AVAHO

Radiation oncologists from the largest professional societies have come together to lobby for Medicare payment reform.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services. 

Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.

Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle. 

The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.

To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered. 

ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Radiation oncologists from the largest professional societies have come together to lobby for Medicare payment reform.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services. 

Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.

Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle. 

The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.

To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered. 

ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Radiation oncologists from the largest professional societies have come together to lobby for Medicare payment reform.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services. 

Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.

Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle. 

The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.

To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered. 

ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer fare better with standard preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery than with primary surgery and adjuvant chemoradiation, demonstrating better disease-free survival and lower recurrence rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• The standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer is chemoradiation followed by surgery, which is known to reduce the likelihood of local recurrence; however, it is also linked to adverse effects including  and bowel/sexual dysfunction.
• A previous trial found that preoperative MRI could delineate tumor involvement of the mesorectal fascia (MRF).
• This Chinese, noninferiority trial tested whether patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with MRI-predicted negative MRF can skip preoperative chemoradiation.
• The study included 275 patients with T3-4aN0 or T1-4aN1-2 rectal adenocarcinoma, an inferior tumor edge 6-12 cm from the anal verge, and gross primary or nodal disease > 1 mm from the MRF — all based on preoperative MRI.
• Patients in the intervention group, 140, were assigned to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with  followed by capecitabine/ started 4 weeks after surgery) and the remaining 135 to upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemo/chemoradiation when there was tumor within 1 mm of circumferential margins.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a median follow-up of 34.6 months, there were six (4.4%) local recurrences in the intervention group and none in the control group.
• In the intention-to-treat population, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.8% in the intervention group vs 85.4% in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76).
• In the per protocol dataset, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.1% in the primary surgery group vs 86.6% in the preoperative chemoradiation group — a difference of −5.4% (HR, 2.02), prompting the researchers to stop the trial early.

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial was shut down earlier due to an excessive number of [disease-free survival] and local recurrence events observed in the interventional group of primary surgery. Based on our findings, in [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients with high risk though negative MRF, primary surgery would potentially compromise their [disease-free survival] rates. Therefore, primary surgery is an inferior strategy, compared to preoperative [chemoradiation] followed by surgery, and cannot be recommended for [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients in clinical practice,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jun Li, MD, Department of Colorectal Surgery and Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China, was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample size will result in compromises in stratified randomization and lower the power for survival analysis. A relatively high proportion of patients (n = 32) crossed over from the neoadjuvant (chemoradiation) group to the primary surgery group. Follow-up time was relatively short, with only 43% of patients completing 3 years of follow-up.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer fare better with standard preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery than with primary surgery and adjuvant chemoradiation, demonstrating better disease-free survival and lower recurrence rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• The standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer is chemoradiation followed by surgery, which is known to reduce the likelihood of local recurrence; however, it is also linked to adverse effects including  and bowel/sexual dysfunction.
• A previous trial found that preoperative MRI could delineate tumor involvement of the mesorectal fascia (MRF).
• This Chinese, noninferiority trial tested whether patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with MRI-predicted negative MRF can skip preoperative chemoradiation.
• The study included 275 patients with T3-4aN0 or T1-4aN1-2 rectal adenocarcinoma, an inferior tumor edge 6-12 cm from the anal verge, and gross primary or nodal disease > 1 mm from the MRF — all based on preoperative MRI.
• Patients in the intervention group, 140, were assigned to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with  followed by capecitabine/ started 4 weeks after surgery) and the remaining 135 to upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemo/chemoradiation when there was tumor within 1 mm of circumferential margins.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a median follow-up of 34.6 months, there were six (4.4%) local recurrences in the intervention group and none in the control group.
• In the intention-to-treat population, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.8% in the intervention group vs 85.4% in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76).
• In the per protocol dataset, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.1% in the primary surgery group vs 86.6% in the preoperative chemoradiation group — a difference of −5.4% (HR, 2.02), prompting the researchers to stop the trial early.

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial was shut down earlier due to an excessive number of [disease-free survival] and local recurrence events observed in the interventional group of primary surgery. Based on our findings, in [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients with high risk though negative MRF, primary surgery would potentially compromise their [disease-free survival] rates. Therefore, primary surgery is an inferior strategy, compared to preoperative [chemoradiation] followed by surgery, and cannot be recommended for [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients in clinical practice,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jun Li, MD, Department of Colorectal Surgery and Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China, was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample size will result in compromises in stratified randomization and lower the power for survival analysis. A relatively high proportion of patients (n = 32) crossed over from the neoadjuvant (chemoradiation) group to the primary surgery group. Follow-up time was relatively short, with only 43% of patients completing 3 years of follow-up.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer fare better with standard preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery than with primary surgery and adjuvant chemoradiation, demonstrating better disease-free survival and lower recurrence rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• The standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer is chemoradiation followed by surgery, which is known to reduce the likelihood of local recurrence; however, it is also linked to adverse effects including  and bowel/sexual dysfunction.
• A previous trial found that preoperative MRI could delineate tumor involvement of the mesorectal fascia (MRF).
• This Chinese, noninferiority trial tested whether patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with MRI-predicted negative MRF can skip preoperative chemoradiation.
• The study included 275 patients with T3-4aN0 or T1-4aN1-2 rectal adenocarcinoma, an inferior tumor edge 6-12 cm from the anal verge, and gross primary or nodal disease > 1 mm from the MRF — all based on preoperative MRI.
• Patients in the intervention group, 140, were assigned to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with  followed by capecitabine/ started 4 weeks after surgery) and the remaining 135 to upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemo/chemoradiation when there was tumor within 1 mm of circumferential margins.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a median follow-up of 34.6 months, there were six (4.4%) local recurrences in the intervention group and none in the control group.
• In the intention-to-treat population, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.8% in the intervention group vs 85.4% in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76).
• In the per protocol dataset, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.1% in the primary surgery group vs 86.6% in the preoperative chemoradiation group — a difference of −5.4% (HR, 2.02), prompting the researchers to stop the trial early.

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial was shut down earlier due to an excessive number of [disease-free survival] and local recurrence events observed in the interventional group of primary surgery. Based on our findings, in [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients with high risk though negative MRF, primary surgery would potentially compromise their [disease-free survival] rates. Therefore, primary surgery is an inferior strategy, compared to preoperative [chemoradiation] followed by surgery, and cannot be recommended for [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients in clinical practice,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jun Li, MD, Department of Colorectal Surgery and Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China, was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample size will result in compromises in stratified randomization and lower the power for survival analysis. A relatively high proportion of patients (n = 32) crossed over from the neoadjuvant (chemoradiation) group to the primary surgery group. Follow-up time was relatively short, with only 43% of patients completing 3 years of follow-up.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of psilocybin administered in a group setting with one-on-one psychological support was associated with a significant and lasting reduction in depression severity among adults with cancer and major depressive disorder, a small study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Depression remains common in patients with cancer, and common treatment approaches — antidepressants and psychotherapy — have demonstrated limited success.
• Researchers explored the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in 30 patients with major depressive disorder and cancer — about half with earlier-stage disease and half with metastatic disease.
• In this single-center, open-label, phase 2 study, participants received one-on-one and group therapy sessions before, during, and after receiving a single 25-mg psilocybin dose.
• Alongside individual therapy sessions, each cohort of three to four participants received group sessions guided by a therapist who provided educational material and worked to foster trust among participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants experienced a significant reduction in depression severity, demonstrating a 19.1-point reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline to follow-up at week 8.
• Overall, 80% of patients showed a lasting response to psilocybin treatment and 50% showed full remission of depressive symptoms by week 1, which persisted for at least 8 weeks.
• The approach was effective for patients with curable and noncurable cancer — with almost 80% in the curable group and 62% in the noncurable group showing clinically meaningful declines in depressive symptoms. The researchers also noted improvements in patients’ anxiety, pain, demoralization, disability, and spiritual well-being.
• No suicidality or other serious treatment-related adverse events occurred; treatment-related nausea and headache were generally mild and expected.

IN PRACTICE:

“Beyond tolerability, psilocybin therapy led to clinically meaningful reductions in depressive symptoms,” the authors concluded. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the feasibility of a group-therapy approach for psilocybin‐assisted treatment in patients with cancer. This innovative framework offers increased scalability and dissemination of psilocybin treatment in real‐world settings.”

Among the 28 participants available for exit interviews, the authors reported that, overall, “participants described that the group/simultaneous model fostered a sense of connectedness, meaning, and transcendence through the shared psilocybin experience and group integration.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Manish Agrawal, MD, Sunstone Therapies, Rockville, Maryland, was published online on December 21, 2023, in Cancer, along with an editorial and related article on patient acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, and the sample size was small and lacked diversity. The study was also not powered to statistically adjust efficacy measures on a possible group effect.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by Compass Pathways. Some authors reported various relationships with Compass Pathways and Sunstone Therapies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of psilocybin administered in a group setting with one-on-one psychological support was associated with a significant and lasting reduction in depression severity among adults with cancer and major depressive disorder, a small study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Depression remains common in patients with cancer, and common treatment approaches — antidepressants and psychotherapy — have demonstrated limited success.
• Researchers explored the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in 30 patients with major depressive disorder and cancer — about half with earlier-stage disease and half with metastatic disease.
• In this single-center, open-label, phase 2 study, participants received one-on-one and group therapy sessions before, during, and after receiving a single 25-mg psilocybin dose.
• Alongside individual therapy sessions, each cohort of three to four participants received group sessions guided by a therapist who provided educational material and worked to foster trust among participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants experienced a significant reduction in depression severity, demonstrating a 19.1-point reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline to follow-up at week 8.
• Overall, 80% of patients showed a lasting response to psilocybin treatment and 50% showed full remission of depressive symptoms by week 1, which persisted for at least 8 weeks.
• The approach was effective for patients with curable and noncurable cancer — with almost 80% in the curable group and 62% in the noncurable group showing clinically meaningful declines in depressive symptoms. The researchers also noted improvements in patients’ anxiety, pain, demoralization, disability, and spiritual well-being.
• No suicidality or other serious treatment-related adverse events occurred; treatment-related nausea and headache were generally mild and expected.

IN PRACTICE:

“Beyond tolerability, psilocybin therapy led to clinically meaningful reductions in depressive symptoms,” the authors concluded. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the feasibility of a group-therapy approach for psilocybin‐assisted treatment in patients with cancer. This innovative framework offers increased scalability and dissemination of psilocybin treatment in real‐world settings.”

Among the 28 participants available for exit interviews, the authors reported that, overall, “participants described that the group/simultaneous model fostered a sense of connectedness, meaning, and transcendence through the shared psilocybin experience and group integration.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Manish Agrawal, MD, Sunstone Therapies, Rockville, Maryland, was published online on December 21, 2023, in Cancer, along with an editorial and related article on patient acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, and the sample size was small and lacked diversity. The study was also not powered to statistically adjust efficacy measures on a possible group effect.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by Compass Pathways. Some authors reported various relationships with Compass Pathways and Sunstone Therapies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of psilocybin administered in a group setting with one-on-one psychological support was associated with a significant and lasting reduction in depression severity among adults with cancer and major depressive disorder, a small study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Depression remains common in patients with cancer, and common treatment approaches — antidepressants and psychotherapy — have demonstrated limited success.
• Researchers explored the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in 30 patients with major depressive disorder and cancer — about half with earlier-stage disease and half with metastatic disease.
• In this single-center, open-label, phase 2 study, participants received one-on-one and group therapy sessions before, during, and after receiving a single 25-mg psilocybin dose.
• Alongside individual therapy sessions, each cohort of three to four participants received group sessions guided by a therapist who provided educational material and worked to foster trust among participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants experienced a significant reduction in depression severity, demonstrating a 19.1-point reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline to follow-up at week 8.
• Overall, 80% of patients showed a lasting response to psilocybin treatment and 50% showed full remission of depressive symptoms by week 1, which persisted for at least 8 weeks.
• The approach was effective for patients with curable and noncurable cancer — with almost 80% in the curable group and 62% in the noncurable group showing clinically meaningful declines in depressive symptoms. The researchers also noted improvements in patients’ anxiety, pain, demoralization, disability, and spiritual well-being.
• No suicidality or other serious treatment-related adverse events occurred; treatment-related nausea and headache were generally mild and expected.

IN PRACTICE:

“Beyond tolerability, psilocybin therapy led to clinically meaningful reductions in depressive symptoms,” the authors concluded. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the feasibility of a group-therapy approach for psilocybin‐assisted treatment in patients with cancer. This innovative framework offers increased scalability and dissemination of psilocybin treatment in real‐world settings.”

Among the 28 participants available for exit interviews, the authors reported that, overall, “participants described that the group/simultaneous model fostered a sense of connectedness, meaning, and transcendence through the shared psilocybin experience and group integration.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Manish Agrawal, MD, Sunstone Therapies, Rockville, Maryland, was published online on December 21, 2023, in Cancer, along with an editorial and related article on patient acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, and the sample size was small and lacked diversity. The study was also not powered to statistically adjust efficacy measures on a possible group effect.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by Compass Pathways. Some authors reported various relationships with Compass Pathways and Sunstone Therapies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When it comes to the use of colonoscopy to reduce the risk for cancer, quality is key.

There are a number of performance improvements we can make in our practices so that we can do better. This is evident in several recently published studies and a recent review article on the topic, which I’d like to profile for you; many of these key quality indicators you can implement now.

Even though it may take more time before they’re supported in the guidelines, you’ll see that the evidence behind these is extraordinarily strong.
 

Increasing the Adenoma Detection Rate

Certainly, we all do what we can to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).

However, at the moment, the nationally recommended benchmark is to achieve an ADR of 25%, which is inordinately low. The ADR rate reported in the GIQuIC registry data is closer to 39%, and in high-level detectors, it’s actually in the greater-than-50% range.

There’s no question that we can do more, and there are a number of ways to do that.

First, we can consider using mucosal exposure techniques in our colonoscopies. These techniques incorporate the use of a hood, cap, or device that faces the mucosal folds on withdrawal from the cecum. This may actually decrease your withdrawal time because you don’t spend so much time trying to face these folds.

In considering tools to aid ADR, don’t forget electronic chromoendoscopy (eg, narrow-band imaging).

There are a number of new artificial intelligence options out there as well, which have been reported to increase the ADR by approximately 10%. Of importance, this improvement even occurs among expert endoscopists.

There’s also important emerging data about ADR in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–positive patients. FIT-positive status increases the ADR threshold by 15%-20%. This places you in an ADR range of approximately 50%, which is really the norm when screening patients that present for colonoscopy because of FIT positivity.
 

Adenoma Per Colonoscopy: A Possible ADR Substitute

Growing evidence supports the use of adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) as a substitute to ADR. This would allow you to record every adenoma and attribute it to that index colonoscopy.

A high-quality paper showed that the APC value should be around 0.6 to achieve the current ADR minimum threshold of 25%. Having the APC < 0.6 seems to be associated with an increased risk for residual polyp. Sessile serrated lesions also increased the hazard ratio for interval colorectal cancer. This was evaluated recently with data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which Dr Joseph Anderson has led for so long. They showed that 21% of endoscopists had an ADR of 25% or greater but still had APCs < 0.6.

Therefore, when it comes to remedial corrective work, doctors need to be reevaluated, retrained, and educated in the ways that they can incorporate this. The APC in high-level detectors is > 1.0.

APC may be something you want to consider using internally. It does require that you place each polyp into an individual jar, which can increase incremental cost. Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that APC positively changes outcomes.
 

Including Sessile Serrated Lesions in ADR Detectors

Unfortunately, some of the high-level ADR detectors aren’t so “high level” when it comes to detecting sessile serrated lesions. It’s not quite as concordant as we had previously thought.

Nonetheless, there are many adjunctive things you can do with sessile serrated lesions, including narrow-band imaging and chromoendoscopy.

When it comes to establishing a discriminant, the numbers should be 5%-6% if we’re going to set a quality ratio and an index. However, this is somewhat dependent on your pathologist because they have to read these correctly. Lesions that are ≥ 6 mm above the sigmoid colon and anything in the right colon should be evaluated really closely as a sessile serrated lesion.

I’ve had indications where the pathologist says the lesion is hyperplastic, to which I say, “I’m going to follow as a sessile serrated lesion.” This is because it’s apparent to me in the endoscopic appearance and the narrow-band imaging appearance that it was characteristic of sessile serrated lesions.
 

Best Practices in Bowel Preparations

The US Multi-Society Task Force recommends that adequate bowel preparation should occur in 85% or more of outpatients, and for the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it’s 90% or more.

I’ll pass along a tip I use in my patients undergoing bowel preparation: I make them aware that during this process, they want to see a clear, yellow, urine-like color to their stool. Otherwise, many patients will think if they’ve had some diarrhea, they don’t need to finish prep. Setting that expectation for them upfront is really important.

The nurses also should be aware of this because if there’s a murky brown effluent upon presentation for the colonoscopy, there’s a greater than 50% chance that they’re going to have had an inadequate preparation. In such cases, you would want to preempt the colonoscopy and perhaps send them out for a re-prep that day or bring them back for a rescheduled appointment.
 

Resection Considerations

There is substantial variation when it comes to lesion resection, which makes it an important quality indicator on which to focus: High-level detectors aren’t always high-level resectors.

There are two validated instruments that you can use to gauge the adequacy of resection. Those aren’t really ready for prime time in every practice, though they may be seen in fellowship programs.

The idea here is that you want to get a ≥ 2 mm margin for cold snare polypectomy in lesions 1-10 mm in size. This has been a challenge, as findings indicate we don’t do this that well.

Joseph Anderson and colleagues recently published a study using a 2-mm resection margin. They reported that this was only possible in approximately 28% of polyps. For a 1-mm margin, the rate was 84%.

We simply need to set clearer margins when setting our snare. Make sure you’re close enough to the polyp, push down on the snare, and get a good margin of tissue.

When the sample contracts are placed into the formalin, it’s not quite so simple to define the margin at the time of the surgical resection. This often requires an audit evaluation by the pathologist.

There are two other considerations regarding resection.

The first is about the referral for surgery. Referral should not occur for any benign lesions ascribed by your endoscopic advanced imaging techniques and classifications that are not thought to have intramucosal carcinoma. These should be referred to an expert endoscopic evaluation. If you can’t do it, then somebody else should. And you shouldn’t attempt it unless you can get it totally because resection of partially resected lesions is much more complicated. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy says this applies to any benign lesion of any size, which I think really is the emerging standard of care. You should consider and offer that to the patient. It may require a referral for outside of your institution.

The second additional consideration is around the minimization of cold forceps for removal of polyps. The US Multi-Society Task Force says cold forceps shouldn’t be used for any lesions > 2 mm, whereas for the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it is > 3 mm. However, it’s still done very commonly in clinical practice. Nibbling the polyp is not an option. Cold snare is actually quicker, more effective, has better outcomes, and is something that you can bill for when you look at the coding.

In summary, there are a lot of things that we can do now to improve colonoscopy. Quality indicators continue to emerge with a compelling, excellent evidence base that strongly supports their use. Given that, I think most of these are actionable now, and it’s not necessary to wait for the guidelines to begin using them. I’d therefore challenge all of us to incorporate them in our continual efforts to do better.

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When it comes to the use of colonoscopy to reduce the risk for cancer, quality is key.

There are a number of performance improvements we can make in our practices so that we can do better. This is evident in several recently published studies and a recent review article on the topic, which I’d like to profile for you; many of these key quality indicators you can implement now.

Even though it may take more time before they’re supported in the guidelines, you’ll see that the evidence behind these is extraordinarily strong.
 

Increasing the Adenoma Detection Rate

Certainly, we all do what we can to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).

However, at the moment, the nationally recommended benchmark is to achieve an ADR of 25%, which is inordinately low. The ADR rate reported in the GIQuIC registry data is closer to 39%, and in high-level detectors, it’s actually in the greater-than-50% range.

There’s no question that we can do more, and there are a number of ways to do that.

First, we can consider using mucosal exposure techniques in our colonoscopies. These techniques incorporate the use of a hood, cap, or device that faces the mucosal folds on withdrawal from the cecum. This may actually decrease your withdrawal time because you don’t spend so much time trying to face these folds.

In considering tools to aid ADR, don’t forget electronic chromoendoscopy (eg, narrow-band imaging).

There are a number of new artificial intelligence options out there as well, which have been reported to increase the ADR by approximately 10%. Of importance, this improvement even occurs among expert endoscopists.

There’s also important emerging data about ADR in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–positive patients. FIT-positive status increases the ADR threshold by 15%-20%. This places you in an ADR range of approximately 50%, which is really the norm when screening patients that present for colonoscopy because of FIT positivity.
 

Adenoma Per Colonoscopy: A Possible ADR Substitute

Growing evidence supports the use of adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) as a substitute to ADR. This would allow you to record every adenoma and attribute it to that index colonoscopy.

A high-quality paper showed that the APC value should be around 0.6 to achieve the current ADR minimum threshold of 25%. Having the APC < 0.6 seems to be associated with an increased risk for residual polyp. Sessile serrated lesions also increased the hazard ratio for interval colorectal cancer. This was evaluated recently with data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which Dr Joseph Anderson has led for so long. They showed that 21% of endoscopists had an ADR of 25% or greater but still had APCs < 0.6.

Therefore, when it comes to remedial corrective work, doctors need to be reevaluated, retrained, and educated in the ways that they can incorporate this. The APC in high-level detectors is > 1.0.

APC may be something you want to consider using internally. It does require that you place each polyp into an individual jar, which can increase incremental cost. Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that APC positively changes outcomes.
 

Including Sessile Serrated Lesions in ADR Detectors

Unfortunately, some of the high-level ADR detectors aren’t so “high level” when it comes to detecting sessile serrated lesions. It’s not quite as concordant as we had previously thought.

Nonetheless, there are many adjunctive things you can do with sessile serrated lesions, including narrow-band imaging and chromoendoscopy.

When it comes to establishing a discriminant, the numbers should be 5%-6% if we’re going to set a quality ratio and an index. However, this is somewhat dependent on your pathologist because they have to read these correctly. Lesions that are ≥ 6 mm above the sigmoid colon and anything in the right colon should be evaluated really closely as a sessile serrated lesion.

I’ve had indications where the pathologist says the lesion is hyperplastic, to which I say, “I’m going to follow as a sessile serrated lesion.” This is because it’s apparent to me in the endoscopic appearance and the narrow-band imaging appearance that it was characteristic of sessile serrated lesions.
 

Best Practices in Bowel Preparations

The US Multi-Society Task Force recommends that adequate bowel preparation should occur in 85% or more of outpatients, and for the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it’s 90% or more.

I’ll pass along a tip I use in my patients undergoing bowel preparation: I make them aware that during this process, they want to see a clear, yellow, urine-like color to their stool. Otherwise, many patients will think if they’ve had some diarrhea, they don’t need to finish prep. Setting that expectation for them upfront is really important.

The nurses also should be aware of this because if there’s a murky brown effluent upon presentation for the colonoscopy, there’s a greater than 50% chance that they’re going to have had an inadequate preparation. In such cases, you would want to preempt the colonoscopy and perhaps send them out for a re-prep that day or bring them back for a rescheduled appointment.
 

Resection Considerations

There is substantial variation when it comes to lesion resection, which makes it an important quality indicator on which to focus: High-level detectors aren’t always high-level resectors.

There are two validated instruments that you can use to gauge the adequacy of resection. Those aren’t really ready for prime time in every practice, though they may be seen in fellowship programs.

The idea here is that you want to get a ≥ 2 mm margin for cold snare polypectomy in lesions 1-10 mm in size. This has been a challenge, as findings indicate we don’t do this that well.

Joseph Anderson and colleagues recently published a study using a 2-mm resection margin. They reported that this was only possible in approximately 28% of polyps. For a 1-mm margin, the rate was 84%.

We simply need to set clearer margins when setting our snare. Make sure you’re close enough to the polyp, push down on the snare, and get a good margin of tissue.

When the sample contracts are placed into the formalin, it’s not quite so simple to define the margin at the time of the surgical resection. This often requires an audit evaluation by the pathologist.

There are two other considerations regarding resection.

The first is about the referral for surgery. Referral should not occur for any benign lesions ascribed by your endoscopic advanced imaging techniques and classifications that are not thought to have intramucosal carcinoma. These should be referred to an expert endoscopic evaluation. If you can’t do it, then somebody else should. And you shouldn’t attempt it unless you can get it totally because resection of partially resected lesions is much more complicated. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy says this applies to any benign lesion of any size, which I think really is the emerging standard of care. You should consider and offer that to the patient. It may require a referral for outside of your institution.

The second additional consideration is around the minimization of cold forceps for removal of polyps. The US Multi-Society Task Force says cold forceps shouldn’t be used for any lesions > 2 mm, whereas for the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it is > 3 mm. However, it’s still done very commonly in clinical practice. Nibbling the polyp is not an option. Cold snare is actually quicker, more effective, has better outcomes, and is something that you can bill for when you look at the coding.

In summary, there are a lot of things that we can do now to improve colonoscopy. Quality indicators continue to emerge with a compelling, excellent evidence base that strongly supports their use. Given that, I think most of these are actionable now, and it’s not necessary to wait for the guidelines to begin using them. I’d therefore challenge all of us to incorporate them in our continual efforts to do better.

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When it comes to the use of colonoscopy to reduce the risk for cancer, quality is key.

There are a number of performance improvements we can make in our practices so that we can do better. This is evident in several recently published studies and a recent review article on the topic, which I’d like to profile for you; many of these key quality indicators you can implement now.

Even though it may take more time before they’re supported in the guidelines, you’ll see that the evidence behind these is extraordinarily strong.
 

Increasing the Adenoma Detection Rate

Certainly, we all do what we can to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR).

However, at the moment, the nationally recommended benchmark is to achieve an ADR of 25%, which is inordinately low. The ADR rate reported in the GIQuIC registry data is closer to 39%, and in high-level detectors, it’s actually in the greater-than-50% range.

There’s no question that we can do more, and there are a number of ways to do that.

First, we can consider using mucosal exposure techniques in our colonoscopies. These techniques incorporate the use of a hood, cap, or device that faces the mucosal folds on withdrawal from the cecum. This may actually decrease your withdrawal time because you don’t spend so much time trying to face these folds.

In considering tools to aid ADR, don’t forget electronic chromoendoscopy (eg, narrow-band imaging).

There are a number of new artificial intelligence options out there as well, which have been reported to increase the ADR by approximately 10%. Of importance, this improvement even occurs among expert endoscopists.

There’s also important emerging data about ADR in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)–positive patients. FIT-positive status increases the ADR threshold by 15%-20%. This places you in an ADR range of approximately 50%, which is really the norm when screening patients that present for colonoscopy because of FIT positivity.
 

Adenoma Per Colonoscopy: A Possible ADR Substitute

Growing evidence supports the use of adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) as a substitute to ADR. This would allow you to record every adenoma and attribute it to that index colonoscopy.

A high-quality paper showed that the APC value should be around 0.6 to achieve the current ADR minimum threshold of 25%. Having the APC < 0.6 seems to be associated with an increased risk for residual polyp. Sessile serrated lesions also increased the hazard ratio for interval colorectal cancer. This was evaluated recently with data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which Dr Joseph Anderson has led for so long. They showed that 21% of endoscopists had an ADR of 25% or greater but still had APCs < 0.6.

Therefore, when it comes to remedial corrective work, doctors need to be reevaluated, retrained, and educated in the ways that they can incorporate this. The APC in high-level detectors is > 1.0.

APC may be something you want to consider using internally. It does require that you place each polyp into an individual jar, which can increase incremental cost. Nonetheless, there is clear evidence that APC positively changes outcomes.
 

Including Sessile Serrated Lesions in ADR Detectors

Unfortunately, some of the high-level ADR detectors aren’t so “high level” when it comes to detecting sessile serrated lesions. It’s not quite as concordant as we had previously thought.

Nonetheless, there are many adjunctive things you can do with sessile serrated lesions, including narrow-band imaging and chromoendoscopy.

When it comes to establishing a discriminant, the numbers should be 5%-6% if we’re going to set a quality ratio and an index. However, this is somewhat dependent on your pathologist because they have to read these correctly. Lesions that are ≥ 6 mm above the sigmoid colon and anything in the right colon should be evaluated really closely as a sessile serrated lesion.

I’ve had indications where the pathologist says the lesion is hyperplastic, to which I say, “I’m going to follow as a sessile serrated lesion.” This is because it’s apparent to me in the endoscopic appearance and the narrow-band imaging appearance that it was characteristic of sessile serrated lesions.
 

Best Practices in Bowel Preparations

The US Multi-Society Task Force recommends that adequate bowel preparation should occur in 85% or more of outpatients, and for the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it’s 90% or more.

I’ll pass along a tip I use in my patients undergoing bowel preparation: I make them aware that during this process, they want to see a clear, yellow, urine-like color to their stool. Otherwise, many patients will think if they’ve had some diarrhea, they don’t need to finish prep. Setting that expectation for them upfront is really important.

The nurses also should be aware of this because if there’s a murky brown effluent upon presentation for the colonoscopy, there’s a greater than 50% chance that they’re going to have had an inadequate preparation. In such cases, you would want to preempt the colonoscopy and perhaps send them out for a re-prep that day or bring them back for a rescheduled appointment.
 

Resection Considerations

There is substantial variation when it comes to lesion resection, which makes it an important quality indicator on which to focus: High-level detectors aren’t always high-level resectors.

There are two validated instruments that you can use to gauge the adequacy of resection. Those aren’t really ready for prime time in every practice, though they may be seen in fellowship programs.

The idea here is that you want to get a ≥ 2 mm margin for cold snare polypectomy in lesions 1-10 mm in size. This has been a challenge, as findings indicate we don’t do this that well.

Joseph Anderson and colleagues recently published a study using a 2-mm resection margin. They reported that this was only possible in approximately 28% of polyps. For a 1-mm margin, the rate was 84%.

We simply need to set clearer margins when setting our snare. Make sure you’re close enough to the polyp, push down on the snare, and get a good margin of tissue.

When the sample contracts are placed into the formalin, it’s not quite so simple to define the margin at the time of the surgical resection. This often requires an audit evaluation by the pathologist.

There are two other considerations regarding resection.

The first is about the referral for surgery. Referral should not occur for any benign lesions ascribed by your endoscopic advanced imaging techniques and classifications that are not thought to have intramucosal carcinoma. These should be referred to an expert endoscopic evaluation. If you can’t do it, then somebody else should. And you shouldn’t attempt it unless you can get it totally because resection of partially resected lesions is much more complicated. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy says this applies to any benign lesion of any size, which I think really is the emerging standard of care. You should consider and offer that to the patient. It may require a referral for outside of your institution.

The second additional consideration is around the minimization of cold forceps for removal of polyps. The US Multi-Society Task Force says cold forceps shouldn’t be used for any lesions > 2 mm, whereas for the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, it is > 3 mm. However, it’s still done very commonly in clinical practice. Nibbling the polyp is not an option. Cold snare is actually quicker, more effective, has better outcomes, and is something that you can bill for when you look at the coding.

In summary, there are a lot of things that we can do now to improve colonoscopy. Quality indicators continue to emerge with a compelling, excellent evidence base that strongly supports their use. Given that, I think most of these are actionable now, and it’s not necessary to wait for the guidelines to begin using them. I’d therefore challenge all of us to incorporate them in our continual efforts to do better.

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. His primary focus is the clinical practice of gastroenterology. He has published extensively in the internal medicine/gastroenterology literature, with principal research interests in esophageal and colon disease, and more recently in sleep and microbiome effects on gastrointestinal health and disease. He has disclosed ties with ISOTHRIVE and Johnson & Johnson.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare will now cover the use of an AI-based test for prostate cancer that can predict which men will benefit from potentially disabling androgen deprivation therapy.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS) on January 1 approved the payment rate for ArteraAI as a clinical diagnostic laboratory test. The test is the first that can both predict therapeutic benefit and prognosticate long-term outcomes in localized prostate cancer. 

Daniel Spratt, MD, chair of radiation oncology at UH Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, who has been involved in researching ArteraAI, told this news organization that the test improves risk stratification or prognostication over standard clinical and pathologic tools, such as prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and T-stage, or risk groupings such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

“Medicare approval allows this test to reach more patients without the financial burden of covering the test out of pocket. The test is found among other tests in NCCN guidelines as a tool to improve risk stratification and personalization of treatment,” said Dr. Spratt, who serves on the network’s prostate cancer panel.

ArteraAI combines a patient’s standard clinical and pathologic information into an algorithm, alongside a digitized image analysis of the patients’ prostate biopsy. The result is a score that estimates a patient’s risk of developing metastasis or dying from prostate cancer.

Dr. Spratt was the lead author of article last June in NEJM Evidence that validated ArteraAI. He said ArteraAI is 80% accurate as a prognostic test compared with 65% accuracy using NCCN stratification systems. 

The AI test spares about two thirds of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who are starting radiation therapy from androgen deprivation and its side effects, such as weight gain, breast enlargement, hot flashes, heart disease, and brain problems, Dr. Spratt added. 

Andre Esteva, CEO and co-founder of San Francisco-based ArteraAI, said, “After someone is diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, deciding on a treatment can feel very overwhelming as there are so many factors to consider. During this time, knowledge is power, and having detailed, personalized information can increase confidence when making these challenging decisions. The ArteraAI Prostate Test was developed with this in mind and can predict whether a patient will benefit from hormone therapy and estimate long-term outcomes.”

Bruno Barrey is one of Dr. Spratt’s patients. Barrey, a robotics engineer from suburban Detroit who was transitioning from active surveillance with Gleason 3+4 intermediate-risk prostate cancer to radiation therapy, said, “I was concerned about the side effects from androgen-deprivation therapy. I was relieved that the AI test allowed me to avoid hormone therapy.”

Dr. Spratt reported working with NRG Oncology, a clinical trials group funded by the National Cancer Institute, and as an academic collaborator with ArteraAI. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare will now cover the use of an AI-based test for prostate cancer that can predict which men will benefit from potentially disabling androgen deprivation therapy.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS) on January 1 approved the payment rate for ArteraAI as a clinical diagnostic laboratory test. The test is the first that can both predict therapeutic benefit and prognosticate long-term outcomes in localized prostate cancer. 

Daniel Spratt, MD, chair of radiation oncology at UH Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, who has been involved in researching ArteraAI, told this news organization that the test improves risk stratification or prognostication over standard clinical and pathologic tools, such as prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and T-stage, or risk groupings such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

“Medicare approval allows this test to reach more patients without the financial burden of covering the test out of pocket. The test is found among other tests in NCCN guidelines as a tool to improve risk stratification and personalization of treatment,” said Dr. Spratt, who serves on the network’s prostate cancer panel.

ArteraAI combines a patient’s standard clinical and pathologic information into an algorithm, alongside a digitized image analysis of the patients’ prostate biopsy. The result is a score that estimates a patient’s risk of developing metastasis or dying from prostate cancer.

Dr. Spratt was the lead author of article last June in NEJM Evidence that validated ArteraAI. He said ArteraAI is 80% accurate as a prognostic test compared with 65% accuracy using NCCN stratification systems. 

The AI test spares about two thirds of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who are starting radiation therapy from androgen deprivation and its side effects, such as weight gain, breast enlargement, hot flashes, heart disease, and brain problems, Dr. Spratt added. 

Andre Esteva, CEO and co-founder of San Francisco-based ArteraAI, said, “After someone is diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, deciding on a treatment can feel very overwhelming as there are so many factors to consider. During this time, knowledge is power, and having detailed, personalized information can increase confidence when making these challenging decisions. The ArteraAI Prostate Test was developed with this in mind and can predict whether a patient will benefit from hormone therapy and estimate long-term outcomes.”

Bruno Barrey is one of Dr. Spratt’s patients. Barrey, a robotics engineer from suburban Detroit who was transitioning from active surveillance with Gleason 3+4 intermediate-risk prostate cancer to radiation therapy, said, “I was concerned about the side effects from androgen-deprivation therapy. I was relieved that the AI test allowed me to avoid hormone therapy.”

Dr. Spratt reported working with NRG Oncology, a clinical trials group funded by the National Cancer Institute, and as an academic collaborator with ArteraAI. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Medicare will now cover the use of an AI-based test for prostate cancer that can predict which men will benefit from potentially disabling androgen deprivation therapy.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicare Services (CMS) on January 1 approved the payment rate for ArteraAI as a clinical diagnostic laboratory test. The test is the first that can both predict therapeutic benefit and prognosticate long-term outcomes in localized prostate cancer. 

Daniel Spratt, MD, chair of radiation oncology at UH Seidman Cancer Center in Cleveland, who has been involved in researching ArteraAI, told this news organization that the test improves risk stratification or prognostication over standard clinical and pathologic tools, such as prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, and T-stage, or risk groupings such as those from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

“Medicare approval allows this test to reach more patients without the financial burden of covering the test out of pocket. The test is found among other tests in NCCN guidelines as a tool to improve risk stratification and personalization of treatment,” said Dr. Spratt, who serves on the network’s prostate cancer panel.

ArteraAI combines a patient’s standard clinical and pathologic information into an algorithm, alongside a digitized image analysis of the patients’ prostate biopsy. The result is a score that estimates a patient’s risk of developing metastasis or dying from prostate cancer.

Dr. Spratt was the lead author of article last June in NEJM Evidence that validated ArteraAI. He said ArteraAI is 80% accurate as a prognostic test compared with 65% accuracy using NCCN stratification systems. 

The AI test spares about two thirds of men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer who are starting radiation therapy from androgen deprivation and its side effects, such as weight gain, breast enlargement, hot flashes, heart disease, and brain problems, Dr. Spratt added. 

Andre Esteva, CEO and co-founder of San Francisco-based ArteraAI, said, “After someone is diagnosed with localized prostate cancer, deciding on a treatment can feel very overwhelming as there are so many factors to consider. During this time, knowledge is power, and having detailed, personalized information can increase confidence when making these challenging decisions. The ArteraAI Prostate Test was developed with this in mind and can predict whether a patient will benefit from hormone therapy and estimate long-term outcomes.”

Bruno Barrey is one of Dr. Spratt’s patients. Barrey, a robotics engineer from suburban Detroit who was transitioning from active surveillance with Gleason 3+4 intermediate-risk prostate cancer to radiation therapy, said, “I was concerned about the side effects from androgen-deprivation therapy. I was relieved that the AI test allowed me to avoid hormone therapy.”

Dr. Spratt reported working with NRG Oncology, a clinical trials group funded by the National Cancer Institute, and as an academic collaborator with ArteraAI. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Testosterone replacement therapy in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk for high-grade or any prostate cancer, new data confirmed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The relationship between testosterone replacement therapy and prostate cancer risk remains unclear.
• Epidemiologic studies have shown inconsistent findings, and clinical trials have not examined prostate safety. As a result, guidelines generally advise against testosterone replacement therapy in men with a history of or increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The current placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group randomized study included 5204 men, ages 45-80, who had two fasting testosterone concentrations < 300 ng/dL, one or more hypogonadal symptoms, and a history of cardiovascular disease or increased . Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either testosterone replacement therapy or placebo.
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was incident high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 4 + 3 or higher).
• Secondary endpoints included incidence of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for , , and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of high-grade prostate cancer did not differ significantly between groups. Over a mean follow-up of 33 months, only 0.19% (5 of 2596 participants) in the testosterone replacement therapy group and 0.12% (3 of 2602) in the placebo group were diagnosed with high-grade disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; P = .51).
• The rate of any prostate cancer also did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups (0.46% vs 0.42%; HR, 1.07; P = .87).
• The rates of acute urinary retention (0.77% vs 0.61%; HR, 1.25; P = .50), invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (0.89% vs 0.46%; HR, 1.91; P = .07), prostate biopsy (0.62% vs 0.54%; HR, 1.13; P = .74), or new treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (3.89% vs 3.34%; HR, 1.16; P = .32) did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups.
• Compared with placebo, testosterone therapy did increase prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but the differences were small and did not increase after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

In a population of middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, “the incidences of high-grade or any prostate cancer and other prostate events were low and did not differ significantly between testosterone- and placebo-treated men,” the authors concluded. “The study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

These study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer, higher PSA values, or those without confirmed hypogonadism. The study design did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests after PSA testing, which may have affected the decision to perform a biopsy. Also, the rates of treatment discontinuation and loss to follow-up were high.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Bhasin, Lincoff, and Khera reported receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various sources. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Testosterone replacement therapy in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk for high-grade or any prostate cancer, new data confirmed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The relationship between testosterone replacement therapy and prostate cancer risk remains unclear.
• Epidemiologic studies have shown inconsistent findings, and clinical trials have not examined prostate safety. As a result, guidelines generally advise against testosterone replacement therapy in men with a history of or increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The current placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group randomized study included 5204 men, ages 45-80, who had two fasting testosterone concentrations < 300 ng/dL, one or more hypogonadal symptoms, and a history of cardiovascular disease or increased . Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either testosterone replacement therapy or placebo.
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was incident high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 4 + 3 or higher).
• Secondary endpoints included incidence of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for , , and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of high-grade prostate cancer did not differ significantly between groups. Over a mean follow-up of 33 months, only 0.19% (5 of 2596 participants) in the testosterone replacement therapy group and 0.12% (3 of 2602) in the placebo group were diagnosed with high-grade disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; P = .51).
• The rate of any prostate cancer also did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups (0.46% vs 0.42%; HR, 1.07; P = .87).
• The rates of acute urinary retention (0.77% vs 0.61%; HR, 1.25; P = .50), invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (0.89% vs 0.46%; HR, 1.91; P = .07), prostate biopsy (0.62% vs 0.54%; HR, 1.13; P = .74), or new treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (3.89% vs 3.34%; HR, 1.16; P = .32) did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups.
• Compared with placebo, testosterone therapy did increase prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but the differences were small and did not increase after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

In a population of middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, “the incidences of high-grade or any prostate cancer and other prostate events were low and did not differ significantly between testosterone- and placebo-treated men,” the authors concluded. “The study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

These study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer, higher PSA values, or those without confirmed hypogonadism. The study design did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests after PSA testing, which may have affected the decision to perform a biopsy. Also, the rates of treatment discontinuation and loss to follow-up were high.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Bhasin, Lincoff, and Khera reported receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various sources. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Testosterone replacement therapy in middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism does not increase the risk for high-grade or any prostate cancer, new data confirmed.

METHODOLOGY:

• The relationship between testosterone replacement therapy and prostate cancer risk remains unclear.
• Epidemiologic studies have shown inconsistent findings, and clinical trials have not examined prostate safety. As a result, guidelines generally advise against testosterone replacement therapy in men with a history of or increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The current placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group randomized study included 5204 men, ages 45-80, who had two fasting testosterone concentrations < 300 ng/dL, one or more hypogonadal symptoms, and a history of cardiovascular disease or increased . Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either testosterone replacement therapy or placebo.
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was incident high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score 4 + 3 or higher).
• Secondary endpoints included incidence of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for , , and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of high-grade prostate cancer did not differ significantly between groups. Over a mean follow-up of 33 months, only 0.19% (5 of 2596 participants) in the testosterone replacement therapy group and 0.12% (3 of 2602) in the placebo group were diagnosed with high-grade disease (hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; P = .51).
• The rate of any prostate cancer also did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups (0.46% vs 0.42%; HR, 1.07; P = .87).
• The rates of acute urinary retention (0.77% vs 0.61%; HR, 1.25; P = .50), invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (0.89% vs 0.46%; HR, 1.91; P = .07), prostate biopsy (0.62% vs 0.54%; HR, 1.13; P = .74), or new treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms (3.89% vs 3.34%; HR, 1.16; P = .32) did not differ significantly between the testosterone vs placebo groups.
• Compared with placebo, testosterone therapy did increase prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, but the differences were small and did not increase after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

In a population of middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, “the incidences of high-grade or any prostate cancer and other prostate events were low and did not differ significantly between testosterone- and placebo-treated men,” the authors concluded. “The study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

These study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer, higher PSA values, or those without confirmed hypogonadism. The study design did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests after PSA testing, which may have affected the decision to perform a biopsy. Also, the rates of treatment discontinuation and loss to follow-up were high.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc., with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corporation, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Bhasin, Lincoff, and Khera reported receiving grants and consulting and personal fees from various sources. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nearly 10% of survivors of head, neck, esophageal, and gastric cancers experienced active substance use disorders, based on data from more than 6,000 individuals.

The association between cancer and substance use is well known, but data on the prevalence of different substance use disorders (SUDs) in different types of cancer are limited, Katie F. Jones, PhD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.

“Substance use and use disorders are on the rise in general and among older adults, who represent the majority of people diagnosed with cancer, and SUDs have significant potential to complicate cancer care and negatively impact cancer outcomes,” corresponding author Devon K. Check, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “We thought it was important to understand whether SUDs are more common with certain types of cancer. We can use that information to guide resources toward populations where interventions to integrate SUD treatment and cancer treatment are most needed,” he said. “In addition, because different SUDs (opioid use disorder, alcohol use disorder) might complicate cancer treatment in different ways and necessitate different types of interventions, we thought it was important to understand the distribution of specific disorders,” he explained.

In the cross-sectional study published in JAMA Oncology, the researchers reviewed data from 6,101 adult cancer survivors who participated in the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) between 2015 and 2020.

The study population included survivors of solid tumor cancers. SUD was defined as meeting at least one of four criteria for substance abuse or at least 3 of 6 criteria for dependence based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) criteria.

Overall, 3.83% of the participants met criteria for SUD. Survivors of head and neck cancers and survivors of gastric and esophageal cancers had the highest rates of SUDs (approximately 9%), followed by cervical cancer and melanoma survivors (approximately 6%).

Alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD both overall (2.8%) and among survivors of head and neck cancers, cervical cancers, and melanoma.

Cannabis use disorder was the most prevalent SUD among esophageal and gastric cancer survivors (approximately 9%).

The prevalence of SUDs overall and within the past year (active) was approximately 4%, but the prevalence of active SUDs was significantly higher for those with head and neck cancers and cervical cancer (18.73% and 15.70%, respectively). However, the distribution of specific SUDs was different in the newly diagnosed patients. Sedative use disorder took the top spot as the most common SUD for head and neck cancer survivors (9.81%), while alcohol use disorder was the most common SUD among cervical cancer survivors (10.49%).
 

Limitations and Implications

The findings were limited by several factors, including the nature of the study population and the data source, said Dr. Check.

“The average prevalence of SUD (or the prevalence across cancer types) was lower than we might have expected,” but the results make sense given the mainly older and female study population, he said. SUDs are less common among older adults compared with younger adults and among women compared with men, and the study’s data source (NSDUH) has been shown in other research to underestimate the prevalence of opioid use disorder, he added.

“Otherwise, the study findings were generally consistent with what we would expect,” Dr. Check said in an interview. “For example, alcohol use disorder is the most common SUD in the general U.S. population, and that was true for our study population of cancer survivors as well. In addition, SUD prevalence was higher in cancers such as cervical cancer and head and neck cancers that are causally linked to alcohol and/or tobacco use,” he said.
 

Integrated care is needed

“Among people diagnosed with certain types of cancers, including cervical and head and neck cancers, the estimated prevalence of SUD is similar to those [with] medical comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiopulmonary conditions,” said Dr. Check. “Within the field, there is an increasing emphasis on ensuring that people diagnosed with cancer have access to integrated care for their comorbid medical conditions. Similar efforts for people who concurrently manage cancer and SUD are largely absent but critically needed; these efforts should prioritize cancer populations where SUD prevalence is high,” he said.

Looking ahead, “We need to understand more about the specific challenges that arise at the intersection of cancer and SUD so we can design interventions and programs to better support both patients who concurrently manage cancer and SUD and the clinicians who care for them,” Dr. Check added.
 

Recognize risk factors

“It is very important to study overall substance use disorders in patients with cancer, because understanding the risks of developing these issues after treatment helps us develop approaches to best support these patients following their cancer therapies,” Henry S. Park, MD, a radiation oncologist at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said in an interview.

The current study findings “are generally consistent with my experience and intuition, but it is still helpful to see the actual data,” said Dr. Park, who was not involved in the study. “This may be partially because of the baseline elevated risk of preexisting SUDs for certain patients from the higher-prevalence disease sites. However, it may also be related to the intense side effects that survivors of some types of cancers, such as head and neck cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, and cervical cancer, may experience soon after treatment, and even chronically long after treatment,” he said.
 

Individualize risk assessment

“Ultimately, clinicians should be aware that not all patients with cancer are the same, and that the majority do not necessarily develop SUDs,” Dr. Park said in an interview. “We should be careful to treat symptoms appropriately, and not withhold therapies purely because of an elevated risk of developing SUDs. However, there are some patients who are at higher risk of SUDs who will need extra support and care from physicians, advanced practice providers, nutritionists, social workers, psychologists, dietitians, and survivorship clinics, both in the short-term and long-term,” he emphasized.

As for additional research, “more work needs to be done on which particular patients within each disease subset are most likely to develop SUDs,” said Dr. Park. “Most importantly, once we identify our high-risk group as reliably as possible, we will have to study interventions that rely on supporting and partnering with patients to decrease the risk of developing SUDs as much as possible, while adequately treating residual symptoms and quality-of-life effects following cancer treatment,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Check disclosed grants from Duke University during the study period and grants from the National Institutes of Health and AstraZeneca unrelated to the current study. Dr. Park had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has rejected approval of Astellas’s investigational gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer agent zolbetuximab owing to manufacturing issues, the company announced January 8.

The monoclonal antibody was under priority review as the first agent specifically for locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma that is claudin 18.2-positive. Overexpression of claudin 18.2 in gastric cancer cells is associated with tumor growth and progression.

The FDA, however, could not approve zolbetuximab by the planned decision date of January 12, 2024, because of “unresolved deficiencies following its pre-license inspection of a third-party manufacturing facility for zolbetuximab,” according to the company press release. 

Astellas “is working closely with the FDA and the third-party manufacturer to establish a timeline to quickly resolve” the issues, the company said.

Astellas also clarified that the FDA isn’t asking for additional efficacy and safety data. In phase 3 testing, zolbetuximab improved median progression-free and overall survival by about 2-3 months over chemotherapy alone. 

If zolbetuximab is approved, “pathologists will have to be facile with claudin 18.2 testing as a companion diagnostic before [it] can be used,” Mark Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, told this news organization.

The agent is also under review in Japan, Europe, and China.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has rejected approval of Astellas’s investigational gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer agent zolbetuximab owing to manufacturing issues, the company announced January 8.

The monoclonal antibody was under priority review as the first agent specifically for locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma that is claudin 18.2-positive. Overexpression of claudin 18.2 in gastric cancer cells is associated with tumor growth and progression.

The FDA, however, could not approve zolbetuximab by the planned decision date of January 12, 2024, because of “unresolved deficiencies following its pre-license inspection of a third-party manufacturing facility for zolbetuximab,” according to the company press release. 

Astellas “is working closely with the FDA and the third-party manufacturer to establish a timeline to quickly resolve” the issues, the company said.

Astellas also clarified that the FDA isn’t asking for additional efficacy and safety data. In phase 3 testing, zolbetuximab improved median progression-free and overall survival by about 2-3 months over chemotherapy alone. 

If zolbetuximab is approved, “pathologists will have to be facile with claudin 18.2 testing as a companion diagnostic before [it] can be used,” Mark Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, told this news organization.

The agent is also under review in Japan, Europe, and China.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has rejected approval of Astellas’s investigational gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer agent zolbetuximab owing to manufacturing issues, the company announced January 8.

The monoclonal antibody was under priority review as the first agent specifically for locally advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma that is claudin 18.2-positive. Overexpression of claudin 18.2 in gastric cancer cells is associated with tumor growth and progression.

The FDA, however, could not approve zolbetuximab by the planned decision date of January 12, 2024, because of “unresolved deficiencies following its pre-license inspection of a third-party manufacturing facility for zolbetuximab,” according to the company press release. 

Astellas “is working closely with the FDA and the third-party manufacturer to establish a timeline to quickly resolve” the issues, the company said.

Astellas also clarified that the FDA isn’t asking for additional efficacy and safety data. In phase 3 testing, zolbetuximab improved median progression-free and overall survival by about 2-3 months over chemotherapy alone. 

If zolbetuximab is approved, “pathologists will have to be facile with claudin 18.2 testing as a companion diagnostic before [it] can be used,” Mark Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, told this news organization.

The agent is also under review in Japan, Europe, and China.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.