AVAHO

Several new clinical trials in gynecologic cancers have started enrolling recently. Perhaps one of your patients is eligible to take part?

Persistent or recurrent endometrial cancer or any advanced solid gynecologic tumor with appropriate ATR mutations. Patients with one of these diagnoses may be eligible to join a phase 2, randomized, open-label study of an experimental drug called ART0380. ART0380 inhibits the ability of cancer cells to repair DNA damage by targeting a DNA repair kinase called ATR (ataxia telangiectasia–mutated and Rad3-related) protein, which is faulty in some tumors. The hope is that ART0380 will overwhelm the inadequate DNA repair processes of these cancer cells while sparing the more robust DNA repair in healthy cells. 

All participants in the trial will take daily oral ART0380 until disease progression, withdrawal of consent, or unacceptable toxicity, whichever happens first. Some individuals will receive the treatment for 3 weeks out of every 4. Sites in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and France started recruiting 60 participants with endometrial cancer or any solid tumor in September 2023. The primary outcome is objective response rate. Overall survival is a secondary measure and quality of life (QOL) is not assessed. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

Maurie Markman, MD, president of medicine and science at City of Hope, Atlanta, who is not involved in this trial, explained that because “ a meaningful proportion of this population may have a defect in this DNA repair mechanism,” this hypothesis seems “worthy of clinical exploration.” 

Cancer of the endometrium, cervix, vagina, or vulva. Women with one of these types of cancer who can read and understand English or Spanish can join a randomized, open-label phase 2 trial to determine whether Reiki therapy can reduce pain and distress associated with brachytherapy. 

Reiki is a complementary therapy that involves a Reiki practitioner holding their hands lightly on or above the patient’s body for several minutes. Some hospitals in the US and the UK offer Reiki as a relaxation aid, although high-quality science is lacking.

In this study, one group of participants will each undergo Reiki in a quiet clinic room during the lengthy waiting period between placement of the vaginal cylinder and infusion of the radiation source, which is a time of anxiety and discomfort for many women. A second group of women will simply lie and wait in a clinic room, if desired accompanied by a friend or family member. 

The Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah, started recruiting its 68 participants in October 2023. The primary outcome is self-reported anxiety. The secondary outcomes are other validated measures of anxiety, pain, and depression. Overall survival and broader measures of QOL will not be assessed. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

Dr. Markman said that the benefits of Reiki may be “nothing more than a placebo effect.” But he highlighted the novelty of conducting a randomized trial to scientifically test Reiki’s “widely applied (without any real evidence) ‘integrative medicine’ approach to symptom management.”

Unresectable or metastatic endometrial cancer with deficient mismatch repair /high microsatellite instability. People in this clinical situation whose disease has progressed after one or two lines of prior chemotherapy, including platinum-based treatment, may be interested in an open-label nonrandomized, phase 2 investigation of bispecific antibody acasunlimab in combination with pembrolizumab (Keytruda). 

Acasunlimab stimulates T-cell antitumor activity as well as blocking programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and is being tested in several types of solid-tumor cancer. For up to 2 years, all participants will receive intravenous (IV) infusions of the drug combination. Study sites in Florida and Europe opened in January 2024, ready for 80 participants. The primary outcome is objective response rate. Overall survival will not be assessed. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

“In the absence of a randomized population to compare treatment outcomes, the results of this trial will likely provide limited data upon which to determine the clinical benefits of this novel drug combination strategy,” said Dr. Markman. However, he added, “the results will be helpful in assessing the potential toxicity of this approach.”

Recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer with proficient mismatch repair. Women with this diagnosis who have progressed after one prior platinum chemotherapy regimen in any setting may wish to consider a randomized, triple-blind, phase 2 trial of pembrolizumab plus favezelimab. Favezelimab, which blocks the lymphocyte activation gene 3 (LAG3), appears to boost the antitumor activity of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibition in other cancers such as classic Hodgkin lymphoma. 

In the trial, participants will be assigned to one of four groups. One group will receive 17 doses of the combination treatment IV every 3 weeks — three doses in the neoadjuvant period and 14 as adjuvant therapy. A second group of individuals will receive IV pembrolizumab monotherapy on the same schedule. A third will be given up to 35 doses of the combo therapy every 3 weeks plus a daily capsule of lenvatinib (Lenvima). The fourth group will receive 35 doses of pembrolizumab plus daily lenvatinib. 

Sites in North Carolina, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and four countries other than the US started recruiting 60 participants with a solid tumor in September 2023. Pathologic complete response and objective response rate are the primary endpoints. Overall survival over approximately 3.5 years is a secondary endpoint, and QOL will not be measured. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

Unresectable advanced or metastatic HER2-positive endometrial or ovarian cancer. Adults with one of these diagnoses in whom failed platinum-based therapy has failed may enroll in an open-label, phase 2 study to see whether their disease will respond to the antibody-drug conjugate disitamab vedotin. Everyone in the trial will receive IV disitamab vedotin every 2 weeks for up to approximately 5 years. 

Study sites in California, Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Canada began welcoming their 190 participants with one of a range of solid cancers in November 2023. The primary outcome is objective response rate. Overall survival is a secondary measure and QOL will not be tracked. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

High-risk locally advanced cervical cancer. Girls and women older than 14 years with this cancer that has not progressed after platinum-based chemoradiation are sought for a randomized, quadruple-blind, phase 3 trial to determine whether the investigational immunotherapy volrustomig can slow disease progression. Volrustomig targets PD-1 and cytotoxic T lymphocyte protein 4 (CTLA4) and is being tested in a wide range of solid cancers. 

For approximately 3 years or until disease progression or death, whichever happens first, half of participants will receive IV infusions of volrustomig while the others will receive saline. Asian research sites started seeking the study’s 1000 participants in September 2023, while centers in 12 US states and eight other countries are gearing up for patient enrollment. Progression-free survival in participants with PD-L1 expression is the primary endpoint; overall survival and QOL are secondary endpoints. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at ClinicalTrials.gov). Dr. Markman declared he is not involved with these trials.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Several new clinical trials in gynecologic cancers have started enrolling recently. Perhaps one of your patients is eligible to take part?

Persistent or recurrent endometrial cancer or any advanced solid gynecologic tumor with appropriate ATR mutations. Patients with one of these diagnoses may be eligible to join a phase 2, randomized, open-label study of an experimental drug called ART0380. ART0380 inhibits the ability of cancer cells to repair DNA damage by targeting a DNA repair kinase called ATR (ataxia telangiectasia–mutated and Rad3-related) protein, which is faulty in some tumors. The hope is that ART0380 will overwhelm the inadequate DNA repair processes of these cancer cells while sparing the more robust DNA repair in healthy cells. 

All participants in the trial will take daily oral ART0380 until disease progression, withdrawal of consent, or unacceptable toxicity, whichever happens first. Some individuals will receive the treatment for 3 weeks out of every 4. Sites in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and France started recruiting 60 participants with endometrial cancer or any solid tumor in September 2023. The primary outcome is objective response rate. Overall survival is a secondary measure and quality of life (QOL) is not assessed. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

Maurie Markman, MD, president of medicine and science at City of Hope, Atlanta, who is not involved in this trial, explained that because “ a meaningful proportion of this population may have a defect in this DNA repair mechanism,” this hypothesis seems “worthy of clinical exploration.” 

Cancer of the endometrium, cervix, vagina, or vulva. Women with one of these types of cancer who can read and understand English or Spanish can join a randomized, open-label phase 2 trial to determine whether Reiki therapy can reduce pain and distress associated with brachytherapy. 

Reiki is a complementary therapy that involves a Reiki practitioner holding their hands lightly on or above the patient’s body for several minutes. Some hospitals in the US and the UK offer Reiki as a relaxation aid, although high-quality science is lacking.

In this study, one group of participants will each undergo Reiki in a quiet clinic room during the lengthy waiting period between placement of the vaginal cylinder and infusion of the radiation source, which is a time of anxiety and discomfort for many women. A second group of women will simply lie and wait in a clinic room, if desired accompanied by a friend or family member. 

The Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah, started recruiting its 68 participants in October 2023. The primary outcome is self-reported anxiety. The secondary outcomes are other validated measures of anxiety, pain, and depression. Overall survival and broader measures of QOL will not be assessed. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

Dr. Markman said that the benefits of Reiki may be “nothing more than a placebo effect.” But he highlighted the novelty of conducting a randomized trial to scientifically test Reiki’s “widely applied (without any real evidence) ‘integrative medicine’ approach to symptom management.”

Unresectable or metastatic endometrial cancer with deficient mismatch repair /high microsatellite instability. People in this clinical situation whose disease has progressed after one or two lines of prior chemotherapy, including platinum-based treatment, may be interested in an open-label nonrandomized, phase 2 investigation of bispecific antibody acasunlimab in combination with pembrolizumab (Keytruda). 

Acasunlimab stimulates T-cell antitumor activity as well as blocking programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and is being tested in several types of solid-tumor cancer. For up to 2 years, all participants will receive intravenous (IV) infusions of the drug combination. Study sites in Florida and Europe opened in January 2024, ready for 80 participants. The primary outcome is objective response rate. Overall survival will not be assessed. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

“In the absence of a randomized population to compare treatment outcomes, the results of this trial will likely provide limited data upon which to determine the clinical benefits of this novel drug combination strategy,” said Dr. Markman. However, he added, “the results will be helpful in assessing the potential toxicity of this approach.”

Recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer with proficient mismatch repair. Women with this diagnosis who have progressed after one prior platinum chemotherapy regimen in any setting may wish to consider a randomized, triple-blind, phase 2 trial of pembrolizumab plus favezelimab. Favezelimab, which blocks the lymphocyte activation gene 3 (LAG3), appears to boost the antitumor activity of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibition in other cancers such as classic Hodgkin lymphoma. 

In the trial, participants will be assigned to one of four groups. One group will receive 17 doses of the combination treatment IV every 3 weeks — three doses in the neoadjuvant period and 14 as adjuvant therapy. A second group of individuals will receive IV pembrolizumab monotherapy on the same schedule. A third will be given up to 35 doses of the combo therapy every 3 weeks plus a daily capsule of lenvatinib (Lenvima). The fourth group will receive 35 doses of pembrolizumab plus daily lenvatinib. 

Sites in North Carolina, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and four countries other than the US started recruiting 60 participants with a solid tumor in September 2023. Pathologic complete response and objective response rate are the primary endpoints. Overall survival over approximately 3.5 years is a secondary endpoint, and QOL will not be measured. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

Unresectable advanced or metastatic HER2-positive endometrial or ovarian cancer. Adults with one of these diagnoses in whom failed platinum-based therapy has failed may enroll in an open-label, phase 2 study to see whether their disease will respond to the antibody-drug conjugate disitamab vedotin. Everyone in the trial will receive IV disitamab vedotin every 2 weeks for up to approximately 5 years. 

Study sites in California, Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Canada began welcoming their 190 participants with one of a range of solid cancers in November 2023. The primary outcome is objective response rate. Overall survival is a secondary measure and QOL will not be tracked. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

High-risk locally advanced cervical cancer. Girls and women older than 14 years with this cancer that has not progressed after platinum-based chemoradiation are sought for a randomized, quadruple-blind, phase 3 trial to determine whether the investigational immunotherapy volrustomig can slow disease progression. Volrustomig targets PD-1 and cytotoxic T lymphocyte protein 4 (CTLA4) and is being tested in a wide range of solid cancers. 

For approximately 3 years or until disease progression or death, whichever happens first, half of participants will receive IV infusions of volrustomig while the others will receive saline. Asian research sites started seeking the study’s 1000 participants in September 2023, while centers in 12 US states and eight other countries are gearing up for patient enrollment. Progression-free survival in participants with PD-L1 expression is the primary endpoint; overall survival and QOL are secondary endpoints. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at ClinicalTrials.gov). Dr. Markman declared he is not involved with these trials.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Several new clinical trials in gynecologic cancers have started enrolling recently. Perhaps one of your patients is eligible to take part?

Persistent or recurrent endometrial cancer or any advanced solid gynecologic tumor with appropriate ATR mutations. Patients with one of these diagnoses may be eligible to join a phase 2, randomized, open-label study of an experimental drug called ART0380. ART0380 inhibits the ability of cancer cells to repair DNA damage by targeting a DNA repair kinase called ATR (ataxia telangiectasia–mutated and Rad3-related) protein, which is faulty in some tumors. The hope is that ART0380 will overwhelm the inadequate DNA repair processes of these cancer cells while sparing the more robust DNA repair in healthy cells. 

All participants in the trial will take daily oral ART0380 until disease progression, withdrawal of consent, or unacceptable toxicity, whichever happens first. Some individuals will receive the treatment for 3 weeks out of every 4. Sites in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and France started recruiting 60 participants with endometrial cancer or any solid tumor in September 2023. The primary outcome is objective response rate. Overall survival is a secondary measure and quality of life (QOL) is not assessed. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

Maurie Markman, MD, president of medicine and science at City of Hope, Atlanta, who is not involved in this trial, explained that because “ a meaningful proportion of this population may have a defect in this DNA repair mechanism,” this hypothesis seems “worthy of clinical exploration.” 

Cancer of the endometrium, cervix, vagina, or vulva. Women with one of these types of cancer who can read and understand English or Spanish can join a randomized, open-label phase 2 trial to determine whether Reiki therapy can reduce pain and distress associated with brachytherapy. 

Reiki is a complementary therapy that involves a Reiki practitioner holding their hands lightly on or above the patient’s body for several minutes. Some hospitals in the US and the UK offer Reiki as a relaxation aid, although high-quality science is lacking.

In this study, one group of participants will each undergo Reiki in a quiet clinic room during the lengthy waiting period between placement of the vaginal cylinder and infusion of the radiation source, which is a time of anxiety and discomfort for many women. A second group of women will simply lie and wait in a clinic room, if desired accompanied by a friend or family member. 

The Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah, started recruiting its 68 participants in October 2023. The primary outcome is self-reported anxiety. The secondary outcomes are other validated measures of anxiety, pain, and depression. Overall survival and broader measures of QOL will not be assessed. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

Dr. Markman said that the benefits of Reiki may be “nothing more than a placebo effect.” But he highlighted the novelty of conducting a randomized trial to scientifically test Reiki’s “widely applied (without any real evidence) ‘integrative medicine’ approach to symptom management.”

Unresectable or metastatic endometrial cancer with deficient mismatch repair /high microsatellite instability. People in this clinical situation whose disease has progressed after one or two lines of prior chemotherapy, including platinum-based treatment, may be interested in an open-label nonrandomized, phase 2 investigation of bispecific antibody acasunlimab in combination with pembrolizumab (Keytruda). 

Acasunlimab stimulates T-cell antitumor activity as well as blocking programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and is being tested in several types of solid-tumor cancer. For up to 2 years, all participants will receive intravenous (IV) infusions of the drug combination. Study sites in Florida and Europe opened in January 2024, ready for 80 participants. The primary outcome is objective response rate. Overall survival will not be assessed. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

“In the absence of a randomized population to compare treatment outcomes, the results of this trial will likely provide limited data upon which to determine the clinical benefits of this novel drug combination strategy,” said Dr. Markman. However, he added, “the results will be helpful in assessing the potential toxicity of this approach.”

Recurrent or metastatic endometrial cancer with proficient mismatch repair. Women with this diagnosis who have progressed after one prior platinum chemotherapy regimen in any setting may wish to consider a randomized, triple-blind, phase 2 trial of pembrolizumab plus favezelimab. Favezelimab, which blocks the lymphocyte activation gene 3 (LAG3), appears to boost the antitumor activity of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibition in other cancers such as classic Hodgkin lymphoma. 

In the trial, participants will be assigned to one of four groups. One group will receive 17 doses of the combination treatment IV every 3 weeks — three doses in the neoadjuvant period and 14 as adjuvant therapy. A second group of individuals will receive IV pembrolizumab monotherapy on the same schedule. A third will be given up to 35 doses of the combo therapy every 3 weeks plus a daily capsule of lenvatinib (Lenvima). The fourth group will receive 35 doses of pembrolizumab plus daily lenvatinib. 

Sites in North Carolina, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and four countries other than the US started recruiting 60 participants with a solid tumor in September 2023. Pathologic complete response and objective response rate are the primary endpoints. Overall survival over approximately 3.5 years is a secondary endpoint, and QOL will not be measured. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

Unresectable advanced or metastatic HER2-positive endometrial or ovarian cancer. Adults with one of these diagnoses in whom failed platinum-based therapy has failed may enroll in an open-label, phase 2 study to see whether their disease will respond to the antibody-drug conjugate disitamab vedotin. Everyone in the trial will receive IV disitamab vedotin every 2 weeks for up to approximately 5 years. 

Study sites in California, Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Canada began welcoming their 190 participants with one of a range of solid cancers in November 2023. The primary outcome is objective response rate. Overall survival is a secondary measure and QOL will not be tracked. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

High-risk locally advanced cervical cancer. Girls and women older than 14 years with this cancer that has not progressed after platinum-based chemoradiation are sought for a randomized, quadruple-blind, phase 3 trial to determine whether the investigational immunotherapy volrustomig can slow disease progression. Volrustomig targets PD-1 and cytotoxic T lymphocyte protein 4 (CTLA4) and is being tested in a wide range of solid cancers. 

For approximately 3 years or until disease progression or death, whichever happens first, half of participants will receive IV infusions of volrustomig while the others will receive saline. Asian research sites started seeking the study’s 1000 participants in September 2023, while centers in 12 US states and eight other countries are gearing up for patient enrollment. Progression-free survival in participants with PD-L1 expression is the primary endpoint; overall survival and QOL are secondary endpoints. More details at ClinicalTrials.gov

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health US National Library of Medicine (online at ClinicalTrials.gov). Dr. Markman declared he is not involved with these trials.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A plant-based diet, low in dairy and meat but rich in fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts, can improve sexual and urinary health in patients treated for local prostate cancer, new research showed.

The findings, published on February 13, 2024, in the journal Cancer, bolster previous research showing plant-based diets can reduce the risk for recurrence and improve survivorship in men with prostate cancer.

“The current study shows for the first time an association between eating more plant-based food with better scores for quality of life among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer,” Stacy Loeb, MD, a urologist in the departments of Urology and Population Health at NYU Langone Health, in New York City, who led the research.

For the new study, Dr. Loeb and her colleagues looked at data from more than 3500 men with prostate cancer in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, an ongoing investigation begun in 1986 and sponsored by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The dataset included more than 50,000 male dentists, pharmacists, optometrists, osteopaths, podiatrists, and veterinarians.

The median age of prostate cancer diagnosis was 68 years; 48% of patients underwent radical prostatectomy and 35% had radiation as primary therapy. None of the patients were known to have had metastatic disease.

Men in the study answered a questionnaire every 4 years about the kinds of foods they ate and in what proportions. Another survey, administered every 2 years, assessed the frequency of incontinence, difficulties maintaining an erection, and problems with bowels, energy, and mood, among many other health concerns.

Dr. Loeb and her colleagues sorted patients into quintiles based on the proportion of plant vs animal foods the men said they eat. The authors found those who consumed the most plant-based foods scored 8%-11% better in measures of sexual function than the group that consumed the least of these products.

These men also reported up to 14% better scores for urinary health, with fewer instances of incontinence, obstruction, and irritation, and up to 13% better scores in hormonal health, marked by symptoms like low energy, depression, and hot flashes.

Justin Gregg, MD, a urology researcher at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston, Texas, whose research has found the Mediterranean diet can slow tumor progression among men with localized prostate cancer on active surveillance, called the results “not entirely surprising, as prior studies have shown associations between plant-based diet and outcomes like erectile function among men who do not have prostate cancer.”

But Kenneth Jacobsohn, MD, professor of urology and director of lifestyle medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, said the new findings help establish “the positive role of diet quality and plant-based diets, specifically on quality of life after prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment for men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.”

Dr. Jacobsohn said the study was limited by its retrospective nature and the manner of the dietary assessment.

“As the authors point out, a plant-based diet may be helpful, though it’s important to keep in mind the strong data for its protective effect in terms of cardiovascular disease risk, which is very important for men who have a history of prostate cancer as many will die of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Gregg added.

Dr. Loeb, Dr. Gregg, and Dr. Jacobsohn reported no conflicts of interest. Some of the study authors reported a variety of potential conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A plant-based diet, low in dairy and meat but rich in fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts, can improve sexual and urinary health in patients treated for local prostate cancer, new research showed.

The findings, published on February 13, 2024, in the journal Cancer, bolster previous research showing plant-based diets can reduce the risk for recurrence and improve survivorship in men with prostate cancer.

“The current study shows for the first time an association between eating more plant-based food with better scores for quality of life among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer,” Stacy Loeb, MD, a urologist in the departments of Urology and Population Health at NYU Langone Health, in New York City, who led the research.

For the new study, Dr. Loeb and her colleagues looked at data from more than 3500 men with prostate cancer in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, an ongoing investigation begun in 1986 and sponsored by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The dataset included more than 50,000 male dentists, pharmacists, optometrists, osteopaths, podiatrists, and veterinarians.

The median age of prostate cancer diagnosis was 68 years; 48% of patients underwent radical prostatectomy and 35% had radiation as primary therapy. None of the patients were known to have had metastatic disease.

Men in the study answered a questionnaire every 4 years about the kinds of foods they ate and in what proportions. Another survey, administered every 2 years, assessed the frequency of incontinence, difficulties maintaining an erection, and problems with bowels, energy, and mood, among many other health concerns.

Dr. Loeb and her colleagues sorted patients into quintiles based on the proportion of plant vs animal foods the men said they eat. The authors found those who consumed the most plant-based foods scored 8%-11% better in measures of sexual function than the group that consumed the least of these products.

These men also reported up to 14% better scores for urinary health, with fewer instances of incontinence, obstruction, and irritation, and up to 13% better scores in hormonal health, marked by symptoms like low energy, depression, and hot flashes.

Justin Gregg, MD, a urology researcher at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston, Texas, whose research has found the Mediterranean diet can slow tumor progression among men with localized prostate cancer on active surveillance, called the results “not entirely surprising, as prior studies have shown associations between plant-based diet and outcomes like erectile function among men who do not have prostate cancer.”

But Kenneth Jacobsohn, MD, professor of urology and director of lifestyle medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, said the new findings help establish “the positive role of diet quality and plant-based diets, specifically on quality of life after prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment for men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.”

Dr. Jacobsohn said the study was limited by its retrospective nature and the manner of the dietary assessment.

“As the authors point out, a plant-based diet may be helpful, though it’s important to keep in mind the strong data for its protective effect in terms of cardiovascular disease risk, which is very important for men who have a history of prostate cancer as many will die of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Gregg added.

Dr. Loeb, Dr. Gregg, and Dr. Jacobsohn reported no conflicts of interest. Some of the study authors reported a variety of potential conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

A plant-based diet, low in dairy and meat but rich in fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts, can improve sexual and urinary health in patients treated for local prostate cancer, new research showed.

The findings, published on February 13, 2024, in the journal Cancer, bolster previous research showing plant-based diets can reduce the risk for recurrence and improve survivorship in men with prostate cancer.

“The current study shows for the first time an association between eating more plant-based food with better scores for quality of life among patients diagnosed with prostate cancer,” Stacy Loeb, MD, a urologist in the departments of Urology and Population Health at NYU Langone Health, in New York City, who led the research.

For the new study, Dr. Loeb and her colleagues looked at data from more than 3500 men with prostate cancer in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, an ongoing investigation begun in 1986 and sponsored by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The dataset included more than 50,000 male dentists, pharmacists, optometrists, osteopaths, podiatrists, and veterinarians.

The median age of prostate cancer diagnosis was 68 years; 48% of patients underwent radical prostatectomy and 35% had radiation as primary therapy. None of the patients were known to have had metastatic disease.

Men in the study answered a questionnaire every 4 years about the kinds of foods they ate and in what proportions. Another survey, administered every 2 years, assessed the frequency of incontinence, difficulties maintaining an erection, and problems with bowels, energy, and mood, among many other health concerns.

Dr. Loeb and her colleagues sorted patients into quintiles based on the proportion of plant vs animal foods the men said they eat. The authors found those who consumed the most plant-based foods scored 8%-11% better in measures of sexual function than the group that consumed the least of these products.

These men also reported up to 14% better scores for urinary health, with fewer instances of incontinence, obstruction, and irritation, and up to 13% better scores in hormonal health, marked by symptoms like low energy, depression, and hot flashes.

Justin Gregg, MD, a urology researcher at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston, Texas, whose research has found the Mediterranean diet can slow tumor progression among men with localized prostate cancer on active surveillance, called the results “not entirely surprising, as prior studies have shown associations between plant-based diet and outcomes like erectile function among men who do not have prostate cancer.”

But Kenneth Jacobsohn, MD, professor of urology and director of lifestyle medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, in Milwaukee, said the new findings help establish “the positive role of diet quality and plant-based diets, specifically on quality of life after prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment for men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer.”

Dr. Jacobsohn said the study was limited by its retrospective nature and the manner of the dietary assessment.

“As the authors point out, a plant-based diet may be helpful, though it’s important to keep in mind the strong data for its protective effect in terms of cardiovascular disease risk, which is very important for men who have a history of prostate cancer as many will die of cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Gregg added.

Dr. Loeb, Dr. Gregg, and Dr. Jacobsohn reported no conflicts of interest. Some of the study authors reported a variety of potential conflicts.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Reports of a small number of patients developing secondary T-cell malignancies following treatment with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapy have raised concerns and prompted a class-wide boxed warning to the labeling of the therapies by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but for now experts underscore that the benefits of the groundbreaking therapies still appear to well outweigh the risks.

Importantly, most specialists agree, so far the risk appears no greater than the known risk of secondary primary malignancies that is well established with other cancer therapies.

“The data that we have so far suggest that the risk of secondary T-cell lymphoma in patients treated with CAR T-cells is similar to [that] of patients treated with other cancer therapies, [including] chemotherapy, radiation, transplantation,” Marco Ruella, MD, said in an interview. He reported on a case of a T-cell lymphoma occurring following CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania.

While his team is still investigating the development of such malignancies, “the FDA notice does not change our clinical practice and patients should be reassured that the benefit of CAR-T therapy significantly outweighs the potential risk of secondary malignancies including T-cell lymphoma,” said Dr. Ruella, scientific director of the Lymphoma Program, Division of Hematology and Oncology and Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
 

FDA: 28 Reports of Malignancies; 3 with Evidence of ‘Likely’ CAR T Involvement

Concerns were raised last November when the FDA announced in a safety communication that it was investigating the “serious risk of T-cell malignancy” following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed or CD19-directed CAR T-cell immunotherapies, citing reports from clinical trials and/or postmarketing adverse event data sources. Subsequently, in January, the FDA called for the boxed warning on all approved BCMA- and CD19-targeted genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies, which include: Abecma (idecabtagene vicleucel); Breyanzi (lisocabtagene maraleucel); Carvykti (ciltacabtagene autoleucel); Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel); Tecartus (brexucabtagene autoleucel); and Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel).

“Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, the FDA continues to investigate the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death,” the FDA reported in discussing the safety warnings.

The cases were detailed in a report from FDA researchers published in the New England Journal of Medicine, noting that as of December 31, 2023, the FDA had become aware of 22 cases of T-cell cancers occurring following CAR T-cell treatment, including T-cell lymphoma, T-cell large granular lymphocytosis, peripheral T-cell lymphoma, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

Report coauthor Peter Marks, MD, PhD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research in Silver Spring, Maryland, said in an interview that since the publication of their report, six new cases have emerged.

“As reported in the NEJM Perspective, there were 22 cases of T-cell malignancy after treatment with CAR T-cell immunotherapies as of December 31, 2023, but we have received additional reports and, as of February 9, 2024, FDA has now received 28 reports,” he said. “Note that as new cases are being reported, there will be updates to the total number of cases under ongoing review by FDA.”

The initial 22 cases all occurred relatively soon after treatment. Of 14 cases with sufficient data, all developed within 2 years of the CAR-T therapy, ranging from 1 to 19 months, with about half occurring in the first year after administration.

The cases involved five of the six FDA-approved CAR-T products, with the numbers too low to suggest an association with any particular product.

In three of the cases, the lymphoma was found in genetic testing to contain the CAR construction, “indicating that the CAR-T product was most likely involved in the development of the T-cell cancer,” according to the FDA researchers.

With inadequate genetic sampling in most of the remaining 19 cases, the association is less clear, however “the timing of several of the cases makes association a possibility,” Dr. Marks said. In their report, Dr. Marks and colleagues added that “determination of whether the T-cell cancer is associated with the CAR construct ... most likely won’t be possible for every case reported to date.”

Even if all the reported cases are assumed to be related to CAR-T treatment, the numbers still represent a very small proportion of the more than 27,000 doses of the six CAR-T therapies approved in the United States, the authors noted, but they cautioned that the numbers could indeed be higher than reported.

“Relying on postmarketing reporting may lead to underestimates of such cases,” they said.
 

Life-Long Monitoring Recommended

In response to the reports, the FDA is urging that clinicians’ monitoring of patients treated with CAR-T therapy should be lifelong.

“Patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored lifelong for new malignancies,” Dr. Marks said.

“In the event that a new malignancy occurs following treatment with these products, contact the manufacturer to report the event and obtain instructions on collection of patient samples for testing for the presence of the CAR transgene.”

In addition, cases should be reported to the FDA, either by calling or through the FDA’s medical product safety reporting program.
 

T-Cell Malignancy Case Report

In describing the case at their medical center in the report in Nature Medicine, Dr. Ruella and colleagues said a T-cell lymphoma occurred in a patient with non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma 3 months after an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell treatment.

As a result, the team conducted a subsequent analysis of 449 patients treated with CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania center, and with a median follow-up of 10.3 months, 16 patients (3.6%) had developed a secondary primary malignancy, with a median onset time of 26.4 months for solid and 9.7 months for hematological malignancies.

The patient who had developed a T-cell lymphoma tested negative for CAR integration upon diagnosis, and regarding the other cancers, Dr. Ruella noted that “we have no indication that the secondary malignancies are directly caused by the CAR-T therapy.

“We have many patients with a very long follow-up beyond 5 and even 10 years,” he said. “In these patients, we don’t see an increased risk of T-cell lymphoma.”
 

‘Cautious Reassurance’ Urged in Discussion with Patients

With alarming headlines on the findings suggesting that CAR-T therapy may cause cancer, Rahul Banerjee, MD, and colleagues at the University of Washington, Seattle, recommend the use of “cautious reassurance” in discussing the issue with patients. In a paper published in January in Blood Advances, they suggest a three-part response: underscoring that the benefits of CAR T “far outweigh” the risks in relapsed/refractory malignancies, that the ‘one-and-done’ nature of CAR-T infusions provide meaningful improvements in quality of life, and that the active cancer at hand is “a much larger threat than a hypothetical cancer years later.”

In many cases, patients may only have months to live without CAR-T therapy and will have already had multiple prior lines of therapy, therefore the CAR-T treatment itself may provide time for the secondary primary cancers from any of the treatments to emerge, as experts have noted.

“One has to be alive to be diagnosed with a secondary primary malignancy, and it’s thus very possible that CAR-T may be creating a type of ‘immortal time bias’ wherein patients live long enough to experience the unfortunate sequelae of their previous therapies,” Dr. Banerjee explained in an interview.

Nevertheless, the potential for substantial improvements in quality of life with CAR-T therapy compared with traditional treatments addresses a top priority for patients, he added.

“For most patients with [for instance], myeloma, the ability of CAR-T to put them rapidly into a deep remission without the need for maintenance is an unheard-of potential for them,” Dr. Banerjee said.

“In multiple myeloma, no CAR-T therapy has (yet) demonstrated an overall survival benefit — but I think the substantial quality-of-life benefit stands by itself as a big reason why patients continue to prefer CAR-T.”
 

Keep Patients In Touch with CAR T Centers

In light of the concerns regarding the secondary malignancies, Dr. Banerjee underscored that CAR-T patients should be kept in close touch with centers that have CAR-T treatment expertise.

With most patients followed primarily at community practices where CAR-T therapy is not administered, “I’d strongly encourage my colleagues in community practices to refer all eligible patients to a CAR-T-capable center for evaluation regardless of what their risk of post-CAR-T secondary primary malignancies may be,” Dr. Banerjee urged.

“Based on the evidence we have currently, which includes the FDA’s updated information, there are many more unknowns about this potential secondary primary malignancy risk than knowns,” he said. “This is of course a much more nuanced issue than any one package insert can convey, and CAR-T experts at treating centers can have these conversations at length with eligible patients who are nervous about these recent updates.”

Dr. Ruella disclosed that he holds patents related to CD19 CAR T cells, as well as relationships with NanoString, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Scailyte, Bayer, AbClon, Oxford NanoImaging, CURIOX, and Beckman Coulter, and he was the scientific founder of viTToria Biotherapeutics. Dr. Banerjee reported ties with BMS, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, SparkCures, Novartis, and Pack Health.

Reports of a small number of patients developing secondary T-cell malignancies following treatment with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapy have raised concerns and prompted a class-wide boxed warning to the labeling of the therapies by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but for now experts underscore that the benefits of the groundbreaking therapies still appear to well outweigh the risks.

Importantly, most specialists agree, so far the risk appears no greater than the known risk of secondary primary malignancies that is well established with other cancer therapies.

“The data that we have so far suggest that the risk of secondary T-cell lymphoma in patients treated with CAR T-cells is similar to [that] of patients treated with other cancer therapies, [including] chemotherapy, radiation, transplantation,” Marco Ruella, MD, said in an interview. He reported on a case of a T-cell lymphoma occurring following CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania.

While his team is still investigating the development of such malignancies, “the FDA notice does not change our clinical practice and patients should be reassured that the benefit of CAR-T therapy significantly outweighs the potential risk of secondary malignancies including T-cell lymphoma,” said Dr. Ruella, scientific director of the Lymphoma Program, Division of Hematology and Oncology and Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
 

FDA: 28 Reports of Malignancies; 3 with Evidence of ‘Likely’ CAR T Involvement

Concerns were raised last November when the FDA announced in a safety communication that it was investigating the “serious risk of T-cell malignancy” following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed or CD19-directed CAR T-cell immunotherapies, citing reports from clinical trials and/or postmarketing adverse event data sources. Subsequently, in January, the FDA called for the boxed warning on all approved BCMA- and CD19-targeted genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies, which include: Abecma (idecabtagene vicleucel); Breyanzi (lisocabtagene maraleucel); Carvykti (ciltacabtagene autoleucel); Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel); Tecartus (brexucabtagene autoleucel); and Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel).

“Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, the FDA continues to investigate the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death,” the FDA reported in discussing the safety warnings.

The cases were detailed in a report from FDA researchers published in the New England Journal of Medicine, noting that as of December 31, 2023, the FDA had become aware of 22 cases of T-cell cancers occurring following CAR T-cell treatment, including T-cell lymphoma, T-cell large granular lymphocytosis, peripheral T-cell lymphoma, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

Report coauthor Peter Marks, MD, PhD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research in Silver Spring, Maryland, said in an interview that since the publication of their report, six new cases have emerged.

“As reported in the NEJM Perspective, there were 22 cases of T-cell malignancy after treatment with CAR T-cell immunotherapies as of December 31, 2023, but we have received additional reports and, as of February 9, 2024, FDA has now received 28 reports,” he said. “Note that as new cases are being reported, there will be updates to the total number of cases under ongoing review by FDA.”

The initial 22 cases all occurred relatively soon after treatment. Of 14 cases with sufficient data, all developed within 2 years of the CAR-T therapy, ranging from 1 to 19 months, with about half occurring in the first year after administration.

The cases involved five of the six FDA-approved CAR-T products, with the numbers too low to suggest an association with any particular product.

In three of the cases, the lymphoma was found in genetic testing to contain the CAR construction, “indicating that the CAR-T product was most likely involved in the development of the T-cell cancer,” according to the FDA researchers.

With inadequate genetic sampling in most of the remaining 19 cases, the association is less clear, however “the timing of several of the cases makes association a possibility,” Dr. Marks said. In their report, Dr. Marks and colleagues added that “determination of whether the T-cell cancer is associated with the CAR construct ... most likely won’t be possible for every case reported to date.”

Even if all the reported cases are assumed to be related to CAR-T treatment, the numbers still represent a very small proportion of the more than 27,000 doses of the six CAR-T therapies approved in the United States, the authors noted, but they cautioned that the numbers could indeed be higher than reported.

“Relying on postmarketing reporting may lead to underestimates of such cases,” they said.
 

Life-Long Monitoring Recommended

In response to the reports, the FDA is urging that clinicians’ monitoring of patients treated with CAR-T therapy should be lifelong.

“Patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored lifelong for new malignancies,” Dr. Marks said.

“In the event that a new malignancy occurs following treatment with these products, contact the manufacturer to report the event and obtain instructions on collection of patient samples for testing for the presence of the CAR transgene.”

In addition, cases should be reported to the FDA, either by calling or through the FDA’s medical product safety reporting program.
 

T-Cell Malignancy Case Report

In describing the case at their medical center in the report in Nature Medicine, Dr. Ruella and colleagues said a T-cell lymphoma occurred in a patient with non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma 3 months after an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell treatment.

As a result, the team conducted a subsequent analysis of 449 patients treated with CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania center, and with a median follow-up of 10.3 months, 16 patients (3.6%) had developed a secondary primary malignancy, with a median onset time of 26.4 months for solid and 9.7 months for hematological malignancies.

The patient who had developed a T-cell lymphoma tested negative for CAR integration upon diagnosis, and regarding the other cancers, Dr. Ruella noted that “we have no indication that the secondary malignancies are directly caused by the CAR-T therapy.

“We have many patients with a very long follow-up beyond 5 and even 10 years,” he said. “In these patients, we don’t see an increased risk of T-cell lymphoma.”
 

‘Cautious Reassurance’ Urged in Discussion with Patients

With alarming headlines on the findings suggesting that CAR-T therapy may cause cancer, Rahul Banerjee, MD, and colleagues at the University of Washington, Seattle, recommend the use of “cautious reassurance” in discussing the issue with patients. In a paper published in January in Blood Advances, they suggest a three-part response: underscoring that the benefits of CAR T “far outweigh” the risks in relapsed/refractory malignancies, that the ‘one-and-done’ nature of CAR-T infusions provide meaningful improvements in quality of life, and that the active cancer at hand is “a much larger threat than a hypothetical cancer years later.”

In many cases, patients may only have months to live without CAR-T therapy and will have already had multiple prior lines of therapy, therefore the CAR-T treatment itself may provide time for the secondary primary cancers from any of the treatments to emerge, as experts have noted.

“One has to be alive to be diagnosed with a secondary primary malignancy, and it’s thus very possible that CAR-T may be creating a type of ‘immortal time bias’ wherein patients live long enough to experience the unfortunate sequelae of their previous therapies,” Dr. Banerjee explained in an interview.

Nevertheless, the potential for substantial improvements in quality of life with CAR-T therapy compared with traditional treatments addresses a top priority for patients, he added.

“For most patients with [for instance], myeloma, the ability of CAR-T to put them rapidly into a deep remission without the need for maintenance is an unheard-of potential for them,” Dr. Banerjee said.

“In multiple myeloma, no CAR-T therapy has (yet) demonstrated an overall survival benefit — but I think the substantial quality-of-life benefit stands by itself as a big reason why patients continue to prefer CAR-T.”
 

Keep Patients In Touch with CAR T Centers

In light of the concerns regarding the secondary malignancies, Dr. Banerjee underscored that CAR-T patients should be kept in close touch with centers that have CAR-T treatment expertise.

With most patients followed primarily at community practices where CAR-T therapy is not administered, “I’d strongly encourage my colleagues in community practices to refer all eligible patients to a CAR-T-capable center for evaluation regardless of what their risk of post-CAR-T secondary primary malignancies may be,” Dr. Banerjee urged.

“Based on the evidence we have currently, which includes the FDA’s updated information, there are many more unknowns about this potential secondary primary malignancy risk than knowns,” he said. “This is of course a much more nuanced issue than any one package insert can convey, and CAR-T experts at treating centers can have these conversations at length with eligible patients who are nervous about these recent updates.”

Dr. Ruella disclosed that he holds patents related to CD19 CAR T cells, as well as relationships with NanoString, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Scailyte, Bayer, AbClon, Oxford NanoImaging, CURIOX, and Beckman Coulter, and he was the scientific founder of viTToria Biotherapeutics. Dr. Banerjee reported ties with BMS, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, SparkCures, Novartis, and Pack Health.

Reports of a small number of patients developing secondary T-cell malignancies following treatment with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapy have raised concerns and prompted a class-wide boxed warning to the labeling of the therapies by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but for now experts underscore that the benefits of the groundbreaking therapies still appear to well outweigh the risks.

Importantly, most specialists agree, so far the risk appears no greater than the known risk of secondary primary malignancies that is well established with other cancer therapies.

“The data that we have so far suggest that the risk of secondary T-cell lymphoma in patients treated with CAR T-cells is similar to [that] of patients treated with other cancer therapies, [including] chemotherapy, radiation, transplantation,” Marco Ruella, MD, said in an interview. He reported on a case of a T-cell lymphoma occurring following CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania.

While his team is still investigating the development of such malignancies, “the FDA notice does not change our clinical practice and patients should be reassured that the benefit of CAR-T therapy significantly outweighs the potential risk of secondary malignancies including T-cell lymphoma,” said Dr. Ruella, scientific director of the Lymphoma Program, Division of Hematology and Oncology and Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
 

FDA: 28 Reports of Malignancies; 3 with Evidence of ‘Likely’ CAR T Involvement

Concerns were raised last November when the FDA announced in a safety communication that it was investigating the “serious risk of T-cell malignancy” following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed or CD19-directed CAR T-cell immunotherapies, citing reports from clinical trials and/or postmarketing adverse event data sources. Subsequently, in January, the FDA called for the boxed warning on all approved BCMA- and CD19-targeted genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies, which include: Abecma (idecabtagene vicleucel); Breyanzi (lisocabtagene maraleucel); Carvykti (ciltacabtagene autoleucel); Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel); Tecartus (brexucabtagene autoleucel); and Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel).

“Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, the FDA continues to investigate the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death,” the FDA reported in discussing the safety warnings.

The cases were detailed in a report from FDA researchers published in the New England Journal of Medicine, noting that as of December 31, 2023, the FDA had become aware of 22 cases of T-cell cancers occurring following CAR T-cell treatment, including T-cell lymphoma, T-cell large granular lymphocytosis, peripheral T-cell lymphoma, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

Report coauthor Peter Marks, MD, PhD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research in Silver Spring, Maryland, said in an interview that since the publication of their report, six new cases have emerged.

“As reported in the NEJM Perspective, there were 22 cases of T-cell malignancy after treatment with CAR T-cell immunotherapies as of December 31, 2023, but we have received additional reports and, as of February 9, 2024, FDA has now received 28 reports,” he said. “Note that as new cases are being reported, there will be updates to the total number of cases under ongoing review by FDA.”

The initial 22 cases all occurred relatively soon after treatment. Of 14 cases with sufficient data, all developed within 2 years of the CAR-T therapy, ranging from 1 to 19 months, with about half occurring in the first year after administration.

The cases involved five of the six FDA-approved CAR-T products, with the numbers too low to suggest an association with any particular product.

In three of the cases, the lymphoma was found in genetic testing to contain the CAR construction, “indicating that the CAR-T product was most likely involved in the development of the T-cell cancer,” according to the FDA researchers.

With inadequate genetic sampling in most of the remaining 19 cases, the association is less clear, however “the timing of several of the cases makes association a possibility,” Dr. Marks said. In their report, Dr. Marks and colleagues added that “determination of whether the T-cell cancer is associated with the CAR construct ... most likely won’t be possible for every case reported to date.”

Even if all the reported cases are assumed to be related to CAR-T treatment, the numbers still represent a very small proportion of the more than 27,000 doses of the six CAR-T therapies approved in the United States, the authors noted, but they cautioned that the numbers could indeed be higher than reported.

“Relying on postmarketing reporting may lead to underestimates of such cases,” they said.
 

Life-Long Monitoring Recommended

In response to the reports, the FDA is urging that clinicians’ monitoring of patients treated with CAR-T therapy should be lifelong.

“Patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored lifelong for new malignancies,” Dr. Marks said.

“In the event that a new malignancy occurs following treatment with these products, contact the manufacturer to report the event and obtain instructions on collection of patient samples for testing for the presence of the CAR transgene.”

In addition, cases should be reported to the FDA, either by calling or through the FDA’s medical product safety reporting program.
 

T-Cell Malignancy Case Report

In describing the case at their medical center in the report in Nature Medicine, Dr. Ruella and colleagues said a T-cell lymphoma occurred in a patient with non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma 3 months after an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell treatment.

As a result, the team conducted a subsequent analysis of 449 patients treated with CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania center, and with a median follow-up of 10.3 months, 16 patients (3.6%) had developed a secondary primary malignancy, with a median onset time of 26.4 months for solid and 9.7 months for hematological malignancies.

The patient who had developed a T-cell lymphoma tested negative for CAR integration upon diagnosis, and regarding the other cancers, Dr. Ruella noted that “we have no indication that the secondary malignancies are directly caused by the CAR-T therapy.

“We have many patients with a very long follow-up beyond 5 and even 10 years,” he said. “In these patients, we don’t see an increased risk of T-cell lymphoma.”
 

‘Cautious Reassurance’ Urged in Discussion with Patients

With alarming headlines on the findings suggesting that CAR-T therapy may cause cancer, Rahul Banerjee, MD, and colleagues at the University of Washington, Seattle, recommend the use of “cautious reassurance” in discussing the issue with patients. In a paper published in January in Blood Advances, they suggest a three-part response: underscoring that the benefits of CAR T “far outweigh” the risks in relapsed/refractory malignancies, that the ‘one-and-done’ nature of CAR-T infusions provide meaningful improvements in quality of life, and that the active cancer at hand is “a much larger threat than a hypothetical cancer years later.”

In many cases, patients may only have months to live without CAR-T therapy and will have already had multiple prior lines of therapy, therefore the CAR-T treatment itself may provide time for the secondary primary cancers from any of the treatments to emerge, as experts have noted.

“One has to be alive to be diagnosed with a secondary primary malignancy, and it’s thus very possible that CAR-T may be creating a type of ‘immortal time bias’ wherein patients live long enough to experience the unfortunate sequelae of their previous therapies,” Dr. Banerjee explained in an interview.

Nevertheless, the potential for substantial improvements in quality of life with CAR-T therapy compared with traditional treatments addresses a top priority for patients, he added.

“For most patients with [for instance], myeloma, the ability of CAR-T to put them rapidly into a deep remission without the need for maintenance is an unheard-of potential for them,” Dr. Banerjee said.

“In multiple myeloma, no CAR-T therapy has (yet) demonstrated an overall survival benefit — but I think the substantial quality-of-life benefit stands by itself as a big reason why patients continue to prefer CAR-T.”
 

Keep Patients In Touch with CAR T Centers

In light of the concerns regarding the secondary malignancies, Dr. Banerjee underscored that CAR-T patients should be kept in close touch with centers that have CAR-T treatment expertise.

With most patients followed primarily at community practices where CAR-T therapy is not administered, “I’d strongly encourage my colleagues in community practices to refer all eligible patients to a CAR-T-capable center for evaluation regardless of what their risk of post-CAR-T secondary primary malignancies may be,” Dr. Banerjee urged.

“Based on the evidence we have currently, which includes the FDA’s updated information, there are many more unknowns about this potential secondary primary malignancy risk than knowns,” he said. “This is of course a much more nuanced issue than any one package insert can convey, and CAR-T experts at treating centers can have these conversations at length with eligible patients who are nervous about these recent updates.”

Dr. Ruella disclosed that he holds patents related to CD19 CAR T cells, as well as relationships with NanoString, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Scailyte, Bayer, AbClon, Oxford NanoImaging, CURIOX, and Beckman Coulter, and he was the scientific founder of viTToria Biotherapeutics. Dr. Banerjee reported ties with BMS, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, SparkCures, Novartis, and Pack Health.

TOPLINE:

Multivitamin supplements at a moderate dose appear to lower the risk for both all-cause and cancer-related mortality in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC); however, high doses of multivitamin supplements may increase the risk for CRC-specific mortality.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some studies suggest that multivitamin supplements might increase a person’s risk for CRC, and other research indicates that certain components of multivitamins, such as vitamins C and D, may have anti-CRC properties.
• Because as many as half of CRC survivors take a multivitamin, researchers wanted to assess whether multivitamin use affects overall survival among people with CRC.
• In the current prospective cohort study, researchers evaluated the use and dose of multivitamin supplements in 2424 patients with stages I-III CRC, using detailed information from patients in the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow‐Up Study.
• The participants completed a mailed questionnaire every 2 years, which included questions about the current use of multivitamin supplements as well as doses per week (0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-9, and ≥ 10 tablets).
• The researchers assessed the potential association between multivitamin use and CRC-related as well as all‐cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up period of 11 years, 1512 deaths and 343 cancer-specific deaths occurred.
• For patients diagnosed with CRC, a moderate dose of multivitamins (three to five tablets per week) vs no multivitamin use was associated with a 45% lower risk for cancer-related mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.55; P = .005).
• Moderate multivitamin use was also associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality (aHR, 0.81; P = .04) as was a higher dose of six to nine tablets per week (aHR, 0.79; P < .001).
• However, high doses of 10 or more tablets per week were associated with a 60% higher risk for cancer-related mortality (aHR, 1.60; P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

The study findings suggested that moderate multivitamin supplement use may come with a survival benefit in patients with CRC, while high doses may not, but “further studies are needed before making clinical recommendations for multivitamin use in patients with CRC,” the authors said.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Ming‐ming He of Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China, was published in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

Given the study’s observational design, residual confounding may be possible. Reverse causation and recall bias are also possible limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, American Institute for Cancer Research, Wellesley College, Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute, and the Entertainment Industry Foundation. Three study authors reported financial relationships outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Multivitamin supplements at a moderate dose appear to lower the risk for both all-cause and cancer-related mortality in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC); however, high doses of multivitamin supplements may increase the risk for CRC-specific mortality.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some studies suggest that multivitamin supplements might increase a person’s risk for CRC, and other research indicates that certain components of multivitamins, such as vitamins C and D, may have anti-CRC properties.
• Because as many as half of CRC survivors take a multivitamin, researchers wanted to assess whether multivitamin use affects overall survival among people with CRC.
• In the current prospective cohort study, researchers evaluated the use and dose of multivitamin supplements in 2424 patients with stages I-III CRC, using detailed information from patients in the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow‐Up Study.
• The participants completed a mailed questionnaire every 2 years, which included questions about the current use of multivitamin supplements as well as doses per week (0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-9, and ≥ 10 tablets).
• The researchers assessed the potential association between multivitamin use and CRC-related as well as all‐cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up period of 11 years, 1512 deaths and 343 cancer-specific deaths occurred.
• For patients diagnosed with CRC, a moderate dose of multivitamins (three to five tablets per week) vs no multivitamin use was associated with a 45% lower risk for cancer-related mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.55; P = .005).
• Moderate multivitamin use was also associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality (aHR, 0.81; P = .04) as was a higher dose of six to nine tablets per week (aHR, 0.79; P < .001).
• However, high doses of 10 or more tablets per week were associated with a 60% higher risk for cancer-related mortality (aHR, 1.60; P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

The study findings suggested that moderate multivitamin supplement use may come with a survival benefit in patients with CRC, while high doses may not, but “further studies are needed before making clinical recommendations for multivitamin use in patients with CRC,” the authors said.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Ming‐ming He of Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China, was published in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

Given the study’s observational design, residual confounding may be possible. Reverse causation and recall bias are also possible limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, American Institute for Cancer Research, Wellesley College, Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute, and the Entertainment Industry Foundation. Three study authors reported financial relationships outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Multivitamin supplements at a moderate dose appear to lower the risk for both all-cause and cancer-related mortality in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC); however, high doses of multivitamin supplements may increase the risk for CRC-specific mortality.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some studies suggest that multivitamin supplements might increase a person’s risk for CRC, and other research indicates that certain components of multivitamins, such as vitamins C and D, may have anti-CRC properties.
• Because as many as half of CRC survivors take a multivitamin, researchers wanted to assess whether multivitamin use affects overall survival among people with CRC.
• In the current prospective cohort study, researchers evaluated the use and dose of multivitamin supplements in 2424 patients with stages I-III CRC, using detailed information from patients in the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow‐Up Study.
• The participants completed a mailed questionnaire every 2 years, which included questions about the current use of multivitamin supplements as well as doses per week (0, 1-2, 3-5, 6-9, and ≥ 10 tablets).
• The researchers assessed the potential association between multivitamin use and CRC-related as well as all‐cause mortality.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up period of 11 years, 1512 deaths and 343 cancer-specific deaths occurred.
• For patients diagnosed with CRC, a moderate dose of multivitamins (three to five tablets per week) vs no multivitamin use was associated with a 45% lower risk for cancer-related mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.55; P = .005).
• Moderate multivitamin use was also associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality (aHR, 0.81; P = .04) as was a higher dose of six to nine tablets per week (aHR, 0.79; P < .001).
• However, high doses of 10 or more tablets per week were associated with a 60% higher risk for cancer-related mortality (aHR, 1.60; P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

The study findings suggested that moderate multivitamin supplement use may come with a survival benefit in patients with CRC, while high doses may not, but “further studies are needed before making clinical recommendations for multivitamin use in patients with CRC,” the authors said.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Ming‐ming He of Sun Yat‐sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China, was published in Cancer.

LIMITATIONS:

Given the study’s observational design, residual confounding may be possible. Reverse causation and recall bias are also possible limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, American Institute for Cancer Research, Wellesley College, Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute, and the Entertainment Industry Foundation. Three study authors reported financial relationships outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, people living and working at Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, N.C., drank and showered in water contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) and other industrial solvents. Now, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study has determined that the exposure markedly increased their risk for certain cancers.

In one of the largest cohort cancer incidence studies ever completed in the US, researchers compared cancer risk between 161,315 military personnel and civilian workers at Camp Lejeune and 169,281 military personnel and civilian workers at Camp Pendleton in Oceanside, Calif., where the water was not contaminated.

Data from diagnoses between 1996 and 2017 documented 12,083 cancers among Camp Lejeune Marine and Navy personnel and 1,563 among civilian workers. By comparison, 12,144 cancers were documented among Camp Pendleton personnel and 1,372 among civilian workers. However, personnel stationed at Camp Lejeune between 1975 and 1985 had at least a 20% higher risk for all myeloid cancers including polycythemia vera, acute myeloid leukemia, myelodysplastic and myeloproliferative syndromes, and cancers of the esophagus, larynx, soft tissue, and thyroid. Civilian workers had a higher risk for all myeloid cancers, squamous cell lung cancer, and female ductal breast cancer.

The water exposures included contributions to total internal body dose from 3 routes: ingestion, inhalation, and dermal. The researchers note that a Marine in training may consume as much as 6 liters a day of drinking water, but the combined dose from inhalation and dermal routes could be as high or higher than that from ingestion. For example, they note that an internal dose via inhalation to TCE during a 10-minute shower could equal the internal dose via ingestion of 2 liters of contaminated drinking water.

Health risks at Camp Lejeune have been studied before, but this study “more fully establishes the scope,” Richard Clapp, a Boston University emeritus public health professor, told the Associated Press.

For years, people living and working at Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, N.C., drank and showered in water contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) and other industrial solvents. Now, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study has determined that the exposure markedly increased their risk for certain cancers.

In one of the largest cohort cancer incidence studies ever completed in the US, researchers compared cancer risk between 161,315 military personnel and civilian workers at Camp Lejeune and 169,281 military personnel and civilian workers at Camp Pendleton in Oceanside, Calif., where the water was not contaminated.

Data from diagnoses between 1996 and 2017 documented 12,083 cancers among Camp Lejeune Marine and Navy personnel and 1,563 among civilian workers. By comparison, 12,144 cancers were documented among Camp Pendleton personnel and 1,372 among civilian workers. However, personnel stationed at Camp Lejeune between 1975 and 1985 had at least a 20% higher risk for all myeloid cancers including polycythemia vera, acute myeloid leukemia, myelodysplastic and myeloproliferative syndromes, and cancers of the esophagus, larynx, soft tissue, and thyroid. Civilian workers had a higher risk for all myeloid cancers, squamous cell lung cancer, and female ductal breast cancer.

The water exposures included contributions to total internal body dose from 3 routes: ingestion, inhalation, and dermal. The researchers note that a Marine in training may consume as much as 6 liters a day of drinking water, but the combined dose from inhalation and dermal routes could be as high or higher than that from ingestion. For example, they note that an internal dose via inhalation to TCE during a 10-minute shower could equal the internal dose via ingestion of 2 liters of contaminated drinking water.

Health risks at Camp Lejeune have been studied before, but this study “more fully establishes the scope,” Richard Clapp, a Boston University emeritus public health professor, told the Associated Press.

For years, people living and working at Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, N.C., drank and showered in water contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) and other industrial solvents. Now, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study has determined that the exposure markedly increased their risk for certain cancers.

In one of the largest cohort cancer incidence studies ever completed in the US, researchers compared cancer risk between 161,315 military personnel and civilian workers at Camp Lejeune and 169,281 military personnel and civilian workers at Camp Pendleton in Oceanside, Calif., where the water was not contaminated.

Data from diagnoses between 1996 and 2017 documented 12,083 cancers among Camp Lejeune Marine and Navy personnel and 1,563 among civilian workers. By comparison, 12,144 cancers were documented among Camp Pendleton personnel and 1,372 among civilian workers. However, personnel stationed at Camp Lejeune between 1975 and 1985 had at least a 20% higher risk for all myeloid cancers including polycythemia vera, acute myeloid leukemia, myelodysplastic and myeloproliferative syndromes, and cancers of the esophagus, larynx, soft tissue, and thyroid. Civilian workers had a higher risk for all myeloid cancers, squamous cell lung cancer, and female ductal breast cancer.

The water exposures included contributions to total internal body dose from 3 routes: ingestion, inhalation, and dermal. The researchers note that a Marine in training may consume as much as 6 liters a day of drinking water, but the combined dose from inhalation and dermal routes could be as high or higher than that from ingestion. For example, they note that an internal dose via inhalation to TCE during a 10-minute shower could equal the internal dose via ingestion of 2 liters of contaminated drinking water.

Health risks at Camp Lejeune have been studied before, but this study “more fully establishes the scope,” Richard Clapp, a Boston University emeritus public health professor, told the Associated Press.

Dry January has come to an end — at least for those who jumped on the trendy post-holiday no-booze wagon.

The benefits of drinking less alcohol are well documented. A systematic review of 63 studies, for example, found that reducing or giving up alcohol reduced people’s risk for hospitalization, injuries, and death. The lifestyle change also improved people’s physical and mental health as well as their quality of life.

When it comes to cancer risk, however, the benefits of quitting or cutting back on alcohol remain much less clear, according to a new report from the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO).

After reviewing dozens of studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that, for most alcohol-related cancers, there is limited evidence to support a link between eliminating or reducing alcohol consumption and lowering of cancer risk.

More specifically, the IARC Working Group, which included 15 scientists from eight countries, reported “limited” evidence on this association for laryngeal, colorectal (CRC), and breast cancer as well as «inadequate» evidence for pharyngeal and liver cancer.

The report did highlight two exceptions: Reducing or quitting alcohol was associated with a lower risk for both oral and esophageal cancer. The IARC working group based this conclusion on large studies of long-term alcohol cessation in these cancer types.

Still, the authors noted, “significant scientific gaps” exist for most alcohol-related cancers.

Take the data on CRC. Two studies found that reducing alcohol consumption did appear to lower CRC risk, while two others — which focused on the duration of quitting — did not suggest a reduced risk for CRC.

“Given the inconsistencies among studies and the few studies on duration of cessation, the Working Group concluded that there was limited evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces colorectal cancer risk,” the authors wrote.

For liver cancer, the experts did note an association between quitting alcohol and lower cancer risk, but that cohort study only included individuals with alcohol-related liver disease. Outside of this study, the IARC group found no clear association between quitting drinking and liver cancer among people without alcohol-related liver disease in the other 11 studies evaluated.

For pharyngeal cancer, the evidence was limited overall, but one analysis looking at long-term cessation and oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer found a 26% lower risk (95% CI, 0.50-1.09). That association went away, however, after adjusting for detailed smoking history (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56-1.61), and the working group concluded, overall, that «there was inadequate evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces pharyngeal cancer risk.”

The IARC working group did find sufficient evidence linking drinking cessation and reduced risk for oral and esophageal cancers.

For instance, an international pooled analysis, which included 12 studies assessing a link between quitting smoking and alcohol and oral cancer risk, found that longer duration since quitting was associated with lower risk. Not drinking for up to 4 years was associated with a 19% lower risk for oral cancer, quitting for 5-9 years was associated with a 23% lower risk, while quitting for 20 years was associated with 55% lower risk. 

“Given the consistent evidence of a reduced risk of oral cancer associated with long-term alcohol cessation,” the IARC working group concluded that there was “sufficient evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces oral cancer risk.”

The working group also found “sufficient evidence from mechanistic studies that alcohol cessation reduces alcohol-related carcinogenesis.” In other words, quitting drinking appeared to reverse certain cancer-promoting biological mechanisms. 

Outside the recent IARC report, some individual studies have suggested that quitting or cutting back on alcohol can reduce the risk for certain cancers. 

For example, a large population-based study of about 4.5 million individuals in Korea found a lower risk for alcohol-related cancers among mild drinkers who quit (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.96) and heavy drinkers who reduced their drinking levels to mild (aHR, 0.92) or moderate (aHR, 0.91). These findings, however, may not be generalizable beyond East Asian populations.

Addressing the existing evidence gaps could help “support alcohol-control measures to reduce consumption,” the IARC working group concluded.

The Case for Limiting Alcohol

While the evidence linking reducing or stopping drinking and lower cancer risk remains limited, the opposite association is well-established — greater alcohol consumption does increase cancer risk. 

A previous IARC analysis estimated that alcohol consumption accounts for about 4% of newly diagnosed cancers worldwide, most commonly esophagus, liver, and breast cancer. The IARC has even classified alcohol as a group 1 carcinogen, highlighting the strong evidence demonstrating that alcohol can cause cancer in humans.

Experts also recommend following existing guidelines for alcohol intake. Guidelines from the American Cancer Society and from the US Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services specify limiting alcohol intake to one drink or less for women and two drinks or less for men on any given day. 

In a January 9, 2023, blog post, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism director George F. Koob, PhD, touted the known benefits of limiting drinking.

“Research shows that even small amounts of alcohol can carry health risks, including for certain cancers and cardiovascular issues,” Dr. Koob said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dry January has come to an end — at least for those who jumped on the trendy post-holiday no-booze wagon.

The benefits of drinking less alcohol are well documented. A systematic review of 63 studies, for example, found that reducing or giving up alcohol reduced people’s risk for hospitalization, injuries, and death. The lifestyle change also improved people’s physical and mental health as well as their quality of life.

When it comes to cancer risk, however, the benefits of quitting or cutting back on alcohol remain much less clear, according to a new report from the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO).

After reviewing dozens of studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that, for most alcohol-related cancers, there is limited evidence to support a link between eliminating or reducing alcohol consumption and lowering of cancer risk.

More specifically, the IARC Working Group, which included 15 scientists from eight countries, reported “limited” evidence on this association for laryngeal, colorectal (CRC), and breast cancer as well as «inadequate» evidence for pharyngeal and liver cancer.

The report did highlight two exceptions: Reducing or quitting alcohol was associated with a lower risk for both oral and esophageal cancer. The IARC working group based this conclusion on large studies of long-term alcohol cessation in these cancer types.

Still, the authors noted, “significant scientific gaps” exist for most alcohol-related cancers.

Take the data on CRC. Two studies found that reducing alcohol consumption did appear to lower CRC risk, while two others — which focused on the duration of quitting — did not suggest a reduced risk for CRC.

“Given the inconsistencies among studies and the few studies on duration of cessation, the Working Group concluded that there was limited evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces colorectal cancer risk,” the authors wrote.

For liver cancer, the experts did note an association between quitting alcohol and lower cancer risk, but that cohort study only included individuals with alcohol-related liver disease. Outside of this study, the IARC group found no clear association between quitting drinking and liver cancer among people without alcohol-related liver disease in the other 11 studies evaluated.

For pharyngeal cancer, the evidence was limited overall, but one analysis looking at long-term cessation and oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer found a 26% lower risk (95% CI, 0.50-1.09). That association went away, however, after adjusting for detailed smoking history (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56-1.61), and the working group concluded, overall, that «there was inadequate evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces pharyngeal cancer risk.”

The IARC working group did find sufficient evidence linking drinking cessation and reduced risk for oral and esophageal cancers.

For instance, an international pooled analysis, which included 12 studies assessing a link between quitting smoking and alcohol and oral cancer risk, found that longer duration since quitting was associated with lower risk. Not drinking for up to 4 years was associated with a 19% lower risk for oral cancer, quitting for 5-9 years was associated with a 23% lower risk, while quitting for 20 years was associated with 55% lower risk. 

“Given the consistent evidence of a reduced risk of oral cancer associated with long-term alcohol cessation,” the IARC working group concluded that there was “sufficient evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces oral cancer risk.”

The working group also found “sufficient evidence from mechanistic studies that alcohol cessation reduces alcohol-related carcinogenesis.” In other words, quitting drinking appeared to reverse certain cancer-promoting biological mechanisms. 

Outside the recent IARC report, some individual studies have suggested that quitting or cutting back on alcohol can reduce the risk for certain cancers. 

For example, a large population-based study of about 4.5 million individuals in Korea found a lower risk for alcohol-related cancers among mild drinkers who quit (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.96) and heavy drinkers who reduced their drinking levels to mild (aHR, 0.92) or moderate (aHR, 0.91). These findings, however, may not be generalizable beyond East Asian populations.

Addressing the existing evidence gaps could help “support alcohol-control measures to reduce consumption,” the IARC working group concluded.

The Case for Limiting Alcohol

While the evidence linking reducing or stopping drinking and lower cancer risk remains limited, the opposite association is well-established — greater alcohol consumption does increase cancer risk. 

A previous IARC analysis estimated that alcohol consumption accounts for about 4% of newly diagnosed cancers worldwide, most commonly esophagus, liver, and breast cancer. The IARC has even classified alcohol as a group 1 carcinogen, highlighting the strong evidence demonstrating that alcohol can cause cancer in humans.

Experts also recommend following existing guidelines for alcohol intake. Guidelines from the American Cancer Society and from the US Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services specify limiting alcohol intake to one drink or less for women and two drinks or less for men on any given day. 

In a January 9, 2023, blog post, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism director George F. Koob, PhD, touted the known benefits of limiting drinking.

“Research shows that even small amounts of alcohol can carry health risks, including for certain cancers and cardiovascular issues,” Dr. Koob said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dry January has come to an end — at least for those who jumped on the trendy post-holiday no-booze wagon.

The benefits of drinking less alcohol are well documented. A systematic review of 63 studies, for example, found that reducing or giving up alcohol reduced people’s risk for hospitalization, injuries, and death. The lifestyle change also improved people’s physical and mental health as well as their quality of life.

When it comes to cancer risk, however, the benefits of quitting or cutting back on alcohol remain much less clear, according to a new report from the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO).

After reviewing dozens of studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that, for most alcohol-related cancers, there is limited evidence to support a link between eliminating or reducing alcohol consumption and lowering of cancer risk.

More specifically, the IARC Working Group, which included 15 scientists from eight countries, reported “limited” evidence on this association for laryngeal, colorectal (CRC), and breast cancer as well as «inadequate» evidence for pharyngeal and liver cancer.

The report did highlight two exceptions: Reducing or quitting alcohol was associated with a lower risk for both oral and esophageal cancer. The IARC working group based this conclusion on large studies of long-term alcohol cessation in these cancer types.

Still, the authors noted, “significant scientific gaps” exist for most alcohol-related cancers.

Take the data on CRC. Two studies found that reducing alcohol consumption did appear to lower CRC risk, while two others — which focused on the duration of quitting — did not suggest a reduced risk for CRC.

“Given the inconsistencies among studies and the few studies on duration of cessation, the Working Group concluded that there was limited evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces colorectal cancer risk,” the authors wrote.

For liver cancer, the experts did note an association between quitting alcohol and lower cancer risk, but that cohort study only included individuals with alcohol-related liver disease. Outside of this study, the IARC group found no clear association between quitting drinking and liver cancer among people without alcohol-related liver disease in the other 11 studies evaluated.

For pharyngeal cancer, the evidence was limited overall, but one analysis looking at long-term cessation and oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer found a 26% lower risk (95% CI, 0.50-1.09). That association went away, however, after adjusting for detailed smoking history (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56-1.61), and the working group concluded, overall, that «there was inadequate evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces pharyngeal cancer risk.”

The IARC working group did find sufficient evidence linking drinking cessation and reduced risk for oral and esophageal cancers.

For instance, an international pooled analysis, which included 12 studies assessing a link between quitting smoking and alcohol and oral cancer risk, found that longer duration since quitting was associated with lower risk. Not drinking for up to 4 years was associated with a 19% lower risk for oral cancer, quitting for 5-9 years was associated with a 23% lower risk, while quitting for 20 years was associated with 55% lower risk. 

“Given the consistent evidence of a reduced risk of oral cancer associated with long-term alcohol cessation,” the IARC working group concluded that there was “sufficient evidence that alcohol reduction or cessation reduces oral cancer risk.”

The working group also found “sufficient evidence from mechanistic studies that alcohol cessation reduces alcohol-related carcinogenesis.” In other words, quitting drinking appeared to reverse certain cancer-promoting biological mechanisms. 

Outside the recent IARC report, some individual studies have suggested that quitting or cutting back on alcohol can reduce the risk for certain cancers. 

For example, a large population-based study of about 4.5 million individuals in Korea found a lower risk for alcohol-related cancers among mild drinkers who quit (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.96) and heavy drinkers who reduced their drinking levels to mild (aHR, 0.92) or moderate (aHR, 0.91). These findings, however, may not be generalizable beyond East Asian populations.

Addressing the existing evidence gaps could help “support alcohol-control measures to reduce consumption,” the IARC working group concluded.

The Case for Limiting Alcohol

While the evidence linking reducing or stopping drinking and lower cancer risk remains limited, the opposite association is well-established — greater alcohol consumption does increase cancer risk. 

A previous IARC analysis estimated that alcohol consumption accounts for about 4% of newly diagnosed cancers worldwide, most commonly esophagus, liver, and breast cancer. The IARC has even classified alcohol as a group 1 carcinogen, highlighting the strong evidence demonstrating that alcohol can cause cancer in humans.

Experts also recommend following existing guidelines for alcohol intake. Guidelines from the American Cancer Society and from the US Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services specify limiting alcohol intake to one drink or less for women and two drinks or less for men on any given day. 

In a January 9, 2023, blog post, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism director George F. Koob, PhD, touted the known benefits of limiting drinking.

“Research shows that even small amounts of alcohol can carry health risks, including for certain cancers and cardiovascular issues,” Dr. Koob said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dr. Richard: The first thing we as physicians are worried about is patients with PV developing thrombosis. We start prophylaxis with aspirin, as aspirin remains the best treatment for reducing this risk. It is essential to make sure patients with PV understand the importance of taking an aspirin, even at a low dosage.

The second step is trying to control patients’ red blood cell counts. Phlebotomy has been used for this purpose for many decades and continues to be effective. You will find some experts in the field who consider phlebotomy to be the mainstay of treatment for patients with PV, and that it has benefits in and of itself.

However, despite the benefits, phlebotomy can be a little tough on patients. For instance, patients with PV cannot donate blood at a traditional blood center such as Red Cross, and therefore need to go to an actual infusion center. They also must stop their day and travel to a site to receive therapeutic phlebotomy treatment, which is most effective for patients with a blood disorder. I work in Seattle taking care of patients throughout the Northwest, and it is not always easy to find a close location to send patients for phlebotomy. Nevertheless, phlebotomy should be part of the treatment options for patients with PV, especially patients in the high-risk range who have high hemoglobin and hematocrit values.

The third step is controlling hemoglobin and hematocrit levels. Hydroxyurea is our standard of care with strong beneficial data for this purpose.

These are the 3 approaches to treatment we initially discuss with our patients during their first visit. These 3 strategies can improve a patient's life and reduce their risk for thrombosis.

Which treatment do you recommend depending on the patient’s symptoms?

Dr. Richard: The treatment that we offer can vary. The first thing I want to know is how their symptoms respond to aspirin. For instance, symptoms such as erythromelalgia oftentimes respond beautifully to aspirin. Most patients do not have massive splenomegaly—that would give me a high suspicion for myelofibrosis—but they can develop and present with some level of splenomegaly.

If the symptoms are bothersome to the patient, I will probably want to get them on some kind of cytoreduction to see if that is effective. Hydroxyurea, although not as effective as aspirin and associated with adverse effects in some patients, is a good medication to start cytoreductive therapy. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) Guidelines suggest that if a patient taking hydroxyurea experiences severe gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, go ahead and move to a Janus kinase 2 (JAK2) inhibitor or try interferon. JAK2 inhibition with ruxolitinib, in this case, is effective, at least initially for treating splenomegaly. Unfortunately, symptoms sometimes get confused with effects from the medications. You have to use an individualized treatment approach and see what works for each patient.
 

What are some of the common adverse effects of treatment?

Dr. Richard: As you probably can tell, I never skip aspirin since it is such an important part of treatment for patients with PV. However, I do talk to patients about GI upset and the bleeding risks, such as the potential for GI bleed. Obviously, clotting is what causes an increase in morbidity and mortality, but bleeding can be an important adverse effect with platelets that do not function, or for other issues.

Hydroxyurea is generally well tolerated, but some patients can develop skin issues or ulcers due to GI toxicity. I have a lot of confidence in the use of hydroxyurea, and I use it without hesitation. However, you may have a patient who already has a relatively low neutrophil count or has some level of thrombocytopenia from either liver disease or some other issue, and they just cannot tolerate hydroxyurea. Some other bothersome symptoms include change of taste, skin changes, and brittle nails. It can be tricky. I will attempt hydroxyurea, if needed, but sometimes they just cannot tolerate it.

What happens when a patient cannot tolerate one or all the medications you mentioned?

Dr. Richard: Now that we have JAK2 inhibitors, ruxolitinib is generally my choice for patients who cannot tolerate hydroxyurea, which is more common than maybe we would like. Other problems with hydroxyurea include that it might not work, or phlebotomy combined with hydroxyurea results in cytopenias, or patients have a particularly aggressive form of PV.

There are numerous other JAK2 drug inhibitors on the market for myelofibrosis. The assumption is they probably work as well as ruxolitinib for PV, but right now ruxolitinib is what is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for these patients.

The other drug that we do not use much is interferon, or now, pegylated interferon. It is a drug that has been around for a long time and worked well in chronic myelogenous leukemia before we had the tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Pegylated interferon is a well-tolerated drug that can be used for patients with PV who are pregnant or could get pregnant. It is not the interferon of our parents or grandparents. We now have options for controlling the disease and its complications, but the hardest thing is to tell patients that none of these treatments are going to cure them or reverse the overproduction of red blood cells in their bone marrow. There has always been discussion about whether there could be some effect of interferon on the actual tumor burden, but that remains to be proven.

Can you go a little bit more into your recommended approach to managing newly diagnosed patients with PV in your day-to-day practice?

Dr. Richard: Oftentimes these patients are identified through our consultation service. It can be hard on the primary care physician to identify whether a patient has secondary or primary PV.

We are lucky now that JAK2 has been identified. The JAK2-V617F and the other exon 12 mutations were identified back in 2006 by several groups and is a great test. With JAK2 along with an erythropoietin test, you can feel confident whether you have identified PV.

PV encompasses a wide variety of syndromes. Patients can come into the office with terrible symptoms, including aquagenic pruritus or erythromelalgia. I have seen young people in their 30s who happen to have a slightly elevated hematocrit and a positive JAK2 test. When this occurs, you try to understand how much the disease is affecting their life, whether they are going to be in a high-risk category or a low-risk category, whether they have had thrombosis, and how their age figures into all of it. To try to figure out this high-risk versus low-risk factor, we use a simple staging system to help determine whether they are going to need cytoreductive therapy or whether you can just start with phlebotomy and see how they do.

Oftentimes in the first visit, I recommend a bone marrow study. Is that going to be true 5 years from now? I am not sure. You know, next-generation sequencing (NGS) is turning into such an important part of determining prognosis in these patients. It helps if you have a great colleague down in hematopathology who can look at the bone marrow as it relates to megakaryocyte morphology, or whether there is early fibrosis.

Although these techniques may not be as prominent in practice today for determining diagnosis, they help us understand the prognosis. A bone marrow study or NGS is particularly useful when you have patients who you are convinced have PV, but it turns out they already have extensive fibrosis and are actually moving more toward the post-polycythemia phase a little faster than you think. While we do not use an allogeneic transplant often, in this scenario we may recommend it. Our primary goal at this point is to try to determine which patients would benefit from a transplant early on and to prepare the patient for this option.

What socioeconomic disparities have you observed in newly diagnosed patients?

Dr. Richard: There are definitely social disparities for people who have low income. I work in a veteran’s hospital where we take care of a lot of people who do not have health insurance, but who come to the VA because they do have benefits. If they are in our system, they get identified and their care is great. However, if they have been out in the regular system without health insurance, oftentimes they get diagnosed late. Identifying and treating patients from low socioeconomic backgrounds is an issue. I think everyone can agree with that.

We have a delicate situation with women veterans. Something that is incredibly painful that I think people should be aware of is the amount of military sexual trauma (MST) that has occurred over the years. These patients are in a unique place of trust with their care providers. They have spent a lot of time not being listened to in a variety of arenas. I see this in young military women who no one expects to have a stem cell disorder. We as health care providers do them a disservice if their complaints lead to referral to a psychotherapist or being prescribed a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or something like that. As health care providers, we are in a unique position to listen to and accurately evaluate these patients. We have a large population of veterans and, increasingly more women veterans, but I think we can all agree that they need better care, especially if they have suffered from MST. That is what I see in my patient population.

When I was a resident in Baltimore, it was Black people with lower income who did not trust doctors. We still have a lot of work to do.

Dr. Richard: The first thing we as physicians are worried about is patients with PV developing thrombosis. We start prophylaxis with aspirin, as aspirin remains the best treatment for reducing this risk. It is essential to make sure patients with PV understand the importance of taking an aspirin, even at a low dosage.

The second step is trying to control patients’ red blood cell counts. Phlebotomy has been used for this purpose for many decades and continues to be effective. You will find some experts in the field who consider phlebotomy to be the mainstay of treatment for patients with PV, and that it has benefits in and of itself.

However, despite the benefits, phlebotomy can be a little tough on patients. For instance, patients with PV cannot donate blood at a traditional blood center such as Red Cross, and therefore need to go to an actual infusion center. They also must stop their day and travel to a site to receive therapeutic phlebotomy treatment, which is most effective for patients with a blood disorder. I work in Seattle taking care of patients throughout the Northwest, and it is not always easy to find a close location to send patients for phlebotomy. Nevertheless, phlebotomy should be part of the treatment options for patients with PV, especially patients in the high-risk range who have high hemoglobin and hematocrit values.

The third step is controlling hemoglobin and hematocrit levels. Hydroxyurea is our standard of care with strong beneficial data for this purpose.

These are the 3 approaches to treatment we initially discuss with our patients during their first visit. These 3 strategies can improve a patient's life and reduce their risk for thrombosis.

Which treatment do you recommend depending on the patient’s symptoms?

Dr. Richard: The treatment that we offer can vary. The first thing I want to know is how their symptoms respond to aspirin. For instance, symptoms such as erythromelalgia oftentimes respond beautifully to aspirin. Most patients do not have massive splenomegaly—that would give me a high suspicion for myelofibrosis—but they can develop and present with some level of splenomegaly.

If the symptoms are bothersome to the patient, I will probably want to get them on some kind of cytoreduction to see if that is effective. Hydroxyurea, although not as effective as aspirin and associated with adverse effects in some patients, is a good medication to start cytoreductive therapy. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) Guidelines suggest that if a patient taking hydroxyurea experiences severe gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, go ahead and move to a Janus kinase 2 (JAK2) inhibitor or try interferon. JAK2 inhibition with ruxolitinib, in this case, is effective, at least initially for treating splenomegaly. Unfortunately, symptoms sometimes get confused with effects from the medications. You have to use an individualized treatment approach and see what works for each patient.
 

What are some of the common adverse effects of treatment?

Dr. Richard: As you probably can tell, I never skip aspirin since it is such an important part of treatment for patients with PV. However, I do talk to patients about GI upset and the bleeding risks, such as the potential for GI bleed. Obviously, clotting is what causes an increase in morbidity and mortality, but bleeding can be an important adverse effect with platelets that do not function, or for other issues.

Hydroxyurea is generally well tolerated, but some patients can develop skin issues or ulcers due to GI toxicity. I have a lot of confidence in the use of hydroxyurea, and I use it without hesitation. However, you may have a patient who already has a relatively low neutrophil count or has some level of thrombocytopenia from either liver disease or some other issue, and they just cannot tolerate hydroxyurea. Some other bothersome symptoms include change of taste, skin changes, and brittle nails. It can be tricky. I will attempt hydroxyurea, if needed, but sometimes they just cannot tolerate it.

What happens when a patient cannot tolerate one or all the medications you mentioned?

Dr. Richard: Now that we have JAK2 inhibitors, ruxolitinib is generally my choice for patients who cannot tolerate hydroxyurea, which is more common than maybe we would like. Other problems with hydroxyurea include that it might not work, or phlebotomy combined with hydroxyurea results in cytopenias, or patients have a particularly aggressive form of PV.

There are numerous other JAK2 drug inhibitors on the market for myelofibrosis. The assumption is they probably work as well as ruxolitinib for PV, but right now ruxolitinib is what is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for these patients.

The other drug that we do not use much is interferon, or now, pegylated interferon. It is a drug that has been around for a long time and worked well in chronic myelogenous leukemia before we had the tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Pegylated interferon is a well-tolerated drug that can be used for patients with PV who are pregnant or could get pregnant. It is not the interferon of our parents or grandparents. We now have options for controlling the disease and its complications, but the hardest thing is to tell patients that none of these treatments are going to cure them or reverse the overproduction of red blood cells in their bone marrow. There has always been discussion about whether there could be some effect of interferon on the actual tumor burden, but that remains to be proven.

Can you go a little bit more into your recommended approach to managing newly diagnosed patients with PV in your day-to-day practice?

Dr. Richard: Oftentimes these patients are identified through our consultation service. It can be hard on the primary care physician to identify whether a patient has secondary or primary PV.

We are lucky now that JAK2 has been identified. The JAK2-V617F and the other exon 12 mutations were identified back in 2006 by several groups and is a great test. With JAK2 along with an erythropoietin test, you can feel confident whether you have identified PV.

PV encompasses a wide variety of syndromes. Patients can come into the office with terrible symptoms, including aquagenic pruritus or erythromelalgia. I have seen young people in their 30s who happen to have a slightly elevated hematocrit and a positive JAK2 test. When this occurs, you try to understand how much the disease is affecting their life, whether they are going to be in a high-risk category or a low-risk category, whether they have had thrombosis, and how their age figures into all of it. To try to figure out this high-risk versus low-risk factor, we use a simple staging system to help determine whether they are going to need cytoreductive therapy or whether you can just start with phlebotomy and see how they do.

Oftentimes in the first visit, I recommend a bone marrow study. Is that going to be true 5 years from now? I am not sure. You know, next-generation sequencing (NGS) is turning into such an important part of determining prognosis in these patients. It helps if you have a great colleague down in hematopathology who can look at the bone marrow as it relates to megakaryocyte morphology, or whether there is early fibrosis.

Although these techniques may not be as prominent in practice today for determining diagnosis, they help us understand the prognosis. A bone marrow study or NGS is particularly useful when you have patients who you are convinced have PV, but it turns out they already have extensive fibrosis and are actually moving more toward the post-polycythemia phase a little faster than you think. While we do not use an allogeneic transplant often, in this scenario we may recommend it. Our primary goal at this point is to try to determine which patients would benefit from a transplant early on and to prepare the patient for this option.

What socioeconomic disparities have you observed in newly diagnosed patients?

Dr. Richard: There are definitely social disparities for people who have low income. I work in a veteran’s hospital where we take care of a lot of people who do not have health insurance, but who come to the VA because they do have benefits. If they are in our system, they get identified and their care is great. However, if they have been out in the regular system without health insurance, oftentimes they get diagnosed late. Identifying and treating patients from low socioeconomic backgrounds is an issue. I think everyone can agree with that.

We have a delicate situation with women veterans. Something that is incredibly painful that I think people should be aware of is the amount of military sexual trauma (MST) that has occurred over the years. These patients are in a unique place of trust with their care providers. They have spent a lot of time not being listened to in a variety of arenas. I see this in young military women who no one expects to have a stem cell disorder. We as health care providers do them a disservice if their complaints lead to referral to a psychotherapist or being prescribed a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or something like that. As health care providers, we are in a unique position to listen to and accurately evaluate these patients. We have a large population of veterans and, increasingly more women veterans, but I think we can all agree that they need better care, especially if they have suffered from MST. That is what I see in my patient population.

When I was a resident in Baltimore, it was Black people with lower income who did not trust doctors. We still have a lot of work to do.

Dr. Richard: The first thing we as physicians are worried about is patients with PV developing thrombosis. We start prophylaxis with aspirin, as aspirin remains the best treatment for reducing this risk. It is essential to make sure patients with PV understand the importance of taking an aspirin, even at a low dosage.

The second step is trying to control patients’ red blood cell counts. Phlebotomy has been used for this purpose for many decades and continues to be effective. You will find some experts in the field who consider phlebotomy to be the mainstay of treatment for patients with PV, and that it has benefits in and of itself.

However, despite the benefits, phlebotomy can be a little tough on patients. For instance, patients with PV cannot donate blood at a traditional blood center such as Red Cross, and therefore need to go to an actual infusion center. They also must stop their day and travel to a site to receive therapeutic phlebotomy treatment, which is most effective for patients with a blood disorder. I work in Seattle taking care of patients throughout the Northwest, and it is not always easy to find a close location to send patients for phlebotomy. Nevertheless, phlebotomy should be part of the treatment options for patients with PV, especially patients in the high-risk range who have high hemoglobin and hematocrit values.

The third step is controlling hemoglobin and hematocrit levels. Hydroxyurea is our standard of care with strong beneficial data for this purpose.

These are the 3 approaches to treatment we initially discuss with our patients during their first visit. These 3 strategies can improve a patient's life and reduce their risk for thrombosis.

Which treatment do you recommend depending on the patient’s symptoms?

Dr. Richard: The treatment that we offer can vary. The first thing I want to know is how their symptoms respond to aspirin. For instance, symptoms such as erythromelalgia oftentimes respond beautifully to aspirin. Most patients do not have massive splenomegaly—that would give me a high suspicion for myelofibrosis—but they can develop and present with some level of splenomegaly.

If the symptoms are bothersome to the patient, I will probably want to get them on some kind of cytoreduction to see if that is effective. Hydroxyurea, although not as effective as aspirin and associated with adverse effects in some patients, is a good medication to start cytoreductive therapy. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network® (NCCN®) Guidelines suggest that if a patient taking hydroxyurea experiences severe gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity, go ahead and move to a Janus kinase 2 (JAK2) inhibitor or try interferon. JAK2 inhibition with ruxolitinib, in this case, is effective, at least initially for treating splenomegaly. Unfortunately, symptoms sometimes get confused with effects from the medications. You have to use an individualized treatment approach and see what works for each patient.
 

What are some of the common adverse effects of treatment?

Dr. Richard: As you probably can tell, I never skip aspirin since it is such an important part of treatment for patients with PV. However, I do talk to patients about GI upset and the bleeding risks, such as the potential for GI bleed. Obviously, clotting is what causes an increase in morbidity and mortality, but bleeding can be an important adverse effect with platelets that do not function, or for other issues.

Hydroxyurea is generally well tolerated, but some patients can develop skin issues or ulcers due to GI toxicity. I have a lot of confidence in the use of hydroxyurea, and I use it without hesitation. However, you may have a patient who already has a relatively low neutrophil count or has some level of thrombocytopenia from either liver disease or some other issue, and they just cannot tolerate hydroxyurea. Some other bothersome symptoms include change of taste, skin changes, and brittle nails. It can be tricky. I will attempt hydroxyurea, if needed, but sometimes they just cannot tolerate it.

What happens when a patient cannot tolerate one or all the medications you mentioned?

Dr. Richard: Now that we have JAK2 inhibitors, ruxolitinib is generally my choice for patients who cannot tolerate hydroxyurea, which is more common than maybe we would like. Other problems with hydroxyurea include that it might not work, or phlebotomy combined with hydroxyurea results in cytopenias, or patients have a particularly aggressive form of PV.

There are numerous other JAK2 drug inhibitors on the market for myelofibrosis. The assumption is they probably work as well as ruxolitinib for PV, but right now ruxolitinib is what is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for these patients.

The other drug that we do not use much is interferon, or now, pegylated interferon. It is a drug that has been around for a long time and worked well in chronic myelogenous leukemia before we had the tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Pegylated interferon is a well-tolerated drug that can be used for patients with PV who are pregnant or could get pregnant. It is not the interferon of our parents or grandparents. We now have options for controlling the disease and its complications, but the hardest thing is to tell patients that none of these treatments are going to cure them or reverse the overproduction of red blood cells in their bone marrow. There has always been discussion about whether there could be some effect of interferon on the actual tumor burden, but that remains to be proven.

Can you go a little bit more into your recommended approach to managing newly diagnosed patients with PV in your day-to-day practice?

Dr. Richard: Oftentimes these patients are identified through our consultation service. It can be hard on the primary care physician to identify whether a patient has secondary or primary PV.

We are lucky now that JAK2 has been identified. The JAK2-V617F and the other exon 12 mutations were identified back in 2006 by several groups and is a great test. With JAK2 along with an erythropoietin test, you can feel confident whether you have identified PV.

PV encompasses a wide variety of syndromes. Patients can come into the office with terrible symptoms, including aquagenic pruritus or erythromelalgia. I have seen young people in their 30s who happen to have a slightly elevated hematocrit and a positive JAK2 test. When this occurs, you try to understand how much the disease is affecting their life, whether they are going to be in a high-risk category or a low-risk category, whether they have had thrombosis, and how their age figures into all of it. To try to figure out this high-risk versus low-risk factor, we use a simple staging system to help determine whether they are going to need cytoreductive therapy or whether you can just start with phlebotomy and see how they do.

Oftentimes in the first visit, I recommend a bone marrow study. Is that going to be true 5 years from now? I am not sure. You know, next-generation sequencing (NGS) is turning into such an important part of determining prognosis in these patients. It helps if you have a great colleague down in hematopathology who can look at the bone marrow as it relates to megakaryocyte morphology, or whether there is early fibrosis.

Although these techniques may not be as prominent in practice today for determining diagnosis, they help us understand the prognosis. A bone marrow study or NGS is particularly useful when you have patients who you are convinced have PV, but it turns out they already have extensive fibrosis and are actually moving more toward the post-polycythemia phase a little faster than you think. While we do not use an allogeneic transplant often, in this scenario we may recommend it. Our primary goal at this point is to try to determine which patients would benefit from a transplant early on and to prepare the patient for this option.

What socioeconomic disparities have you observed in newly diagnosed patients?

Dr. Richard: There are definitely social disparities for people who have low income. I work in a veteran’s hospital where we take care of a lot of people who do not have health insurance, but who come to the VA because they do have benefits. If they are in our system, they get identified and their care is great. However, if they have been out in the regular system without health insurance, oftentimes they get diagnosed late. Identifying and treating patients from low socioeconomic backgrounds is an issue. I think everyone can agree with that.

We have a delicate situation with women veterans. Something that is incredibly painful that I think people should be aware of is the amount of military sexual trauma (MST) that has occurred over the years. These patients are in a unique place of trust with their care providers. They have spent a lot of time not being listened to in a variety of arenas. I see this in young military women who no one expects to have a stem cell disorder. We as health care providers do them a disservice if their complaints lead to referral to a psychotherapist or being prescribed a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or something like that. As health care providers, we are in a unique position to listen to and accurately evaluate these patients. We have a large population of veterans and, increasingly more women veterans, but I think we can all agree that they need better care, especially if they have suffered from MST. That is what I see in my patient population.

When I was a resident in Baltimore, it was Black people with lower income who did not trust doctors. We still have a lot of work to do.

In a joint discussion with European counterparts, the top US regulator for cancer medicines called for the streamlining of processes for testing oncology medicines and for a greater focus on designing research that answers the most important questions raised by physicians and their patients.

Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads the cancer division at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said there’s a need to simplify the paperwork involved in clinical trials. Before joining the FDA in 1999, Dr. Pazdur participated in and published cancer research. He says the informed consent forms used for studies have grown too elaborate over the years, such that they can intimidate even experts.

“When I read informed consents now in clinical trials, folks, it gives me a headache. Okay, I can’t follow them,” Dr. Pazdur said.

Dr. Pazdur said informed consent forms can be “mind-boggling” these days.

“They’re so damn complicated with so many damn questions being answered,” he said. “So our point is what’s the essential question that you need answered and what’s the quickest way of answering that question with the least amount of data that can be collected?”

Dr. Pazdur made these comments during a joint meeting of the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

The meeting was a broad discussion about how to build on the successes seen in treatment of blood cancers in the past two decades. No formal recommendations were introduced or considered at the meeting. Instead, the meeting served as a chance for oncologists and patients to discuss ways to more quickly and efficiently address the key questions in drug research: Do medicines deliver a significant benefit to patients?

Dr. Pazdur also said at the meeting that there needs to be a way to attract more people to enroll in clinical trials.

“When I started in oncology, it was about 5%. When I’m sitting here now, 40 years later, it’s 5%. Basically it hasn’t moved,” he said at the discussion, held on February 1.

Ellin Berman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, spoke at the meeting about the changes she has witnessed in her career in oncology. Until 2001, there were limited drug options, and physicians tried to get patients to transplant teams as possible. Then the FDA in 2001 approved imatinib to treat patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) that has the Philadelphia chromosome. That set the stage, Dr. Berman said, for a sea change in treatment of CML.

“The fellows now have no idea what it is like to talk to a CML patient about transplant and the question is which among the treasures we have of drugs do we start people on? And that’s always a conversation,” Dr. Berman said.

She noted that advances in treatment have also let some female patients get pregnant and have children.

“We have at least half a dozen women who bring their kids to clinic. And boy, if that doesn’t bring tears to our eyes, our collective eyes, I don’t know what does,” she said.

Dr. Pazdur also recalled his experience treating patients in the 1970s and 1980s for cancers for which “you had nothing so to speak” in terms of effective treatment.

“So then ask yourself the question, what would their stories be now?” with the many options available, Dr. Pazdur said.

 

Seeking clinician feedback

To try to improve the development and testing of cancer drugs, the FDA is seeking to get more feedback from clinicians about which questions trials should address, Dr. Pazdur said.

The agency is considering a way to poll clinicians on what their most crucial questions are about the medicines, he said. Better design of trial questions might serve to improve enrollment in studies.

“What we’re thinking of doing is taking the common disease areas and asking clinicians what are the five basic questions that you want answered in the next 5 years,” he said.

He cited PD-1 drugs as a possible example of a class where regulators could consider new approaches. There could be a discussion about the safety data collection for this class of drugs, which has been used by millions of patients.

Dr. Pazdur said he has been discussing these kinds of themes with his European and Japanese counterparts, who also are interested in simplifying clinical trials.

The goal is to have trials better represent real-world experiences rather than “artificial” ones created when patients must meet extensive eligibility requirements. Improved use of emerging technologies could aid in the needed streamlining, Dr. Pazdur said.

“As an oncology community, we have made our lives somewhat too complicated and need to draw back and ask the basic questions,” Dr. Pazdur said.

In a joint discussion with European counterparts, the top US regulator for cancer medicines called for the streamlining of processes for testing oncology medicines and for a greater focus on designing research that answers the most important questions raised by physicians and their patients.

Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads the cancer division at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said there’s a need to simplify the paperwork involved in clinical trials. Before joining the FDA in 1999, Dr. Pazdur participated in and published cancer research. He says the informed consent forms used for studies have grown too elaborate over the years, such that they can intimidate even experts.

“When I read informed consents now in clinical trials, folks, it gives me a headache. Okay, I can’t follow them,” Dr. Pazdur said.

Dr. Pazdur said informed consent forms can be “mind-boggling” these days.

“They’re so damn complicated with so many damn questions being answered,” he said. “So our point is what’s the essential question that you need answered and what’s the quickest way of answering that question with the least amount of data that can be collected?”

Dr. Pazdur made these comments during a joint meeting of the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

The meeting was a broad discussion about how to build on the successes seen in treatment of blood cancers in the past two decades. No formal recommendations were introduced or considered at the meeting. Instead, the meeting served as a chance for oncologists and patients to discuss ways to more quickly and efficiently address the key questions in drug research: Do medicines deliver a significant benefit to patients?

Dr. Pazdur also said at the meeting that there needs to be a way to attract more people to enroll in clinical trials.

“When I started in oncology, it was about 5%. When I’m sitting here now, 40 years later, it’s 5%. Basically it hasn’t moved,” he said at the discussion, held on February 1.

Ellin Berman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, spoke at the meeting about the changes she has witnessed in her career in oncology. Until 2001, there were limited drug options, and physicians tried to get patients to transplant teams as possible. Then the FDA in 2001 approved imatinib to treat patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) that has the Philadelphia chromosome. That set the stage, Dr. Berman said, for a sea change in treatment of CML.

“The fellows now have no idea what it is like to talk to a CML patient about transplant and the question is which among the treasures we have of drugs do we start people on? And that’s always a conversation,” Dr. Berman said.

She noted that advances in treatment have also let some female patients get pregnant and have children.

“We have at least half a dozen women who bring their kids to clinic. And boy, if that doesn’t bring tears to our eyes, our collective eyes, I don’t know what does,” she said.

Dr. Pazdur also recalled his experience treating patients in the 1970s and 1980s for cancers for which “you had nothing so to speak” in terms of effective treatment.

“So then ask yourself the question, what would their stories be now?” with the many options available, Dr. Pazdur said.

 

Seeking clinician feedback

To try to improve the development and testing of cancer drugs, the FDA is seeking to get more feedback from clinicians about which questions trials should address, Dr. Pazdur said.

The agency is considering a way to poll clinicians on what their most crucial questions are about the medicines, he said. Better design of trial questions might serve to improve enrollment in studies.

“What we’re thinking of doing is taking the common disease areas and asking clinicians what are the five basic questions that you want answered in the next 5 years,” he said.

He cited PD-1 drugs as a possible example of a class where regulators could consider new approaches. There could be a discussion about the safety data collection for this class of drugs, which has been used by millions of patients.

Dr. Pazdur said he has been discussing these kinds of themes with his European and Japanese counterparts, who also are interested in simplifying clinical trials.

The goal is to have trials better represent real-world experiences rather than “artificial” ones created when patients must meet extensive eligibility requirements. Improved use of emerging technologies could aid in the needed streamlining, Dr. Pazdur said.

“As an oncology community, we have made our lives somewhat too complicated and need to draw back and ask the basic questions,” Dr. Pazdur said.

In a joint discussion with European counterparts, the top US regulator for cancer medicines called for the streamlining of processes for testing oncology medicines and for a greater focus on designing research that answers the most important questions raised by physicians and their patients.

Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads the cancer division at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said there’s a need to simplify the paperwork involved in clinical trials. Before joining the FDA in 1999, Dr. Pazdur participated in and published cancer research. He says the informed consent forms used for studies have grown too elaborate over the years, such that they can intimidate even experts.

“When I read informed consents now in clinical trials, folks, it gives me a headache. Okay, I can’t follow them,” Dr. Pazdur said.

Dr. Pazdur said informed consent forms can be “mind-boggling” these days.

“They’re so damn complicated with so many damn questions being answered,” he said. “So our point is what’s the essential question that you need answered and what’s the quickest way of answering that question with the least amount of data that can be collected?”

Dr. Pazdur made these comments during a joint meeting of the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

The meeting was a broad discussion about how to build on the successes seen in treatment of blood cancers in the past two decades. No formal recommendations were introduced or considered at the meeting. Instead, the meeting served as a chance for oncologists and patients to discuss ways to more quickly and efficiently address the key questions in drug research: Do medicines deliver a significant benefit to patients?

Dr. Pazdur also said at the meeting that there needs to be a way to attract more people to enroll in clinical trials.

“When I started in oncology, it was about 5%. When I’m sitting here now, 40 years later, it’s 5%. Basically it hasn’t moved,” he said at the discussion, held on February 1.

Ellin Berman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, spoke at the meeting about the changes she has witnessed in her career in oncology. Until 2001, there were limited drug options, and physicians tried to get patients to transplant teams as possible. Then the FDA in 2001 approved imatinib to treat patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) that has the Philadelphia chromosome. That set the stage, Dr. Berman said, for a sea change in treatment of CML.

“The fellows now have no idea what it is like to talk to a CML patient about transplant and the question is which among the treasures we have of drugs do we start people on? And that’s always a conversation,” Dr. Berman said.

She noted that advances in treatment have also let some female patients get pregnant and have children.

“We have at least half a dozen women who bring their kids to clinic. And boy, if that doesn’t bring tears to our eyes, our collective eyes, I don’t know what does,” she said.

Dr. Pazdur also recalled his experience treating patients in the 1970s and 1980s for cancers for which “you had nothing so to speak” in terms of effective treatment.

“So then ask yourself the question, what would their stories be now?” with the many options available, Dr. Pazdur said.

 

Seeking clinician feedback

To try to improve the development and testing of cancer drugs, the FDA is seeking to get more feedback from clinicians about which questions trials should address, Dr. Pazdur said.

The agency is considering a way to poll clinicians on what their most crucial questions are about the medicines, he said. Better design of trial questions might serve to improve enrollment in studies.

“What we’re thinking of doing is taking the common disease areas and asking clinicians what are the five basic questions that you want answered in the next 5 years,” he said.

He cited PD-1 drugs as a possible example of a class where regulators could consider new approaches. There could be a discussion about the safety data collection for this class of drugs, which has been used by millions of patients.

Dr. Pazdur said he has been discussing these kinds of themes with his European and Japanese counterparts, who also are interested in simplifying clinical trials.

The goal is to have trials better represent real-world experiences rather than “artificial” ones created when patients must meet extensive eligibility requirements. Improved use of emerging technologies could aid in the needed streamlining, Dr. Pazdur said.

“As an oncology community, we have made our lives somewhat too complicated and need to draw back and ask the basic questions,” Dr. Pazdur said.

In December, in what’s known as the “Take Care of Maya” case, a Florida jury returned a record $261 million verdict against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital, St. Petersburg, Florida, for its treatment of a young patient and her family after an emergency room visit.

A month earlier, in New York, a jury ordered Westchester Medical Center Health Network to pay $120 million to a patient and his family following delayed stroke care that resulted in brain damage.

Mega malpractice awards like these are rising against physicians and hospitals around the country, according to new data from TransRe, an international reinsurance company that tracks large verdicts.

“2023 blew away every record previously set among high medical malpractice verdicts,” said Richard Henderson, senior vice president for TransRe. “If we look at the 50 largest verdicts in 2023 and average them out, we have a higher monetary amount than any other year.”

In 2023, there were 57 medical malpractice verdicts of $10 million or more in the United States, the data showed. Slightly more than half of those reached $25 million or more.

From 2012 to 2022, verdicts of $10 million or more ranged from 34 in 2013 to 52 in 2022, TransRe research found.

While New York, Illinois, and Florida typically saw the highest dollar verdicts in previous years, so-called “nuclear” verdicts now occur in states like Utah and Georgia where they once were uncommon, said Robert E. White Jr., president of TDC Group and The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer for physicians.

A rollback of tort reforms across the country is one contributor, he said. For example, Georgia’s cap on noneconomic damages is among those that have been ruled unconstitutional by courts. Utah’s cap on noneconomic damages still stands, but the limit was deemed unconstitutional in wrongful death cases. In 2019, a portion of Utah›s pre-litigation panel process was also struck down by the state’s Supreme Court.

“We used to be able to predict where these high verdicts would occur,” Mr. White said. “We can’t predict it anymore.”

Research shows a majority of malpractice cases are dropped or settled before trial, and claims that go before juries usually end in doctors’ favor. Plaintiffs’ attorneys cite large jury verdicts in similar cases to induce settlements and higher payouts, Mr. White said.

And while mega verdicts rarely stick, they can have lasting effects on future claims. The awards lead to larger settlement demands from plaintiffs and drive up the cost to resolve claims, according to Mr. Henderson and Mr. White.

“Verdicts are the yardstick by which all settlements are measured,” Mr. White said. “That’s where the damage is done.” The prospect of a mega verdict can make insurers leery of fighting some malpractice cases and motivate them to offer bigger settlements to stay out of the courtroom, he added.

Why Are Juries Awarding Higher Verdicts?

There’s no single reason for the rise in nuclear verdicts, Mr. Henderson said.

One theory is that plaintiffs’ attorneys held back on resolving high-dollar cases during the COVID pandemic and let loose with high-demand claims when courts returned to normal, he said.

Another theory is that people emerged from the pandemic angrier.

“Whether it was political dynamics, masking [mandates], or differences in opinions, people came out of it angry, and generally speaking, you don’t want an angry jury,” Mr. Henderson said. “For a while, there was the halo effect, where health professionals were seen as heroes. That went away, and all of a sudden [they] became ‘the bad guys.’ ”

“People are angry at the healthcare system, and this anger manifests itself in [liability] suits,” added Bill Burns, vice president of research for the Medical Professional Liability Association, an industry group for medical liability insurers.

Hospital and medical group consolidation also reduces the personal connection juries may have with healthcare providers, Mr. Burns said.

“Healthcare has become a big business, and the corporatization of medicine now puts companies on the stand and not your local community hospital or your family doctor that you have known since birth,” he said.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys also deploy tactics that can prompt higher verdicts, Mr. White said. They may tell a jury that the provider or hospital is a threat to the community and that awarding a large verdict will deter others in the healthcare community from repeating the same actions.

Juries may then want to punish the defendant in addition to assessing damages for economic harm or pain and suffering, Mr. White said.

“I am concerned that jurors are trying to right social wrongs rather than judging cases on the facts presented to them,” added Mike Stinson, vice president for policy and legal affairs for the Medical Professional Liability Association.

Third-party litigation financing also can lead to mega verdicts. That’s an emerging practice in which companies unrelated to a lawsuit provide capital to plaintiffs in return for a portion of any financial award. The firms essentially “invest” in the litigation.

“What this does is provide an additional financial backdrop for plaintiffs,” Mr. Henderson said. “It allows them to dig in harder on cases. They can hold out for higher numbers, and if nothing else, it can prolong litigation.”

Do High Awards Actually Stick?

Multimillion-dollar verdicts may grab headlines, but do plaintiffs actually receive them?

Rarely, said TransRe, which tracks the final outcomes of verdicts. In many cases, large verdicts are reduced on appeal.

In the Maya case, which involved child protection authorities, a judge later lowered the damages against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital by $47.5 million.

A federal judge in October, for example, rejected a record $110 million medical malpractice award in Minnesota, reducing it to $10 million. The district judge ruled the award was “shockingly excessive” and that the plaintiff should either accept the $10 million award or retry the case.

After a verdict is awarded, the defendant typically challenges the award, and the case goes through the appellate pipeline, Mr. Henderson explained. A judge may reduce some elements of the verdict, he said, but more often, the plaintiff and defendant agree on a compromised figure.

Seattle medical liability defense attorney Jennifer Crisera has experienced this firsthand. She recalled a recent case where a plaintiff’s attorney demanded what she describes as an unreasonable amount to settle a claim. Ms. Crisera did not want to give exact numbers but said the plaintiff made an 8-figure demand and the defense offered a low 7-figure range.

“My impression was that plaintiff’s counsel believed that they could get a nuclear verdict from the jury, so they kept their settlement demand artificially high,” she said. “The division between the numbers was way too high. Ultimately, we had to let a jury decide the value.”

The plaintiff won the case, and the verdict was much less than the settlement demand, she said. Even so, the defense incurred trial costs, and the health provider was forced to endure the emotional stress of a trial that could have been avoided, Ms. Crisera said.

Higher medical malpractice premiums are another consequence of massive awards.

Premium rates are associated with how much insurers pay on average for cases and how frequently they are making payouts, Mr. White said.

Medical liability insurance premiums for physicians have steadily increased since 2019, according to data from the Medical Liability Monitor, a national publication that analyzes liability insurance premiums. The Monitor studies insurance premium data from insurers that cover internists, general surgeons, and obstetrician-gynecologists.

From 2019 to 2023, average premium rates for physicians increased between 1.1% and 3% each year in states without patient compensation funds, according to Monitor data.

“Nuclear verdicts are a real driver of the industry’s underwriting losses and remain top of mind for every malpractice insurance company,” said Michael Matray, editor for the Medical Liability Monitor. “Responses to this year’s rate survey questionnaire indicate that most responding companies have experienced an increase in claims greater than $1 million and claims greater than $5 million during the past 2 years.”

However, increases vary widely by region and among counties. In Montgomery County, Alabama, for instance, premiums for internists rose by 24% from 2022 to 2023, from $8,231 to $10,240. Premiums for Montgomery County general surgeons rose by 11.9% from 2022 to 2023, from $30,761 to $34,426, according to survey data.

In several counties in Illinois (Adams, Knox, Peoria, and Rock Island), premiums for some internists rose by 15% from $24,041 to $27,783, and premiums for some surgeons increased by 27% from $60,202 to $76,461, according to survey data. Some internists in Catoosa County, Georgia, meanwhile, paid $17,831 in 2023, up from $16,313 in 2022. Some surgeons in Catoosa County paid $65,616 in 2023, up from $60,032 in 2022. Inflation could be one factor behind higher liability premium rates. Claim severity is a key driver of higher premium rates, Mr. White added.

“We have not seen stability in claims severity,” he said. “It is continuing to go up and, in all likelihood, it will drive [premium] rates up further from this point.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In December, in what’s known as the “Take Care of Maya” case, a Florida jury returned a record $261 million verdict against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital, St. Petersburg, Florida, for its treatment of a young patient and her family after an emergency room visit.

A month earlier, in New York, a jury ordered Westchester Medical Center Health Network to pay $120 million to a patient and his family following delayed stroke care that resulted in brain damage.

Mega malpractice awards like these are rising against physicians and hospitals around the country, according to new data from TransRe, an international reinsurance company that tracks large verdicts.

“2023 blew away every record previously set among high medical malpractice verdicts,” said Richard Henderson, senior vice president for TransRe. “If we look at the 50 largest verdicts in 2023 and average them out, we have a higher monetary amount than any other year.”

In 2023, there were 57 medical malpractice verdicts of $10 million or more in the United States, the data showed. Slightly more than half of those reached $25 million or more.

From 2012 to 2022, verdicts of $10 million or more ranged from 34 in 2013 to 52 in 2022, TransRe research found.

While New York, Illinois, and Florida typically saw the highest dollar verdicts in previous years, so-called “nuclear” verdicts now occur in states like Utah and Georgia where they once were uncommon, said Robert E. White Jr., president of TDC Group and The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer for physicians.

A rollback of tort reforms across the country is one contributor, he said. For example, Georgia’s cap on noneconomic damages is among those that have been ruled unconstitutional by courts. Utah’s cap on noneconomic damages still stands, but the limit was deemed unconstitutional in wrongful death cases. In 2019, a portion of Utah›s pre-litigation panel process was also struck down by the state’s Supreme Court.

“We used to be able to predict where these high verdicts would occur,” Mr. White said. “We can’t predict it anymore.”

Research shows a majority of malpractice cases are dropped or settled before trial, and claims that go before juries usually end in doctors’ favor. Plaintiffs’ attorneys cite large jury verdicts in similar cases to induce settlements and higher payouts, Mr. White said.

And while mega verdicts rarely stick, they can have lasting effects on future claims. The awards lead to larger settlement demands from plaintiffs and drive up the cost to resolve claims, according to Mr. Henderson and Mr. White.

“Verdicts are the yardstick by which all settlements are measured,” Mr. White said. “That’s where the damage is done.” The prospect of a mega verdict can make insurers leery of fighting some malpractice cases and motivate them to offer bigger settlements to stay out of the courtroom, he added.

Why Are Juries Awarding Higher Verdicts?

There’s no single reason for the rise in nuclear verdicts, Mr. Henderson said.

One theory is that plaintiffs’ attorneys held back on resolving high-dollar cases during the COVID pandemic and let loose with high-demand claims when courts returned to normal, he said.

Another theory is that people emerged from the pandemic angrier.

“Whether it was political dynamics, masking [mandates], or differences in opinions, people came out of it angry, and generally speaking, you don’t want an angry jury,” Mr. Henderson said. “For a while, there was the halo effect, where health professionals were seen as heroes. That went away, and all of a sudden [they] became ‘the bad guys.’ ”

“People are angry at the healthcare system, and this anger manifests itself in [liability] suits,” added Bill Burns, vice president of research for the Medical Professional Liability Association, an industry group for medical liability insurers.

Hospital and medical group consolidation also reduces the personal connection juries may have with healthcare providers, Mr. Burns said.

“Healthcare has become a big business, and the corporatization of medicine now puts companies on the stand and not your local community hospital or your family doctor that you have known since birth,” he said.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys also deploy tactics that can prompt higher verdicts, Mr. White said. They may tell a jury that the provider or hospital is a threat to the community and that awarding a large verdict will deter others in the healthcare community from repeating the same actions.

Juries may then want to punish the defendant in addition to assessing damages for economic harm or pain and suffering, Mr. White said.

“I am concerned that jurors are trying to right social wrongs rather than judging cases on the facts presented to them,” added Mike Stinson, vice president for policy and legal affairs for the Medical Professional Liability Association.

Third-party litigation financing also can lead to mega verdicts. That’s an emerging practice in which companies unrelated to a lawsuit provide capital to plaintiffs in return for a portion of any financial award. The firms essentially “invest” in the litigation.

“What this does is provide an additional financial backdrop for plaintiffs,” Mr. Henderson said. “It allows them to dig in harder on cases. They can hold out for higher numbers, and if nothing else, it can prolong litigation.”

Do High Awards Actually Stick?

Multimillion-dollar verdicts may grab headlines, but do plaintiffs actually receive them?

Rarely, said TransRe, which tracks the final outcomes of verdicts. In many cases, large verdicts are reduced on appeal.

In the Maya case, which involved child protection authorities, a judge later lowered the damages against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital by $47.5 million.

A federal judge in October, for example, rejected a record $110 million medical malpractice award in Minnesota, reducing it to $10 million. The district judge ruled the award was “shockingly excessive” and that the plaintiff should either accept the $10 million award or retry the case.

After a verdict is awarded, the defendant typically challenges the award, and the case goes through the appellate pipeline, Mr. Henderson explained. A judge may reduce some elements of the verdict, he said, but more often, the plaintiff and defendant agree on a compromised figure.

Seattle medical liability defense attorney Jennifer Crisera has experienced this firsthand. She recalled a recent case where a plaintiff’s attorney demanded what she describes as an unreasonable amount to settle a claim. Ms. Crisera did not want to give exact numbers but said the plaintiff made an 8-figure demand and the defense offered a low 7-figure range.

“My impression was that plaintiff’s counsel believed that they could get a nuclear verdict from the jury, so they kept their settlement demand artificially high,” she said. “The division between the numbers was way too high. Ultimately, we had to let a jury decide the value.”

The plaintiff won the case, and the verdict was much less than the settlement demand, she said. Even so, the defense incurred trial costs, and the health provider was forced to endure the emotional stress of a trial that could have been avoided, Ms. Crisera said.

Higher medical malpractice premiums are another consequence of massive awards.

Premium rates are associated with how much insurers pay on average for cases and how frequently they are making payouts, Mr. White said.

Medical liability insurance premiums for physicians have steadily increased since 2019, according to data from the Medical Liability Monitor, a national publication that analyzes liability insurance premiums. The Monitor studies insurance premium data from insurers that cover internists, general surgeons, and obstetrician-gynecologists.

From 2019 to 2023, average premium rates for physicians increased between 1.1% and 3% each year in states without patient compensation funds, according to Monitor data.

“Nuclear verdicts are a real driver of the industry’s underwriting losses and remain top of mind for every malpractice insurance company,” said Michael Matray, editor for the Medical Liability Monitor. “Responses to this year’s rate survey questionnaire indicate that most responding companies have experienced an increase in claims greater than $1 million and claims greater than $5 million during the past 2 years.”

However, increases vary widely by region and among counties. In Montgomery County, Alabama, for instance, premiums for internists rose by 24% from 2022 to 2023, from $8,231 to $10,240. Premiums for Montgomery County general surgeons rose by 11.9% from 2022 to 2023, from $30,761 to $34,426, according to survey data.

In several counties in Illinois (Adams, Knox, Peoria, and Rock Island), premiums for some internists rose by 15% from $24,041 to $27,783, and premiums for some surgeons increased by 27% from $60,202 to $76,461, according to survey data. Some internists in Catoosa County, Georgia, meanwhile, paid $17,831 in 2023, up from $16,313 in 2022. Some surgeons in Catoosa County paid $65,616 in 2023, up from $60,032 in 2022. Inflation could be one factor behind higher liability premium rates. Claim severity is a key driver of higher premium rates, Mr. White added.

“We have not seen stability in claims severity,” he said. “It is continuing to go up and, in all likelihood, it will drive [premium] rates up further from this point.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In December, in what’s known as the “Take Care of Maya” case, a Florida jury returned a record $261 million verdict against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital, St. Petersburg, Florida, for its treatment of a young patient and her family after an emergency room visit.

A month earlier, in New York, a jury ordered Westchester Medical Center Health Network to pay $120 million to a patient and his family following delayed stroke care that resulted in brain damage.

Mega malpractice awards like these are rising against physicians and hospitals around the country, according to new data from TransRe, an international reinsurance company that tracks large verdicts.

“2023 blew away every record previously set among high medical malpractice verdicts,” said Richard Henderson, senior vice president for TransRe. “If we look at the 50 largest verdicts in 2023 and average them out, we have a higher monetary amount than any other year.”

In 2023, there were 57 medical malpractice verdicts of $10 million or more in the United States, the data showed. Slightly more than half of those reached $25 million or more.

From 2012 to 2022, verdicts of $10 million or more ranged from 34 in 2013 to 52 in 2022, TransRe research found.

While New York, Illinois, and Florida typically saw the highest dollar verdicts in previous years, so-called “nuclear” verdicts now occur in states like Utah and Georgia where they once were uncommon, said Robert E. White Jr., president of TDC Group and The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer for physicians.

A rollback of tort reforms across the country is one contributor, he said. For example, Georgia’s cap on noneconomic damages is among those that have been ruled unconstitutional by courts. Utah’s cap on noneconomic damages still stands, but the limit was deemed unconstitutional in wrongful death cases. In 2019, a portion of Utah›s pre-litigation panel process was also struck down by the state’s Supreme Court.

“We used to be able to predict where these high verdicts would occur,” Mr. White said. “We can’t predict it anymore.”

Research shows a majority of malpractice cases are dropped or settled before trial, and claims that go before juries usually end in doctors’ favor. Plaintiffs’ attorneys cite large jury verdicts in similar cases to induce settlements and higher payouts, Mr. White said.

And while mega verdicts rarely stick, they can have lasting effects on future claims. The awards lead to larger settlement demands from plaintiffs and drive up the cost to resolve claims, according to Mr. Henderson and Mr. White.

“Verdicts are the yardstick by which all settlements are measured,” Mr. White said. “That’s where the damage is done.” The prospect of a mega verdict can make insurers leery of fighting some malpractice cases and motivate them to offer bigger settlements to stay out of the courtroom, he added.

Why Are Juries Awarding Higher Verdicts?

There’s no single reason for the rise in nuclear verdicts, Mr. Henderson said.

One theory is that plaintiffs’ attorneys held back on resolving high-dollar cases during the COVID pandemic and let loose with high-demand claims when courts returned to normal, he said.

Another theory is that people emerged from the pandemic angrier.

“Whether it was political dynamics, masking [mandates], or differences in opinions, people came out of it angry, and generally speaking, you don’t want an angry jury,” Mr. Henderson said. “For a while, there was the halo effect, where health professionals were seen as heroes. That went away, and all of a sudden [they] became ‘the bad guys.’ ”

“People are angry at the healthcare system, and this anger manifests itself in [liability] suits,” added Bill Burns, vice president of research for the Medical Professional Liability Association, an industry group for medical liability insurers.

Hospital and medical group consolidation also reduces the personal connection juries may have with healthcare providers, Mr. Burns said.

“Healthcare has become a big business, and the corporatization of medicine now puts companies on the stand and not your local community hospital or your family doctor that you have known since birth,” he said.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys also deploy tactics that can prompt higher verdicts, Mr. White said. They may tell a jury that the provider or hospital is a threat to the community and that awarding a large verdict will deter others in the healthcare community from repeating the same actions.

Juries may then want to punish the defendant in addition to assessing damages for economic harm or pain and suffering, Mr. White said.

“I am concerned that jurors are trying to right social wrongs rather than judging cases on the facts presented to them,” added Mike Stinson, vice president for policy and legal affairs for the Medical Professional Liability Association.

Third-party litigation financing also can lead to mega verdicts. That’s an emerging practice in which companies unrelated to a lawsuit provide capital to plaintiffs in return for a portion of any financial award. The firms essentially “invest” in the litigation.

“What this does is provide an additional financial backdrop for plaintiffs,” Mr. Henderson said. “It allows them to dig in harder on cases. They can hold out for higher numbers, and if nothing else, it can prolong litigation.”

Do High Awards Actually Stick?

Multimillion-dollar verdicts may grab headlines, but do plaintiffs actually receive them?

Rarely, said TransRe, which tracks the final outcomes of verdicts. In many cases, large verdicts are reduced on appeal.

In the Maya case, which involved child protection authorities, a judge later lowered the damages against Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital by $47.5 million.

A federal judge in October, for example, rejected a record $110 million medical malpractice award in Minnesota, reducing it to $10 million. The district judge ruled the award was “shockingly excessive” and that the plaintiff should either accept the $10 million award or retry the case.

After a verdict is awarded, the defendant typically challenges the award, and the case goes through the appellate pipeline, Mr. Henderson explained. A judge may reduce some elements of the verdict, he said, but more often, the plaintiff and defendant agree on a compromised figure.

Seattle medical liability defense attorney Jennifer Crisera has experienced this firsthand. She recalled a recent case where a plaintiff’s attorney demanded what she describes as an unreasonable amount to settle a claim. Ms. Crisera did not want to give exact numbers but said the plaintiff made an 8-figure demand and the defense offered a low 7-figure range.

“My impression was that plaintiff’s counsel believed that they could get a nuclear verdict from the jury, so they kept their settlement demand artificially high,” she said. “The division between the numbers was way too high. Ultimately, we had to let a jury decide the value.”

The plaintiff won the case, and the verdict was much less than the settlement demand, she said. Even so, the defense incurred trial costs, and the health provider was forced to endure the emotional stress of a trial that could have been avoided, Ms. Crisera said.

Higher medical malpractice premiums are another consequence of massive awards.

Premium rates are associated with how much insurers pay on average for cases and how frequently they are making payouts, Mr. White said.

Medical liability insurance premiums for physicians have steadily increased since 2019, according to data from the Medical Liability Monitor, a national publication that analyzes liability insurance premiums. The Monitor studies insurance premium data from insurers that cover internists, general surgeons, and obstetrician-gynecologists.

From 2019 to 2023, average premium rates for physicians increased between 1.1% and 3% each year in states without patient compensation funds, according to Monitor data.

“Nuclear verdicts are a real driver of the industry’s underwriting losses and remain top of mind for every malpractice insurance company,” said Michael Matray, editor for the Medical Liability Monitor. “Responses to this year’s rate survey questionnaire indicate that most responding companies have experienced an increase in claims greater than $1 million and claims greater than $5 million during the past 2 years.”

However, increases vary widely by region and among counties. In Montgomery County, Alabama, for instance, premiums for internists rose by 24% from 2022 to 2023, from $8,231 to $10,240. Premiums for Montgomery County general surgeons rose by 11.9% from 2022 to 2023, from $30,761 to $34,426, according to survey data.

In several counties in Illinois (Adams, Knox, Peoria, and Rock Island), premiums for some internists rose by 15% from $24,041 to $27,783, and premiums for some surgeons increased by 27% from $60,202 to $76,461, according to survey data. Some internists in Catoosa County, Georgia, meanwhile, paid $17,831 in 2023, up from $16,313 in 2022. Some surgeons in Catoosa County paid $65,616 in 2023, up from $60,032 in 2022. Inflation could be one factor behind higher liability premium rates. Claim severity is a key driver of higher premium rates, Mr. White added.

“We have not seen stability in claims severity,” he said. “It is continuing to go up and, in all likelihood, it will drive [premium] rates up further from this point.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Men with cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) who increased their CRF by more than 3% had a significantly lower risk of prostate cancer incidence, a large Swedish study found.

The prospective analysis, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, done in a cohort of nearly 58,000, was conducted by Kate A. Bolam, PhD, a clinical exercise physiologist at the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences in Stockholm.

“The findings suggest that physicians could work toward supporting patients to understand what types of activities could improve their fitness and ways they can incorporate these activities into their lives in an enjoyable way, or at the very least refer patients on to an exercise specialist,” Dr. Bolam said in an interview.

Grouped by baseline CRF, the association between change in absolute CRF and prostate cancer incidence was significant only for participants with a moderate baseline CRF. Moreover, changes in both absolute and relative CRF were not associated with prostate cancer mortality.

The lack of mortality significance may be due to the relatively few deaths from prostate cancer in the cohort, Dr. Bolam said. “It may be we weren’t powered to detect anything with such low numbers. And it’s not likely men will die from prostate cancer but more likely from more common chronic diseases such as heart disease.” The authors noted that unlike the case with other common cancers, there are relatively few preventable risk factors with strong evidence for reducing overall prostate cancer risk. “Aside from developmental factors, being diagnosed with overweight or obesity are the main risk factors for developing advanced prostate cancer, but insufficient evidence exists to extend this conclusion to non-advanced prostate cancer,” they wrote.

There is evidence, however, that exercise reduces all-cause mortality risk across many cancer types, including prostate.
 

Study details

The cohort was drawn from Swedish national health-profile database figures from 1982 to 2019. Participants completed an occupational health profile assessment including at least two valid CRF tests on a cycle ergometer. During a mean follow-up of 6.7 years, 592 (1%) of 57,652 men (mean age 41.3 years, standard deviation 10.55) were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and in 46 (.08%) prostate cancer was the primary cause of death.

An increase in absolute CRF (as a percentage of liters per minute of cardiac output) was associated with a reduced incidence risk, with a hazard ratio of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99). Grouping participants as having increased (+3%), stable (±3%), or decreased (−3%) CRF, the investigators found increased fitness was associated with an HR for prostate cancer incidence of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.86), vs decreased fitness.

According to the authors, this and similar investigations of mechanisms behind physical activity benefits will lead to more targeted prevention recommendations. The results highlight the importance of encouraging the general public to increase CRF or reach moderate fitness levels, Dr. Bolam’s group wrote. The group is planning a similar study in breast cancer.

This study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society. The authors declared no competing interests.

Men with cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) who increased their CRF by more than 3% had a significantly lower risk of prostate cancer incidence, a large Swedish study found.

The prospective analysis, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, done in a cohort of nearly 58,000, was conducted by Kate A. Bolam, PhD, a clinical exercise physiologist at the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences in Stockholm.

“The findings suggest that physicians could work toward supporting patients to understand what types of activities could improve their fitness and ways they can incorporate these activities into their lives in an enjoyable way, or at the very least refer patients on to an exercise specialist,” Dr. Bolam said in an interview.

Grouped by baseline CRF, the association between change in absolute CRF and prostate cancer incidence was significant only for participants with a moderate baseline CRF. Moreover, changes in both absolute and relative CRF were not associated with prostate cancer mortality.

The lack of mortality significance may be due to the relatively few deaths from prostate cancer in the cohort, Dr. Bolam said. “It may be we weren’t powered to detect anything with such low numbers. And it’s not likely men will die from prostate cancer but more likely from more common chronic diseases such as heart disease.” The authors noted that unlike the case with other common cancers, there are relatively few preventable risk factors with strong evidence for reducing overall prostate cancer risk. “Aside from developmental factors, being diagnosed with overweight or obesity are the main risk factors for developing advanced prostate cancer, but insufficient evidence exists to extend this conclusion to non-advanced prostate cancer,” they wrote.

There is evidence, however, that exercise reduces all-cause mortality risk across many cancer types, including prostate.
 

Study details

The cohort was drawn from Swedish national health-profile database figures from 1982 to 2019. Participants completed an occupational health profile assessment including at least two valid CRF tests on a cycle ergometer. During a mean follow-up of 6.7 years, 592 (1%) of 57,652 men (mean age 41.3 years, standard deviation 10.55) were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and in 46 (.08%) prostate cancer was the primary cause of death.

An increase in absolute CRF (as a percentage of liters per minute of cardiac output) was associated with a reduced incidence risk, with a hazard ratio of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99). Grouping participants as having increased (+3%), stable (±3%), or decreased (−3%) CRF, the investigators found increased fitness was associated with an HR for prostate cancer incidence of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.86), vs decreased fitness.

According to the authors, this and similar investigations of mechanisms behind physical activity benefits will lead to more targeted prevention recommendations. The results highlight the importance of encouraging the general public to increase CRF or reach moderate fitness levels, Dr. Bolam’s group wrote. The group is planning a similar study in breast cancer.

This study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society. The authors declared no competing interests.

Men with cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) who increased their CRF by more than 3% had a significantly lower risk of prostate cancer incidence, a large Swedish study found.

The prospective analysis, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, done in a cohort of nearly 58,000, was conducted by Kate A. Bolam, PhD, a clinical exercise physiologist at the Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences in Stockholm.

“The findings suggest that physicians could work toward supporting patients to understand what types of activities could improve their fitness and ways they can incorporate these activities into their lives in an enjoyable way, or at the very least refer patients on to an exercise specialist,” Dr. Bolam said in an interview.

Grouped by baseline CRF, the association between change in absolute CRF and prostate cancer incidence was significant only for participants with a moderate baseline CRF. Moreover, changes in both absolute and relative CRF were not associated with prostate cancer mortality.

The lack of mortality significance may be due to the relatively few deaths from prostate cancer in the cohort, Dr. Bolam said. “It may be we weren’t powered to detect anything with such low numbers. And it’s not likely men will die from prostate cancer but more likely from more common chronic diseases such as heart disease.” The authors noted that unlike the case with other common cancers, there are relatively few preventable risk factors with strong evidence for reducing overall prostate cancer risk. “Aside from developmental factors, being diagnosed with overweight or obesity are the main risk factors for developing advanced prostate cancer, but insufficient evidence exists to extend this conclusion to non-advanced prostate cancer,” they wrote.

There is evidence, however, that exercise reduces all-cause mortality risk across many cancer types, including prostate.
 

Study details

The cohort was drawn from Swedish national health-profile database figures from 1982 to 2019. Participants completed an occupational health profile assessment including at least two valid CRF tests on a cycle ergometer. During a mean follow-up of 6.7 years, 592 (1%) of 57,652 men (mean age 41.3 years, standard deviation 10.55) were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and in 46 (.08%) prostate cancer was the primary cause of death.

An increase in absolute CRF (as a percentage of liters per minute of cardiac output) was associated with a reduced incidence risk, with a hazard ratio of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99). Grouping participants as having increased (+3%), stable (±3%), or decreased (−3%) CRF, the investigators found increased fitness was associated with an HR for prostate cancer incidence of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.86), vs decreased fitness.

According to the authors, this and similar investigations of mechanisms behind physical activity benefits will lead to more targeted prevention recommendations. The results highlight the importance of encouraging the general public to increase CRF or reach moderate fitness levels, Dr. Bolam’s group wrote. The group is planning a similar study in breast cancer.

This study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society. The authors declared no competing interests.