring their response to the vaccines.

“At present, the best way to protect them alongside vaccinating them may be to vaccinate all their health care providers and carers to achieve herd immunity and continue to respect the public health measures put in place,” such as wearing a mask, practicing social distancing, and testing asymptomatic persons, she commented.
 

Study details

This study, known as the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients study, involved 76 patients with cancer; 41 of these patients had COVID-19, and 35 served as non-COVID cancer control patients.

Peripheral blood was collected from all patients; multiple samples were taken every 2-4 days where possible.

The COVID-19 and control groups were matched for age, body mass index, and tumor type, and both groups included patients with solid and hematologic cancers.

The groups were also comparable in terms of the proportion of patients with stage IV disease, those who received palliative as opposed to radical treatment, and patients who were treated within 4 weeks of recruitment to the study.

The results showed that 24.4% of cancer patients who were exposed to COVID-19 remained asymptomatic, 21.9% had mild disease, 31.7% had moderate disease, and 21.9% had severe disease.

Patients with hematologic cancers were more likely to experience dyspnea than those with solid tumors, and 39% received corticosteroid/antiviral therapies that specifically targeted COVID-19 infection.

The median duration of virus shedding was 39 days across the whole cohort. It was notably longer among patients with hematologic cancers, at a median of 55 days versus 29 days for patients with solid tumors.

Of 46 patients who survived beyond 30 days and for whom complete data were available, the team found that those with moderate or severe COVID-19 were more likely to be diagnosed with progressive cancer at their next assessment in comparison with those who were asymptomatic with COVID-19 or with control patients.

Solid-cancer patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had sustained lymphopenia and increased neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios up to days 40-49 of the infection, whereas among those with mild infection, clinical blood parameters were typically in the normal range.

Although overall blood profiles of patients with hematologic cancers were similar to those of patients with solid cancers, the trajectories between mild and moderate/severe COVID-19 overlapped, and there was a large degree of heterogeneity between patients.

The team also reports that among patients with solid tumors, all parameters returned to values that were close to baseline 4-6 weeks after the patients tested negative for COVID-19 on nasopharyngeal swabbing; by contrast, many of the patients with hematologic cancers experienced ongoing immune dysregulation.

Further analysis revealed differences in immune signatures between patients with solid cancers who had active SARS-CoV-2 infection and noninfected control patients. The former showed, for example, interleukin-8, IL-6, and IL-10, IP-10 enrichment.

In contrast, there were few differences between infected and noninfected hematologic cancer patients.

Across both cohorts, approximately 75% of patients had detectable antibodies against COVID-19. Antibodies were sustained for up to 78 days after exposure to the virus.

However, patients with solid tumors showed earlier seroconversion than those with hematologic cancers. The latter had more varied responses to infection, displaying three distinct phenotypes: failure to mount an antibody response, with prolonged viral shedding, even beyond day 50 after the first positive swab; an antibody response but failure to clear the virus; and an antibody response and successful clearing of the virus.

The team noted that overall patients with hematologic cancers showed a mild response to COVID-19 in the active/early phases of the disease and that the response grew stronger over time, similar to the immune changes typically seen with chronic infections.

This was particularly the case for patients with cancers that affect B cells.

The team acknowledged that there are several limitations to the study, including its small sample size and lack of statistical power to detect differences between, for example, different treatment modalities.

“An important question which remains unanswered is if a ‘reinforced’ immune system following immunotherapy results in an under-/overactivation of the immune response” to COVID-19, the investigators commented. They note that one such patient had a good response.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity funds, MRC, Cancer Research UK, program grants from Breast Cancer Now at King’s College London and by grants to the Breast Cancer Now Toby Robin’s Research Center at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and the Wellcome Trust Investigator Award, and is supported by the Cancer Research UK Cancer Immunotherapy Accelerator and the UK COVID-Immunology-Consortium. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with cancer, particularly those with solid tumors, mounted an immune response to COVID-19 similar to that seen in people without cancer, but among patients with hematologic cancers, immune responses were less pronounced and were highly variable, typically taking longer to clear the virus.

The findings come from a small U.K. study published online Jan. 4 in Cancer Cell as a fast-track preprint article.

The findings may have implications for vaccinating against COVID-19, said the researchers, led by Sheeba Irshad, MD, PhD, a Cancer Research UK clinician scientist based at King’s College London.

“Our study provides some confidence and reassurance to care providers that many of our patients with solid cancers will mount a good immune response against the virus, develop antibodies that last, and hopefully resume their cancer treatment as soon as possible,” Dr. Irshad said in a statement.

“These conclusions imply that many patients, despite being on immunosuppressive therapies, will respond satisfactorily to COVID-19 vaccines,” she added.

Although “the data would suggest that solid cancer patients are likely to mount an efficient immune response to the vaccine ... the same cannot be said for hematological cancers, especially those with B-cell malignancies,” Dr. Irshad said in an interview.

“They may be susceptible to persistent infection despite developing antibodies, so the next stage of our study will focus on monitoring their response to the vaccines.

“At present, the best way to protect them alongside vaccinating them may be to vaccinate all their health care providers and carers to achieve herd immunity and continue to respect the public health measures put in place,” such as wearing a mask, practicing social distancing, and testing asymptomatic persons, she commented.
 

Study details

This study, known as the SARS-CoV-2 for Cancer Patients study, involved 76 patients with cancer; 41 of these patients had COVID-19, and 35 served as non-COVID cancer control patients.

Peripheral blood was collected from all patients; multiple samples were taken every 2-4 days where possible.

The COVID-19 and control groups were matched for age, body mass index, and tumor type, and both groups included patients with solid and hematologic cancers.

The groups were also comparable in terms of the proportion of patients with stage IV disease, those who received palliative as opposed to radical treatment, and patients who were treated within 4 weeks of recruitment to the study.

The results showed that 24.4% of cancer patients who were exposed to COVID-19 remained asymptomatic, 21.9% had mild disease, 31.7% had moderate disease, and 21.9% had severe disease.

Patients with hematologic cancers were more likely to experience dyspnea than those with solid tumors, and 39% received corticosteroid/antiviral therapies that specifically targeted COVID-19 infection.

The median duration of virus shedding was 39 days across the whole cohort. It was notably longer among patients with hematologic cancers, at a median of 55 days versus 29 days for patients with solid tumors.

Of 46 patients who survived beyond 30 days and for whom complete data were available, the team found that those with moderate or severe COVID-19 were more likely to be diagnosed with progressive cancer at their next assessment in comparison with those who were asymptomatic with COVID-19 or with control patients.

Solid-cancer patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 had sustained lymphopenia and increased neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios up to days 40-49 of the infection, whereas among those with mild infection, clinical blood parameters were typically in the normal range.

Although overall blood profiles of patients with hematologic cancers were similar to those of patients with solid cancers, the trajectories between mild and moderate/severe COVID-19 overlapped, and there was a large degree of heterogeneity between patients.

The team also reports that among patients with solid tumors, all parameters returned to values that were close to baseline 4-6 weeks after the patients tested negative for COVID-19 on nasopharyngeal swabbing; by contrast, many of the patients with hematologic cancers experienced ongoing immune dysregulation.

Further analysis revealed differences in immune signatures between patients with solid cancers who had active SARS-CoV-2 infection and noninfected control patients. The former showed, for example, interleukin-8, IL-6, and IL-10, IP-10 enrichment.

In contrast, there were few differences between infected and noninfected hematologic cancer patients.

Across both cohorts, approximately 75% of patients had detectable antibodies against COVID-19. Antibodies were sustained for up to 78 days after exposure to the virus.

However, patients with solid tumors showed earlier seroconversion than those with hematologic cancers. The latter had more varied responses to infection, displaying three distinct phenotypes: failure to mount an antibody response, with prolonged viral shedding, even beyond day 50 after the first positive swab; an antibody response but failure to clear the virus; and an antibody response and successful clearing of the virus.

The team noted that overall patients with hematologic cancers showed a mild response to COVID-19 in the active/early phases of the disease and that the response grew stronger over time, similar to the immune changes typically seen with chronic infections.

This was particularly the case for patients with cancers that affect B cells.

The team acknowledged that there are several limitations to the study, including its small sample size and lack of statistical power to detect differences between, for example, different treatment modalities.

“An important question which remains unanswered is if a ‘reinforced’ immune system following immunotherapy results in an under-/overactivation of the immune response” to COVID-19, the investigators commented. They note that one such patient had a good response.

The SOAP study is sponsored by King’s College London and Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Foundation NHS Trust. It is funded from grants from the KCL Charity funds, MRC, Cancer Research UK, program grants from Breast Cancer Now at King’s College London and by grants to the Breast Cancer Now Toby Robin’s Research Center at the Institute of Cancer Research, London, and the Wellcome Trust Investigator Award, and is supported by the Cancer Research UK Cancer Immunotherapy Accelerator and the UK COVID-Immunology-Consortium. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is no question that COVID-19 infection increases the risks of serious thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism (PE), but it also increases the risk of bleeding, complicating the benefit-to-risk calculations for anticoagulation, according to a review of data at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.

“Bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity in patients with COVID-19, and this is an important concept to appreciate,” reported Rachel P. Rosovsky, MD, director of thrombosis research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

At least five guidelines, including those issued by the American College of Cardiology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), and the American College of Chest Physicians, have recently addressed anticoagulation in patients infected with COVID-19, but there are “substantive differences” between them, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason is that they are essentially no high quality trials to guide practice. Rather, the recommendations are based primarily on retrospective studies and expert opinion.

The single most common theme from the guidelines is that anticoagulation must be individualized to balance patient-specific risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding, said Dr. Rosovsky, whose group published a recent comparison of these guidelines (Flaczyk A et al. Crit Care 2020;24:559).

Although there is general consensus that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive anticoagulation unless there are contraindications, there are differences in the recommended intensity of the anticoagulation for different risk groups and there is even less is less consensus on the need to anticoagulate outpatients or patients after discharge, according to Dr. Rosovsky

In her own center, the standard is a prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in an algorithm that calls for dose adjustments for some groups such as those with renal impairment or obesity. Alternative forms of anticoagulation are recommended for patients with a history of thrombocytopenia or are at high risk for hemorrhage. Full dose LMWH is recommended in patients already on an oral anticoagulant at time of hospitalization.

“The biggest question right now is when to consider increasing from a prophylactic dose to intermediate or full dose anticoagulation in high risk patients, especially those in the ICU patients,” Dr. Rosovsky said.

Current practices are diverse, according to a recently published survey led by Dr. Rosovsky (Rosovsky RP et al. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020;4:969-83). According to the survey, which had responses from more than 500 physicians in 41 countries, 30% of centers escalate from a prophylactic dose of anticoagulation to an intermediate dose when patients move to the ICU. Although not all answered this question, 25% reported that they do not escalate at ICU transfer. For 15% of respondents, dose escalation is being offered to patients with a D-dimer exceeding six-times the upper limit of normal.

These practices have developed in the absence of prospective clinical trials, which are urgently needed, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason that trials specific to COVID-19 are particularly important is that this infection also engenders a high risk of major bleeding.

For example, in a multicenter retrospective study of 400 hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients the rates of major bleeding was 4.8% or exactly the same as the rate of radiographically confirmed VTE. At 7.6%, the rates of VTE and major bleeding were also exactly the same for ICU patients (Al-Samkari H et al. Blood 2020;136:489-500).

“An elevated D-dimer was a marker for both VTE and major bleeding,” reported Dr. Rosovsky, who was the senior author of this study. On the basis of odds ratio (OR), the risk of VTE was increased more than six-fold (OR, 6.79) and the risk of major bleeding by more than three-fold (OR, 3.56) when the D-dimer exceeded 2,500 ng/mL.

The risk of VTE from COVID-19 infection is well documented. For example, autopsy studies have shown widespread thrombosis, including PE, in patients who have died from COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Rosovsky.

There is also evidence of benefit from anticoagulation. In an retrospective study from China undertaken early in the pandemic, there was no overall mortality benefit at 28 days among those who did receive LMWH when compared to those who did not, but there was a 20% absolute mortality benefit (52.4% vs. 32.8%; P = .017) in those with a D-dimer six-fold ULN (Tang N et al. J Thromb Haemost 2020;18:1094-9).

These types of data support the use of anticoagulation to manage VTE risk in at least some patients, but the reported rates of VTE across institutions and across inpatient and outpatient settings have varied “dramatically,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. The balance of VTE and major bleeding is delicate. In one retrospective study, the mortality advantage for therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of LMWH did not reach statistical significance, but the rate of major bleeding was nearly doubled (3.0% vs. 1.7%) (Nadkarni GN et al J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:1815-26).

Because of the many variables that might affect risk of VTE and risk of major bleeding in any individual patient, the benefit-to-risk calculation of anticoagulation is “complex,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. It is for this reason she urged clinicians to consider entering patients into clinical trials designed to generate evidence-based answers.

There is large and growing body of retrospective data that have helped characterize the risk of VTE and bleeding in patients with COVID-19, but “there is no substitute for a well-controlled clinical trial,” agreed Robert A. Harrington, MD, chairman of the department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

He and the comoderator of the session in which these data were presented agreed that anticoagulation must be administered within a narrow therapeutic window that will be best defined through controlled trial designs.

“There is a significant risk of doing harm,” said Fatima Rodriguez, MD, assistant professor of cardiology at Stanford University. She seconded the critical role of trial participation when possible and the need for clinical trials to better guide treatment decisions.

The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

There is no question that COVID-19 infection increases the risks of serious thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism (PE), but it also increases the risk of bleeding, complicating the benefit-to-risk calculations for anticoagulation, according to a review of data at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.

“Bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity in patients with COVID-19, and this is an important concept to appreciate,” reported Rachel P. Rosovsky, MD, director of thrombosis research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

At least five guidelines, including those issued by the American College of Cardiology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), and the American College of Chest Physicians, have recently addressed anticoagulation in patients infected with COVID-19, but there are “substantive differences” between them, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason is that they are essentially no high quality trials to guide practice. Rather, the recommendations are based primarily on retrospective studies and expert opinion.

The single most common theme from the guidelines is that anticoagulation must be individualized to balance patient-specific risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding, said Dr. Rosovsky, whose group published a recent comparison of these guidelines (Flaczyk A et al. Crit Care 2020;24:559).

Although there is general consensus that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive anticoagulation unless there are contraindications, there are differences in the recommended intensity of the anticoagulation for different risk groups and there is even less is less consensus on the need to anticoagulate outpatients or patients after discharge, according to Dr. Rosovsky

In her own center, the standard is a prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in an algorithm that calls for dose adjustments for some groups such as those with renal impairment or obesity. Alternative forms of anticoagulation are recommended for patients with a history of thrombocytopenia or are at high risk for hemorrhage. Full dose LMWH is recommended in patients already on an oral anticoagulant at time of hospitalization.

“The biggest question right now is when to consider increasing from a prophylactic dose to intermediate or full dose anticoagulation in high risk patients, especially those in the ICU patients,” Dr. Rosovsky said.

Current practices are diverse, according to a recently published survey led by Dr. Rosovsky (Rosovsky RP et al. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020;4:969-83). According to the survey, which had responses from more than 500 physicians in 41 countries, 30% of centers escalate from a prophylactic dose of anticoagulation to an intermediate dose when patients move to the ICU. Although not all answered this question, 25% reported that they do not escalate at ICU transfer. For 15% of respondents, dose escalation is being offered to patients with a D-dimer exceeding six-times the upper limit of normal.

These practices have developed in the absence of prospective clinical trials, which are urgently needed, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason that trials specific to COVID-19 are particularly important is that this infection also engenders a high risk of major bleeding.

For example, in a multicenter retrospective study of 400 hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients the rates of major bleeding was 4.8% or exactly the same as the rate of radiographically confirmed VTE. At 7.6%, the rates of VTE and major bleeding were also exactly the same for ICU patients (Al-Samkari H et al. Blood 2020;136:489-500).

“An elevated D-dimer was a marker for both VTE and major bleeding,” reported Dr. Rosovsky, who was the senior author of this study. On the basis of odds ratio (OR), the risk of VTE was increased more than six-fold (OR, 6.79) and the risk of major bleeding by more than three-fold (OR, 3.56) when the D-dimer exceeded 2,500 ng/mL.

The risk of VTE from COVID-19 infection is well documented. For example, autopsy studies have shown widespread thrombosis, including PE, in patients who have died from COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Rosovsky.

There is also evidence of benefit from anticoagulation. In an retrospective study from China undertaken early in the pandemic, there was no overall mortality benefit at 28 days among those who did receive LMWH when compared to those who did not, but there was a 20% absolute mortality benefit (52.4% vs. 32.8%; P = .017) in those with a D-dimer six-fold ULN (Tang N et al. J Thromb Haemost 2020;18:1094-9).

These types of data support the use of anticoagulation to manage VTE risk in at least some patients, but the reported rates of VTE across institutions and across inpatient and outpatient settings have varied “dramatically,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. The balance of VTE and major bleeding is delicate. In one retrospective study, the mortality advantage for therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of LMWH did not reach statistical significance, but the rate of major bleeding was nearly doubled (3.0% vs. 1.7%) (Nadkarni GN et al J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:1815-26).

Because of the many variables that might affect risk of VTE and risk of major bleeding in any individual patient, the benefit-to-risk calculation of anticoagulation is “complex,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. It is for this reason she urged clinicians to consider entering patients into clinical trials designed to generate evidence-based answers.

There is large and growing body of retrospective data that have helped characterize the risk of VTE and bleeding in patients with COVID-19, but “there is no substitute for a well-controlled clinical trial,” agreed Robert A. Harrington, MD, chairman of the department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

He and the comoderator of the session in which these data were presented agreed that anticoagulation must be administered within a narrow therapeutic window that will be best defined through controlled trial designs.

“There is a significant risk of doing harm,” said Fatima Rodriguez, MD, assistant professor of cardiology at Stanford University. She seconded the critical role of trial participation when possible and the need for clinical trials to better guide treatment decisions.

The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

There is no question that COVID-19 infection increases the risks of serious thromboembolic events, including pulmonary embolism (PE), but it also increases the risk of bleeding, complicating the benefit-to-risk calculations for anticoagulation, according to a review of data at the virtual Going Back to the Heart of Cardiology meeting.

“Bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity in patients with COVID-19, and this is an important concept to appreciate,” reported Rachel P. Rosovsky, MD, director of thrombosis research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

At least five guidelines, including those issued by the American College of Cardiology, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), and the American College of Chest Physicians, have recently addressed anticoagulation in patients infected with COVID-19, but there are “substantive differences” between them, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason is that they are essentially no high quality trials to guide practice. Rather, the recommendations are based primarily on retrospective studies and expert opinion.

The single most common theme from the guidelines is that anticoagulation must be individualized to balance patient-specific risks of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding, said Dr. Rosovsky, whose group published a recent comparison of these guidelines (Flaczyk A et al. Crit Care 2020;24:559).

Although there is general consensus that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive anticoagulation unless there are contraindications, there are differences in the recommended intensity of the anticoagulation for different risk groups and there is even less is less consensus on the need to anticoagulate outpatients or patients after discharge, according to Dr. Rosovsky

In her own center, the standard is a prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in an algorithm that calls for dose adjustments for some groups such as those with renal impairment or obesity. Alternative forms of anticoagulation are recommended for patients with a history of thrombocytopenia or are at high risk for hemorrhage. Full dose LMWH is recommended in patients already on an oral anticoagulant at time of hospitalization.

“The biggest question right now is when to consider increasing from a prophylactic dose to intermediate or full dose anticoagulation in high risk patients, especially those in the ICU patients,” Dr. Rosovsky said.

Current practices are diverse, according to a recently published survey led by Dr. Rosovsky (Rosovsky RP et al. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020;4:969-83). According to the survey, which had responses from more than 500 physicians in 41 countries, 30% of centers escalate from a prophylactic dose of anticoagulation to an intermediate dose when patients move to the ICU. Although not all answered this question, 25% reported that they do not escalate at ICU transfer. For 15% of respondents, dose escalation is being offered to patients with a D-dimer exceeding six-times the upper limit of normal.

These practices have developed in the absence of prospective clinical trials, which are urgently needed, according to Dr. Rosovsky. The reason that trials specific to COVID-19 are particularly important is that this infection also engenders a high risk of major bleeding.

For example, in a multicenter retrospective study of 400 hospital-admitted COVID-19 patients the rates of major bleeding was 4.8% or exactly the same as the rate of radiographically confirmed VTE. At 7.6%, the rates of VTE and major bleeding were also exactly the same for ICU patients (Al-Samkari H et al. Blood 2020;136:489-500).

“An elevated D-dimer was a marker for both VTE and major bleeding,” reported Dr. Rosovsky, who was the senior author of this study. On the basis of odds ratio (OR), the risk of VTE was increased more than six-fold (OR, 6.79) and the risk of major bleeding by more than three-fold (OR, 3.56) when the D-dimer exceeded 2,500 ng/mL.

The risk of VTE from COVID-19 infection is well documented. For example, autopsy studies have shown widespread thrombosis, including PE, in patients who have died from COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Rosovsky.

There is also evidence of benefit from anticoagulation. In an retrospective study from China undertaken early in the pandemic, there was no overall mortality benefit at 28 days among those who did receive LMWH when compared to those who did not, but there was a 20% absolute mortality benefit (52.4% vs. 32.8%; P = .017) in those with a D-dimer six-fold ULN (Tang N et al. J Thromb Haemost 2020;18:1094-9).

These types of data support the use of anticoagulation to manage VTE risk in at least some patients, but the reported rates of VTE across institutions and across inpatient and outpatient settings have varied “dramatically,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. The balance of VTE and major bleeding is delicate. In one retrospective study, the mortality advantage for therapeutic versus prophylactic dose of LMWH did not reach statistical significance, but the rate of major bleeding was nearly doubled (3.0% vs. 1.7%) (Nadkarni GN et al J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:1815-26).

Because of the many variables that might affect risk of VTE and risk of major bleeding in any individual patient, the benefit-to-risk calculation of anticoagulation is “complex,” according to Dr. Rosovsky. It is for this reason she urged clinicians to consider entering patients into clinical trials designed to generate evidence-based answers.

There is large and growing body of retrospective data that have helped characterize the risk of VTE and bleeding in patients with COVID-19, but “there is no substitute for a well-controlled clinical trial,” agreed Robert A. Harrington, MD, chairman of the department of medicine, Stanford (Calif.) University.

He and the comoderator of the session in which these data were presented agreed that anticoagulation must be administered within a narrow therapeutic window that will be best defined through controlled trial designs.

“There is a significant risk of doing harm,” said Fatima Rodriguez, MD, assistant professor of cardiology at Stanford University. She seconded the critical role of trial participation when possible and the need for clinical trials to better guide treatment decisions.

The meeting was sponsored by MedscapeLive. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

The real strength of the 4T score for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is its negative predictive value, according to hematologist Adam Cuker, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The score assigns patients points based on degree of thrombocytopenia, timing of platelet count fall in relation to heparin exposure, presence of thrombosis and other sequelae, and the likelihood of other causes of thrombocytopenia.

A low score – 3 points or less – has a negative predictive value of 99.8%, “so HIT is basically ruled out; you do not need to order lab testing for HIT or manage the patient empirically for HIT,” and should look for other causes of thrombocytopenia, said Dr. Cuker, lead author of the American Society of Hematology’s most recent HIT guidelines.

Intermediate scores of 4 or 5 points, and high scores of 6-8 points, are a different story. The positive predictive value of an intermediate score is only 14%, and of a high score, 64%, so although they don’t confirm the diagnosis, “you have to take the possibility of HIT seriously.” Discontinue heparin, start a nonheparin anticoagulant, and order a HIT immunoassay. If it’s positive, order a functional assay to confirm the diagnosis, he said.

Suspicion of HIT “is perhaps the most common consult that we get on the hematology service. These are tough consults because it is a high-stakes decision.” There is about a 6% risk of thromboembolism, amputation, and death for every day treatment is delayed. “On the other hand, the nonheparin anticoagulants are expensive, and they carry about a 1% daily risk of major bleeding,” Dr. Cuker explained during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.

ELISA immunoassay detects antiplatelet factor 4 heparin antibodies but doesn’t tell whether or not they are able to activate platelets and cause HIT. Functional tests such as the serotonin-release assay detect only those antibodies able to do so, but the assays are difficult to perform, and often require samples to be sent out to a reference lab.

ASH did not specify a particular nonheparin anticoagulant in its 2018 guidelines because “the best choice for your patient” depends on which drugs you have available, your familiarity with them, and patient factors, Dr. Cuker said at the conference sponsored by MedscapeLive.

It makes sense, for instance, to use a short-acting agent such as argatroban or bivalirudin in patients who are critically ill, at high risk of bleeding, or likely to need an urgent unplanned procedure. Fondaparinux or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) make sense if patients are clinically stable with good organ function and no more than average bleeding risk, because they are easier to administer and facilitate transition to the outpatient setting.

DOACs are newcomers to ASH’s guidelines. Just 81 patients had been reported in the literature when they were being drafted, but only 2 patients had recurrence or progression of thromboembolic events, and there were no major bleeds. The results compared favorably with other options.

The studies were subject to selection and reporting biases, “but, nonetheless, the panel felt the results were positive enough that DOACs ought to be listed as an option,” Dr. Cuker said.

The guidelines note that parenteral options may be the best choice for life- or limb-threatening thrombosis “because few such patients have been treated with a DOAC.” Anticoagulation must continue until platelet counts recover.

Dr. Cuker is a consultant for Synergy and has institutional research support from Alexion, Bayer, Sanofi, and other companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

The real strength of the 4T score for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is its negative predictive value, according to hematologist Adam Cuker, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The score assigns patients points based on degree of thrombocytopenia, timing of platelet count fall in relation to heparin exposure, presence of thrombosis and other sequelae, and the likelihood of other causes of thrombocytopenia.

A low score – 3 points or less – has a negative predictive value of 99.8%, “so HIT is basically ruled out; you do not need to order lab testing for HIT or manage the patient empirically for HIT,” and should look for other causes of thrombocytopenia, said Dr. Cuker, lead author of the American Society of Hematology’s most recent HIT guidelines.

Intermediate scores of 4 or 5 points, and high scores of 6-8 points, are a different story. The positive predictive value of an intermediate score is only 14%, and of a high score, 64%, so although they don’t confirm the diagnosis, “you have to take the possibility of HIT seriously.” Discontinue heparin, start a nonheparin anticoagulant, and order a HIT immunoassay. If it’s positive, order a functional assay to confirm the diagnosis, he said.

Suspicion of HIT “is perhaps the most common consult that we get on the hematology service. These are tough consults because it is a high-stakes decision.” There is about a 6% risk of thromboembolism, amputation, and death for every day treatment is delayed. “On the other hand, the nonheparin anticoagulants are expensive, and they carry about a 1% daily risk of major bleeding,” Dr. Cuker explained during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.

ELISA immunoassay detects antiplatelet factor 4 heparin antibodies but doesn’t tell whether or not they are able to activate platelets and cause HIT. Functional tests such as the serotonin-release assay detect only those antibodies able to do so, but the assays are difficult to perform, and often require samples to be sent out to a reference lab.

ASH did not specify a particular nonheparin anticoagulant in its 2018 guidelines because “the best choice for your patient” depends on which drugs you have available, your familiarity with them, and patient factors, Dr. Cuker said at the conference sponsored by MedscapeLive.

It makes sense, for instance, to use a short-acting agent such as argatroban or bivalirudin in patients who are critically ill, at high risk of bleeding, or likely to need an urgent unplanned procedure. Fondaparinux or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) make sense if patients are clinically stable with good organ function and no more than average bleeding risk, because they are easier to administer and facilitate transition to the outpatient setting.

DOACs are newcomers to ASH’s guidelines. Just 81 patients had been reported in the literature when they were being drafted, but only 2 patients had recurrence or progression of thromboembolic events, and there were no major bleeds. The results compared favorably with other options.

The studies were subject to selection and reporting biases, “but, nonetheless, the panel felt the results were positive enough that DOACs ought to be listed as an option,” Dr. Cuker said.

The guidelines note that parenteral options may be the best choice for life- or limb-threatening thrombosis “because few such patients have been treated with a DOAC.” Anticoagulation must continue until platelet counts recover.

Dr. Cuker is a consultant for Synergy and has institutional research support from Alexion, Bayer, Sanofi, and other companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

The real strength of the 4T score for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is its negative predictive value, according to hematologist Adam Cuker, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The score assigns patients points based on degree of thrombocytopenia, timing of platelet count fall in relation to heparin exposure, presence of thrombosis and other sequelae, and the likelihood of other causes of thrombocytopenia.

A low score – 3 points or less – has a negative predictive value of 99.8%, “so HIT is basically ruled out; you do not need to order lab testing for HIT or manage the patient empirically for HIT,” and should look for other causes of thrombocytopenia, said Dr. Cuker, lead author of the American Society of Hematology’s most recent HIT guidelines.

Intermediate scores of 4 or 5 points, and high scores of 6-8 points, are a different story. The positive predictive value of an intermediate score is only 14%, and of a high score, 64%, so although they don’t confirm the diagnosis, “you have to take the possibility of HIT seriously.” Discontinue heparin, start a nonheparin anticoagulant, and order a HIT immunoassay. If it’s positive, order a functional assay to confirm the diagnosis, he said.

Suspicion of HIT “is perhaps the most common consult that we get on the hematology service. These are tough consults because it is a high-stakes decision.” There is about a 6% risk of thromboembolism, amputation, and death for every day treatment is delayed. “On the other hand, the nonheparin anticoagulants are expensive, and they carry about a 1% daily risk of major bleeding,” Dr. Cuker explained during his presentation at the 2020 Update in Nonneoplastic Hematology virtual conference.

ELISA immunoassay detects antiplatelet factor 4 heparin antibodies but doesn’t tell whether or not they are able to activate platelets and cause HIT. Functional tests such as the serotonin-release assay detect only those antibodies able to do so, but the assays are difficult to perform, and often require samples to be sent out to a reference lab.

ASH did not specify a particular nonheparin anticoagulant in its 2018 guidelines because “the best choice for your patient” depends on which drugs you have available, your familiarity with them, and patient factors, Dr. Cuker said at the conference sponsored by MedscapeLive.

It makes sense, for instance, to use a short-acting agent such as argatroban or bivalirudin in patients who are critically ill, at high risk of bleeding, or likely to need an urgent unplanned procedure. Fondaparinux or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) make sense if patients are clinically stable with good organ function and no more than average bleeding risk, because they are easier to administer and facilitate transition to the outpatient setting.

DOACs are newcomers to ASH’s guidelines. Just 81 patients had been reported in the literature when they were being drafted, but only 2 patients had recurrence or progression of thromboembolic events, and there were no major bleeds. The results compared favorably with other options.

The studies were subject to selection and reporting biases, “but, nonetheless, the panel felt the results were positive enough that DOACs ought to be listed as an option,” Dr. Cuker said.

The guidelines note that parenteral options may be the best choice for life- or limb-threatening thrombosis “because few such patients have been treated with a DOAC.” Anticoagulation must continue until platelet counts recover.

Dr. Cuker is a consultant for Synergy and has institutional research support from Alexion, Bayer, Sanofi, and other companies. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Having oral sex with more than 10 previous partners was associated with a 4.3 times’ greater likelihood of developing human papillomavirus (HPV)–related oropharyngeal cancer, according to new findings.

The study also found that having more partners in a shorter period (i.e., greater oral sex intensity) and starting oral sex at a younger age were associated with higher odds of having HPV-related cancer of the mouth and throat.

The new study, published online on Jan. 11 in Cancer, confirms previous findings and adds more nuance, say the researchers.

Previous studies have demonstrated that oral sex is a strong risk factor for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer, which has increased in incidence in recent decades, particularly cancer of the base of the tongue and palatine and lingual tonsils.

“Our research adds more nuance in our understanding of how people acquire oral HPV infection and HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer,” said study author Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. “It suggests that risk of infection is not only from the number of oral sexual partners but that the timing and type of partner also influence risk.”

The results of the study do not change the clinical care or screening of patients, Dr. D’Souza noted, but the study does add context for patients and providers in understanding, “Why did I get HPV-oropharyngeal cancer?” she said.

“We know that people who develop HPV-oropharyngeal cancer have a wide range of sexual histories, but we do not suggest sexual history be used for screening, as many patients have low-risk sexual histories,” she said. “By chance, it only takes one partner who is infected to acquire the infection, while others who have had many partners by chance do not get exposed, or who are exposed but clear the infection.”
 

Reinforces the need for vaccination

Approached for comment, Joseph Califano, MD, physician-in-chief at the Moores Cancer Center and director of the Head and Neck Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego, noted that similar data have been published before. The novelty here is in the timing and intensity of oral sex. “It’s not new data, but it certainly reinforces what we knew,” he said in an interview.

These new data are not going to change monitoring, he suggested. “It’s not going to change how we screen, because we don’t do population-based screening for oropharyngeal cancer,” Dr. Califano said.

“It does underline the fact that vaccination is really the key to preventing HPV-mediated cancers,” he said.

He pointed out that some data show lower rates of high-risk oral HPV shedding by children who have been appropriately vaccinated.

“This paper really highlights the fact we need to get people vaccinated early, before sexual debut,” he said. “In this case, sexual debut doesn’t necessarily mean intercourse but oral sex, and that’s a different concept of when sex starts.”

These new data “reinforce the fact that early exposure is what we need to focus on,” he said.
 

Details of the new findings

The current study by Dr. D’Souza and colleagues included 163 patients with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer who were enrolled in the Papillomavirus Role in Oral Cancer Viral Etiology (PROVE) study. These patients were compared with 345 matched control persons.

All participants completed a behavioral survey and provided a blood sample. For the patients with cancer, a tumor sample was obtained.

The majority of participants were male (85% and 82%), were aged 50-69 years, were currently married or living with a partner, and identified as heterosexual. Case patients were more likely to report a history of sexually transmitted infection than were control participants (P = .003).

Case patients were more likely to have ever performed oral sex compared to control persons (98.8% vs 90.4%; P < .001) and to have performed oral sex at the time of their sexual debut (33.3% of case patients vs 21.4% of control persons; P = .004; odds ratio [OR], 1.8).

Significantly more case patients than control persons reported starting oral sex before they were 18 years old (37.4% of cases vs. 22.6% of controls; P < .001; OR, 3.1), and they had a greater number of lifetime oral sex partners (44.8% of cases and 19.1% of controls reported having more than 10 partners; P < .001; OR, 4.3).

Intensity of oral sexual exposure, which the authors measured by number of partners per 10 years, was also significantly higher among cases than controls (30.8% vs 11.1%; P < .001; OR, 5.6).

After adjustment for confounders (such as the lifetime number of oral sex partners and tobacco use), ever performing oral sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.4), early age of first oral sex encounter (20 years: aOR, 1.8), and oral sex intensity (aOR, 2.8) all remained significantly associated with increased odds of HPV-oropharyngeal cancer.

The type of sexual partner, such as partners who were older (OR, 1.7) and having a partner who engaged in extramarital sex (OR, 1.6), were also associated with increased odds of developing HPV-oropharyngeal cancer. In addition, seropositivity for antibodies to HPV16 E6 (OR, 286) and any HPV16 E protein (E1, E2, E6, E7; OR, 163) were also associated with increased odds of developing the disease.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Califano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Having oral sex with more than 10 previous partners was associated with a 4.3 times’ greater likelihood of developing human papillomavirus (HPV)–related oropharyngeal cancer, according to new findings.

The study also found that having more partners in a shorter period (i.e., greater oral sex intensity) and starting oral sex at a younger age were associated with higher odds of having HPV-related cancer of the mouth and throat.

The new study, published online on Jan. 11 in Cancer, confirms previous findings and adds more nuance, say the researchers.

Previous studies have demonstrated that oral sex is a strong risk factor for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer, which has increased in incidence in recent decades, particularly cancer of the base of the tongue and palatine and lingual tonsils.

“Our research adds more nuance in our understanding of how people acquire oral HPV infection and HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer,” said study author Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. “It suggests that risk of infection is not only from the number of oral sexual partners but that the timing and type of partner also influence risk.”

The results of the study do not change the clinical care or screening of patients, Dr. D’Souza noted, but the study does add context for patients and providers in understanding, “Why did I get HPV-oropharyngeal cancer?” she said.

“We know that people who develop HPV-oropharyngeal cancer have a wide range of sexual histories, but we do not suggest sexual history be used for screening, as many patients have low-risk sexual histories,” she said. “By chance, it only takes one partner who is infected to acquire the infection, while others who have had many partners by chance do not get exposed, or who are exposed but clear the infection.”
 

Reinforces the need for vaccination

Approached for comment, Joseph Califano, MD, physician-in-chief at the Moores Cancer Center and director of the Head and Neck Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego, noted that similar data have been published before. The novelty here is in the timing and intensity of oral sex. “It’s not new data, but it certainly reinforces what we knew,” he said in an interview.

These new data are not going to change monitoring, he suggested. “It’s not going to change how we screen, because we don’t do population-based screening for oropharyngeal cancer,” Dr. Califano said.

“It does underline the fact that vaccination is really the key to preventing HPV-mediated cancers,” he said.

He pointed out that some data show lower rates of high-risk oral HPV shedding by children who have been appropriately vaccinated.

“This paper really highlights the fact we need to get people vaccinated early, before sexual debut,” he said. “In this case, sexual debut doesn’t necessarily mean intercourse but oral sex, and that’s a different concept of when sex starts.”

These new data “reinforce the fact that early exposure is what we need to focus on,” he said.
 

Details of the new findings

The current study by Dr. D’Souza and colleagues included 163 patients with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer who were enrolled in the Papillomavirus Role in Oral Cancer Viral Etiology (PROVE) study. These patients were compared with 345 matched control persons.

All participants completed a behavioral survey and provided a blood sample. For the patients with cancer, a tumor sample was obtained.

The majority of participants were male (85% and 82%), were aged 50-69 years, were currently married or living with a partner, and identified as heterosexual. Case patients were more likely to report a history of sexually transmitted infection than were control participants (P = .003).

Case patients were more likely to have ever performed oral sex compared to control persons (98.8% vs 90.4%; P < .001) and to have performed oral sex at the time of their sexual debut (33.3% of case patients vs 21.4% of control persons; P = .004; odds ratio [OR], 1.8).

Significantly more case patients than control persons reported starting oral sex before they were 18 years old (37.4% of cases vs. 22.6% of controls; P < .001; OR, 3.1), and they had a greater number of lifetime oral sex partners (44.8% of cases and 19.1% of controls reported having more than 10 partners; P < .001; OR, 4.3).

Intensity of oral sexual exposure, which the authors measured by number of partners per 10 years, was also significantly higher among cases than controls (30.8% vs 11.1%; P < .001; OR, 5.6).

After adjustment for confounders (such as the lifetime number of oral sex partners and tobacco use), ever performing oral sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.4), early age of first oral sex encounter (20 years: aOR, 1.8), and oral sex intensity (aOR, 2.8) all remained significantly associated with increased odds of HPV-oropharyngeal cancer.

The type of sexual partner, such as partners who were older (OR, 1.7) and having a partner who engaged in extramarital sex (OR, 1.6), were also associated with increased odds of developing HPV-oropharyngeal cancer. In addition, seropositivity for antibodies to HPV16 E6 (OR, 286) and any HPV16 E protein (E1, E2, E6, E7; OR, 163) were also associated with increased odds of developing the disease.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Califano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Having oral sex with more than 10 previous partners was associated with a 4.3 times’ greater likelihood of developing human papillomavirus (HPV)–related oropharyngeal cancer, according to new findings.

The study also found that having more partners in a shorter period (i.e., greater oral sex intensity) and starting oral sex at a younger age were associated with higher odds of having HPV-related cancer of the mouth and throat.

The new study, published online on Jan. 11 in Cancer, confirms previous findings and adds more nuance, say the researchers.

Previous studies have demonstrated that oral sex is a strong risk factor for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer, which has increased in incidence in recent decades, particularly cancer of the base of the tongue and palatine and lingual tonsils.

“Our research adds more nuance in our understanding of how people acquire oral HPV infection and HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer,” said study author Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. “It suggests that risk of infection is not only from the number of oral sexual partners but that the timing and type of partner also influence risk.”

The results of the study do not change the clinical care or screening of patients, Dr. D’Souza noted, but the study does add context for patients and providers in understanding, “Why did I get HPV-oropharyngeal cancer?” she said.

“We know that people who develop HPV-oropharyngeal cancer have a wide range of sexual histories, but we do not suggest sexual history be used for screening, as many patients have low-risk sexual histories,” she said. “By chance, it only takes one partner who is infected to acquire the infection, while others who have had many partners by chance do not get exposed, or who are exposed but clear the infection.”
 

Reinforces the need for vaccination

Approached for comment, Joseph Califano, MD, physician-in-chief at the Moores Cancer Center and director of the Head and Neck Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego, noted that similar data have been published before. The novelty here is in the timing and intensity of oral sex. “It’s not new data, but it certainly reinforces what we knew,” he said in an interview.

These new data are not going to change monitoring, he suggested. “It’s not going to change how we screen, because we don’t do population-based screening for oropharyngeal cancer,” Dr. Califano said.

“It does underline the fact that vaccination is really the key to preventing HPV-mediated cancers,” he said.

He pointed out that some data show lower rates of high-risk oral HPV shedding by children who have been appropriately vaccinated.

“This paper really highlights the fact we need to get people vaccinated early, before sexual debut,” he said. “In this case, sexual debut doesn’t necessarily mean intercourse but oral sex, and that’s a different concept of when sex starts.”

These new data “reinforce the fact that early exposure is what we need to focus on,” he said.
 

Details of the new findings

The current study by Dr. D’Souza and colleagues included 163 patients with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer who were enrolled in the Papillomavirus Role in Oral Cancer Viral Etiology (PROVE) study. These patients were compared with 345 matched control persons.

All participants completed a behavioral survey and provided a blood sample. For the patients with cancer, a tumor sample was obtained.

The majority of participants were male (85% and 82%), were aged 50-69 years, were currently married or living with a partner, and identified as heterosexual. Case patients were more likely to report a history of sexually transmitted infection than were control participants (P = .003).

Case patients were more likely to have ever performed oral sex compared to control persons (98.8% vs 90.4%; P < .001) and to have performed oral sex at the time of their sexual debut (33.3% of case patients vs 21.4% of control persons; P = .004; odds ratio [OR], 1.8).

Significantly more case patients than control persons reported starting oral sex before they were 18 years old (37.4% of cases vs. 22.6% of controls; P < .001; OR, 3.1), and they had a greater number of lifetime oral sex partners (44.8% of cases and 19.1% of controls reported having more than 10 partners; P < .001; OR, 4.3).

Intensity of oral sexual exposure, which the authors measured by number of partners per 10 years, was also significantly higher among cases than controls (30.8% vs 11.1%; P < .001; OR, 5.6).

After adjustment for confounders (such as the lifetime number of oral sex partners and tobacco use), ever performing oral sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.4), early age of first oral sex encounter (20 years: aOR, 1.8), and oral sex intensity (aOR, 2.8) all remained significantly associated with increased odds of HPV-oropharyngeal cancer.

The type of sexual partner, such as partners who were older (OR, 1.7) and having a partner who engaged in extramarital sex (OR, 1.6), were also associated with increased odds of developing HPV-oropharyngeal cancer. In addition, seropositivity for antibodies to HPV16 E6 (OR, 286) and any HPV16 E protein (E1, E2, E6, E7; OR, 163) were also associated with increased odds of developing the disease.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Califano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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