AVAHO

TOPLINE:

Among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2), vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) before age 20 is associated with lower odds of progression.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 7904 women in Denmark who were undergoing active surveillance for CIN2 between 2007 and 2020.
• CIN2 lesions  on their own. Removing them can increase the risk for  during subsequent pregnancies, the researchers noted.
• Nearly half of the women had received at least one dose of an HPV vaccine at least 1 year before the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 28 months of follow-up, the risk for progression was 22.9% for women vaccinated before age 15, 31.5% for women vaccinated between ages 15 and 20, and 37.6% for women who were not vaccinated.
• Women vaccinated before age 15 had a 35% lower risk for progression than unvaccinated women, after adjusting for cytology, income, and education (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75).
• Cervical cancer developed in 0.37% of the unvaccinated women and 0.13% of the vaccinated women.
• All cases of cervical cancer in the vaccinated group occurred in women who received the vaccine after age 20.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that HPV vaccination status may be used to identify women at higher risk for progression, thereby enabling risk stratification at the time of CIN2 diagnosis,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Louise Krog, BscMed, with Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors had limited information about potential confounders such as smoking, immunosuppressive conditions, and the age at which patients became sexually active.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Carpenter Axel Kastrup-Nielsen’s Memorial Fund, and the Dagmar Marshall’s Fund. Co-authors disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, and Hologic.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2), vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) before age 20 is associated with lower odds of progression.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 7904 women in Denmark who were undergoing active surveillance for CIN2 between 2007 and 2020.
• CIN2 lesions  on their own. Removing them can increase the risk for  during subsequent pregnancies, the researchers noted.
• Nearly half of the women had received at least one dose of an HPV vaccine at least 1 year before the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 28 months of follow-up, the risk for progression was 22.9% for women vaccinated before age 15, 31.5% for women vaccinated between ages 15 and 20, and 37.6% for women who were not vaccinated.
• Women vaccinated before age 15 had a 35% lower risk for progression than unvaccinated women, after adjusting for cytology, income, and education (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75).
• Cervical cancer developed in 0.37% of the unvaccinated women and 0.13% of the vaccinated women.
• All cases of cervical cancer in the vaccinated group occurred in women who received the vaccine after age 20.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that HPV vaccination status may be used to identify women at higher risk for progression, thereby enabling risk stratification at the time of CIN2 diagnosis,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Louise Krog, BscMed, with Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors had limited information about potential confounders such as smoking, immunosuppressive conditions, and the age at which patients became sexually active.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Carpenter Axel Kastrup-Nielsen’s Memorial Fund, and the Dagmar Marshall’s Fund. Co-authors disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, and Hologic.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2), vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) before age 20 is associated with lower odds of progression.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 7904 women in Denmark who were undergoing active surveillance for CIN2 between 2007 and 2020.
• CIN2 lesions  on their own. Removing them can increase the risk for  during subsequent pregnancies, the researchers noted.
• Nearly half of the women had received at least one dose of an HPV vaccine at least 1 year before the diagnosis of cervical dysplasia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 28 months of follow-up, the risk for progression was 22.9% for women vaccinated before age 15, 31.5% for women vaccinated between ages 15 and 20, and 37.6% for women who were not vaccinated.
• Women vaccinated before age 15 had a 35% lower risk for progression than unvaccinated women, after adjusting for cytology, income, and education (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75).
• Cervical cancer developed in 0.37% of the unvaccinated women and 0.13% of the vaccinated women.
• All cases of cervical cancer in the vaccinated group occurred in women who received the vaccine after age 20.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings suggest that HPV vaccination status may be used to identify women at higher risk for progression, thereby enabling risk stratification at the time of CIN2 diagnosis,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Louise Krog, BscMed, with Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors had limited information about potential confounders such as smoking, immunosuppressive conditions, and the age at which patients became sexually active.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Danish Cancer Society, the Carpenter Axel Kastrup-Nielsen’s Memorial Fund, and the Dagmar Marshall’s Fund. Co-authors disclosed ties to AstraZeneca, Roche, and Hologic.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

After lung cancer screening (LCS), imaging, and invasive procedures were performed 31.9% and 2.8% of the time, respectively. Complications during invasive procedures occurred in 30.6% of cases. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 9266 patients aged 55-80 years who completed at least one LCS with low-dose CT (LDCT) between 2014 and 2018.
• This study used data from the PROSPR Lung Consortium.
• Results were compared with findings from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a large study of smokers published in 2011.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 2956 patients (31.9%) underwent follow-up imaging, including CT, LDCT, MRI, or PET; 180 (0.02%) had invasive procedures, including needle biopsy, bronchoscopy, mediastinoscopy or mediastinotomy, or thoracoscopy.
• Within 30 days after an invasive diagnostic procedure, 55 of 180 patients (30.6%) experienced complications; 20.6% were major, 8.3% were intermediate, and 1.7% were minor.
• Complication rates after invasive procedures were higher in PROSPR than the NLST (30.6% vs 17.7%).
• Compared with all patients, those with an abnormal LCS were slightly older, more likely to currently smoke, reported more packs of cigarettes smoked daily, and had more comorbid conditions.
• In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual LCS for certain people who smoke, on the basis of findings from the NLST.

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed higher rates of both invasive procedures and complications than those observed in NLST, highlighting the need for practice-based strategies to assess variations in the quality of care and to prioritize LCS among those patients most likely to receive a net benefit from screening in relation to potential complications and other harms,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

Katharine A. Rendle, PhD, MSW, MPH, with Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, is the study’s corresponding author. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was retrospective, and data were analyzed using procedural coding. In addition, the NLST based abnormal findings on different criteria from those used in clinical practice (Lung-RADS), making direct comparison of patients difficult. Patients in PROSPR were older, more likely to be currently smoking, and had higher rates of comorbid conditions compared with patients in the NLST. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

TOPLINE:

After lung cancer screening (LCS), imaging, and invasive procedures were performed 31.9% and 2.8% of the time, respectively. Complications during invasive procedures occurred in 30.6% of cases. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 9266 patients aged 55-80 years who completed at least one LCS with low-dose CT (LDCT) between 2014 and 2018.
• This study used data from the PROSPR Lung Consortium.
• Results were compared with findings from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a large study of smokers published in 2011.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 2956 patients (31.9%) underwent follow-up imaging, including CT, LDCT, MRI, or PET; 180 (0.02%) had invasive procedures, including needle biopsy, bronchoscopy, mediastinoscopy or mediastinotomy, or thoracoscopy.
• Within 30 days after an invasive diagnostic procedure, 55 of 180 patients (30.6%) experienced complications; 20.6% were major, 8.3% were intermediate, and 1.7% were minor.
• Complication rates after invasive procedures were higher in PROSPR than the NLST (30.6% vs 17.7%).
• Compared with all patients, those with an abnormal LCS were slightly older, more likely to currently smoke, reported more packs of cigarettes smoked daily, and had more comorbid conditions.
• In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual LCS for certain people who smoke, on the basis of findings from the NLST.

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed higher rates of both invasive procedures and complications than those observed in NLST, highlighting the need for practice-based strategies to assess variations in the quality of care and to prioritize LCS among those patients most likely to receive a net benefit from screening in relation to potential complications and other harms,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

Katharine A. Rendle, PhD, MSW, MPH, with Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, is the study’s corresponding author. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was retrospective, and data were analyzed using procedural coding. In addition, the NLST based abnormal findings on different criteria from those used in clinical practice (Lung-RADS), making direct comparison of patients difficult. Patients in PROSPR were older, more likely to be currently smoking, and had higher rates of comorbid conditions compared with patients in the NLST. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

TOPLINE:

After lung cancer screening (LCS), imaging, and invasive procedures were performed 31.9% and 2.8% of the time, respectively. Complications during invasive procedures occurred in 30.6% of cases. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from 9266 patients aged 55-80 years who completed at least one LCS with low-dose CT (LDCT) between 2014 and 2018.
• This study used data from the PROSPR Lung Consortium.
• Results were compared with findings from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), a large study of smokers published in 2011.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 2956 patients (31.9%) underwent follow-up imaging, including CT, LDCT, MRI, or PET; 180 (0.02%) had invasive procedures, including needle biopsy, bronchoscopy, mediastinoscopy or mediastinotomy, or thoracoscopy.
• Within 30 days after an invasive diagnostic procedure, 55 of 180 patients (30.6%) experienced complications; 20.6% were major, 8.3% were intermediate, and 1.7% were minor.
• Complication rates after invasive procedures were higher in PROSPR than the NLST (30.6% vs 17.7%).
• Compared with all patients, those with an abnormal LCS were slightly older, more likely to currently smoke, reported more packs of cigarettes smoked daily, and had more comorbid conditions.
• In 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual LCS for certain people who smoke, on the basis of findings from the NLST.

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed higher rates of both invasive procedures and complications than those observed in NLST, highlighting the need for practice-based strategies to assess variations in the quality of care and to prioritize LCS among those patients most likely to receive a net benefit from screening in relation to potential complications and other harms,” the researchers wrote. 

SOURCE:

Katharine A. Rendle, PhD, MSW, MPH, with Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, is the study’s corresponding author. The study was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

This study was retrospective, and data were analyzed using procedural coding. In addition, the NLST based abnormal findings on different criteria from those used in clinical practice (Lung-RADS), making direct comparison of patients difficult. Patients in PROSPR were older, more likely to be currently smoking, and had higher rates of comorbid conditions compared with patients in the NLST. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

TOPLINE:

Surgery or radiation for advanced prostate cancer may improve survival but at the cost of treatment-related adverse effects, including gastrointestinal (GI) as well as sexual and urinary conditions, that may persist for years, a study of US veterans showed.

METHODOLOGY:

Recent evidence suggested that in men with advanced prostate cancer, local therapy with radical prostatectomy or radiation may improve survival outcomes; however, data on the long-term side effects from these local options were limited.

The retrospective cohort included 5502 men (mean age, 68 years) diagnosed with advanced (T4, N1, and/or M1) prostate cancer.

A total of 1705 men (31%) received initial local treatment, consisting of radical prostatectomy, (55%), radiation (39%), or both (5.6%), while 3797 (69%) opted for initial nonlocal treatment (hormone therapy, chemotherapy, or both). 

The main outcomes were treatment-related adverse effects, including GI, chronic pain, sexual dysfunction, and urinary symptoms, assessed at three timepoints after initial treatment — up to 1 year, between 1 and 2 years, and between 2 and 5 years.

TAKEAWAY:

Overall, 916 men (75%) who had initial local treatment and 897 men (67%) with initial nonlocal therapy reported at least one adverse condition up to 5 years after initial treatment.

In the first year after initial treatment, local therapy was associated with a higher prevalence of GI (9% vs 3%), pain (60% vs 38%), sexual (37% vs 8%), and urinary (46.5% vs 18%) conditions. Men receiving local therapy were more likely to experience GI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.08), pain (aOR, 1.57), sexual (aOR, 2.96), and urinary (aOR, 2.25) conditions.

Between 2 and 5 years after local therapy, certain conditions remained more prevalent — 7.8% vs 4.2% for GI, 40% vs 13% for sexual, and 40.5% vs 26% for urinary issues. Men receiving local vs nonlocal therapy were more likely to experience GI (aOR, 2.39), sexual (aOR, 3.36), and urinary (aOR, 1.39) issues over the long term.

The researchers found no difference in the prevalence of constitutional conditions such as hot flashes (36.5% vs 34.4%) in the first year following initial local or nonlocal therapy. However, local treatment followed by any secondary treatment was associated with a higher likelihood of developing constitutional conditions at 1-2 years (aOR, 1.50) and 2-5 years (aOR, 1.78) after initial treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that patients and clinicians should consider the adverse effects of local treatment” alongside the potential for enhanced survival when making treatment decisions in the setting of advanced prostate cancer, the authors explained. Careful informed decision-making by both patients and practitioners is especially important because “there are currently no established guidelines regarding the use of local treatment among men with advanced prostate cancer.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Saira Khan, PhD, MPH, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted that the study was limited by its retrospective design. Men who received local treatment were, on average, younger; older or lesser healthy patients who received local treatment may experience worse adverse effects than observed in the study. The study was limited to US veterans.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the US Department of Defense. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Surgery or radiation for advanced prostate cancer may improve survival but at the cost of treatment-related adverse effects, including gastrointestinal (GI) as well as sexual and urinary conditions, that may persist for years, a study of US veterans showed.

METHODOLOGY:

Recent evidence suggested that in men with advanced prostate cancer, local therapy with radical prostatectomy or radiation may improve survival outcomes; however, data on the long-term side effects from these local options were limited.

The retrospective cohort included 5502 men (mean age, 68 years) diagnosed with advanced (T4, N1, and/or M1) prostate cancer.

A total of 1705 men (31%) received initial local treatment, consisting of radical prostatectomy, (55%), radiation (39%), or both (5.6%), while 3797 (69%) opted for initial nonlocal treatment (hormone therapy, chemotherapy, or both). 

The main outcomes were treatment-related adverse effects, including GI, chronic pain, sexual dysfunction, and urinary symptoms, assessed at three timepoints after initial treatment — up to 1 year, between 1 and 2 years, and between 2 and 5 years.

TAKEAWAY:

Overall, 916 men (75%) who had initial local treatment and 897 men (67%) with initial nonlocal therapy reported at least one adverse condition up to 5 years after initial treatment.

In the first year after initial treatment, local therapy was associated with a higher prevalence of GI (9% vs 3%), pain (60% vs 38%), sexual (37% vs 8%), and urinary (46.5% vs 18%) conditions. Men receiving local therapy were more likely to experience GI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.08), pain (aOR, 1.57), sexual (aOR, 2.96), and urinary (aOR, 2.25) conditions.

Between 2 and 5 years after local therapy, certain conditions remained more prevalent — 7.8% vs 4.2% for GI, 40% vs 13% for sexual, and 40.5% vs 26% for urinary issues. Men receiving local vs nonlocal therapy were more likely to experience GI (aOR, 2.39), sexual (aOR, 3.36), and urinary (aOR, 1.39) issues over the long term.

The researchers found no difference in the prevalence of constitutional conditions such as hot flashes (36.5% vs 34.4%) in the first year following initial local or nonlocal therapy. However, local treatment followed by any secondary treatment was associated with a higher likelihood of developing constitutional conditions at 1-2 years (aOR, 1.50) and 2-5 years (aOR, 1.78) after initial treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that patients and clinicians should consider the adverse effects of local treatment” alongside the potential for enhanced survival when making treatment decisions in the setting of advanced prostate cancer, the authors explained. Careful informed decision-making by both patients and practitioners is especially important because “there are currently no established guidelines regarding the use of local treatment among men with advanced prostate cancer.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Saira Khan, PhD, MPH, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted that the study was limited by its retrospective design. Men who received local treatment were, on average, younger; older or lesser healthy patients who received local treatment may experience worse adverse effects than observed in the study. The study was limited to US veterans.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the US Department of Defense. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Surgery or radiation for advanced prostate cancer may improve survival but at the cost of treatment-related adverse effects, including gastrointestinal (GI) as well as sexual and urinary conditions, that may persist for years, a study of US veterans showed.

METHODOLOGY:

Recent evidence suggested that in men with advanced prostate cancer, local therapy with radical prostatectomy or radiation may improve survival outcomes; however, data on the long-term side effects from these local options were limited.

The retrospective cohort included 5502 men (mean age, 68 years) diagnosed with advanced (T4, N1, and/or M1) prostate cancer.

A total of 1705 men (31%) received initial local treatment, consisting of radical prostatectomy, (55%), radiation (39%), or both (5.6%), while 3797 (69%) opted for initial nonlocal treatment (hormone therapy, chemotherapy, or both). 

The main outcomes were treatment-related adverse effects, including GI, chronic pain, sexual dysfunction, and urinary symptoms, assessed at three timepoints after initial treatment — up to 1 year, between 1 and 2 years, and between 2 and 5 years.

TAKEAWAY:

Overall, 916 men (75%) who had initial local treatment and 897 men (67%) with initial nonlocal therapy reported at least one adverse condition up to 5 years after initial treatment.

In the first year after initial treatment, local therapy was associated with a higher prevalence of GI (9% vs 3%), pain (60% vs 38%), sexual (37% vs 8%), and urinary (46.5% vs 18%) conditions. Men receiving local therapy were more likely to experience GI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.08), pain (aOR, 1.57), sexual (aOR, 2.96), and urinary (aOR, 2.25) conditions.

Between 2 and 5 years after local therapy, certain conditions remained more prevalent — 7.8% vs 4.2% for GI, 40% vs 13% for sexual, and 40.5% vs 26% for urinary issues. Men receiving local vs nonlocal therapy were more likely to experience GI (aOR, 2.39), sexual (aOR, 3.36), and urinary (aOR, 1.39) issues over the long term.

The researchers found no difference in the prevalence of constitutional conditions such as hot flashes (36.5% vs 34.4%) in the first year following initial local or nonlocal therapy. However, local treatment followed by any secondary treatment was associated with a higher likelihood of developing constitutional conditions at 1-2 years (aOR, 1.50) and 2-5 years (aOR, 1.78) after initial treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that patients and clinicians should consider the adverse effects of local treatment” alongside the potential for enhanced survival when making treatment decisions in the setting of advanced prostate cancer, the authors explained. Careful informed decision-making by both patients and practitioners is especially important because “there are currently no established guidelines regarding the use of local treatment among men with advanced prostate cancer.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Saira Khan, PhD, MPH, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted that the study was limited by its retrospective design. Men who received local treatment were, on average, younger; older or lesser healthy patients who received local treatment may experience worse adverse effects than observed in the study. The study was limited to US veterans.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the US Department of Defense. The authors have no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The frequency of follow-up after fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer can be tailored based on high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) tests and cytology.

METHODOLOGY:

• Among patients with early-stage cervical cancer, the optimal follow-up strategy to detect recurrence after fertility-sparing surgery remains unclear. The authors wanted to find out if follow-up could be tailored to the patient’s risk for recurrence instead of using the current inefficient one-size-fits-all approach.
• The retrospective cohort study, which used data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank, included 1462 patients aged 18-40 years with early-stage cervical cancer who received fertility-sparing surgery (large loop excision of the transformation zone, conization, or trachelectomy) between 2000 and 2020.
• The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), including recurrent cervical cancer.
• The authors stratified the likelihood of recurrence by cytology and high-risk HPV results at the first follow-up visit within 12 months of fertility-sparing surgery; they also compared the cumulative incidence of recurrence — the number of new cases divided by all at-risk individuals over a specific interval — at four timepoints in 2 years (6, 12, 18, and 24 months).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ was 89.3%. Patients with high-grade cytology at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ (43.1%) than those who had normal (92.1%) and low-grade cytology (84.6%). Similarly for HPV status, patients positive for high-risk HPV at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival rates for CIN2+ (73.6%) than those negative for high-risk HPV (91.1%).
• Patients negative for both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-0.7% within 6 months of follow-up compared with 0.0%-33.3% among patients negative for high-risk HPV but who had high-grade cytology.
• By contrast, patients positive for high-risk HPV but not high-grade cytology had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-15.4% within 6 months of any follow-up visit compared with 50.0%-100.0% among those with both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology.
• Patients who remained free of high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology at their 6-month and 12-month follow-ups had no disease recurrence over the next 6 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients who are negative for high-risk HPV with normal or low-grade cytology at 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery could be offered a prolonged follow-up interval of 6 months,” the authors concluded, adding that this “group comprises 80% of all patients receiving fertility-sparing surgery.”

“Reducing the number of follow-up visits, and subsequently the number of follow-up tests, in patients with low risk for recurrence on the basis of co-testing has the potential to substantially reduce healthcare costs,” the authors explained.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Teska N. Schuurman, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, was published in the December 2023 issue of The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of the study meant that analysis was limited to available records, so data on patients’ symptoms, physical examinations, or colposcopic findings were not available. Follow-up biopsies, considered the gold standard for diagnosing recurrence, are not routine in the Netherlands, so recurrence could have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no competing interests.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The frequency of follow-up after fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer can be tailored based on high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) tests and cytology.

METHODOLOGY:

• Among patients with early-stage cervical cancer, the optimal follow-up strategy to detect recurrence after fertility-sparing surgery remains unclear. The authors wanted to find out if follow-up could be tailored to the patient’s risk for recurrence instead of using the current inefficient one-size-fits-all approach.
• The retrospective cohort study, which used data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank, included 1462 patients aged 18-40 years with early-stage cervical cancer who received fertility-sparing surgery (large loop excision of the transformation zone, conization, or trachelectomy) between 2000 and 2020.
• The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), including recurrent cervical cancer.
• The authors stratified the likelihood of recurrence by cytology and high-risk HPV results at the first follow-up visit within 12 months of fertility-sparing surgery; they also compared the cumulative incidence of recurrence — the number of new cases divided by all at-risk individuals over a specific interval — at four timepoints in 2 years (6, 12, 18, and 24 months).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ was 89.3%. Patients with high-grade cytology at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ (43.1%) than those who had normal (92.1%) and low-grade cytology (84.6%). Similarly for HPV status, patients positive for high-risk HPV at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival rates for CIN2+ (73.6%) than those negative for high-risk HPV (91.1%).
• Patients negative for both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-0.7% within 6 months of follow-up compared with 0.0%-33.3% among patients negative for high-risk HPV but who had high-grade cytology.
• By contrast, patients positive for high-risk HPV but not high-grade cytology had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-15.4% within 6 months of any follow-up visit compared with 50.0%-100.0% among those with both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology.
• Patients who remained free of high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology at their 6-month and 12-month follow-ups had no disease recurrence over the next 6 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients who are negative for high-risk HPV with normal or low-grade cytology at 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery could be offered a prolonged follow-up interval of 6 months,” the authors concluded, adding that this “group comprises 80% of all patients receiving fertility-sparing surgery.”

“Reducing the number of follow-up visits, and subsequently the number of follow-up tests, in patients with low risk for recurrence on the basis of co-testing has the potential to substantially reduce healthcare costs,” the authors explained.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Teska N. Schuurman, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, was published in the December 2023 issue of The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of the study meant that analysis was limited to available records, so data on patients’ symptoms, physical examinations, or colposcopic findings were not available. Follow-up biopsies, considered the gold standard for diagnosing recurrence, are not routine in the Netherlands, so recurrence could have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no competing interests.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The frequency of follow-up after fertility-sparing surgery for cervical cancer can be tailored based on high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) tests and cytology.

METHODOLOGY:

• Among patients with early-stage cervical cancer, the optimal follow-up strategy to detect recurrence after fertility-sparing surgery remains unclear. The authors wanted to find out if follow-up could be tailored to the patient’s risk for recurrence instead of using the current inefficient one-size-fits-all approach.
• The retrospective cohort study, which used data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank, included 1462 patients aged 18-40 years with early-stage cervical cancer who received fertility-sparing surgery (large loop excision of the transformation zone, conization, or trachelectomy) between 2000 and 2020.
• The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+), including recurrent cervical cancer.
• The authors stratified the likelihood of recurrence by cytology and high-risk HPV results at the first follow-up visit within 12 months of fertility-sparing surgery; they also compared the cumulative incidence of recurrence — the number of new cases divided by all at-risk individuals over a specific interval — at four timepoints in 2 years (6, 12, 18, and 24 months).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ was 89.3%. Patients with high-grade cytology at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival for CIN2+ (43.1%) than those who had normal (92.1%) and low-grade cytology (84.6%). Similarly for HPV status, patients positive for high-risk HPV at the first follow-up had worse 10-year recurrence-free survival rates for CIN2+ (73.6%) than those negative for high-risk HPV (91.1%).
• Patients negative for both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-0.7% within 6 months of follow-up compared with 0.0%-33.3% among patients negative for high-risk HPV but who had high-grade cytology.
• By contrast, patients positive for high-risk HPV but not high-grade cytology had a cumulative incidence of recurrence of 0.0%-15.4% within 6 months of any follow-up visit compared with 50.0%-100.0% among those with both high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology.
• Patients who remained free of high-risk HPV and high-grade cytology at their 6-month and 12-month follow-ups had no disease recurrence over the next 6 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“Patients who are negative for high-risk HPV with normal or low-grade cytology at 6-24 months after fertility-sparing surgery could be offered a prolonged follow-up interval of 6 months,” the authors concluded, adding that this “group comprises 80% of all patients receiving fertility-sparing surgery.”

“Reducing the number of follow-up visits, and subsequently the number of follow-up tests, in patients with low risk for recurrence on the basis of co-testing has the potential to substantially reduce healthcare costs,” the authors explained.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Teska N. Schuurman, MD, of the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, was published in the December 2023 issue of The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of the study meant that analysis was limited to available records, so data on patients’ symptoms, physical examinations, or colposcopic findings were not available. Follow-up biopsies, considered the gold standard for diagnosing recurrence, are not routine in the Netherlands, so recurrence could have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no competing interests.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Overall survival among US patients with resected stage II or III gastric cancer differs by race and ethnicity, with Asian and Hispanic patients demonstrating better overall survival than White and Black patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have revealed disparities in gastric cancer outcomes among different racial and ethnic groups in the United States, but the reasons are unclear.
• To better understand the disparities, researchers analyzed survival outcomes by race and ethnicity, treatment type, and a range of other factors.
• The retrospective analysis included 6938 patients with clinical stages IIA-IIIC gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent partial or total gastrectomy between 2006 and 2019, excluding those with a history of cancer. Patient data came from the National Cancer Database, which covers about 70% of all new cancer diagnoses.
• The researchers compared factors, including race and ethnicity, surgical margins, and lymph nodes, as well as treatment modality (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy only, neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemoradiation only, or perioperative chemotherapy with radiation or surgical care only).
• Just over half of the patients (53.6%) were White, 24.3% were Black, 17.8% were Hispanic, 15.8% were Asian, and 2.6% were other race or ethnicity (information was missing for 4.8%). White patients were more likely to be older and insured; Black and White patients had more comorbidities than Asian and Hispanic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Perioperative chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79), while surgical resection alone (HR, 1.79), more positive lymph nodes (HR, 2.95 for 10 or more), and positive surgical margins were associated with the biggest decreases in overall survival.
• Asian and Hispanic patients had significantly better overall survival (HR, 0.64 and 0.77, respectively) than White patients.
• In general, Black and White patients had similar overall survival (HR, 0.96), except among Black patients who received neoadjuvant therapy — these patients had better overall survival than White patients (HR, 0.78).
• Black and Asian patients were more likely to be downstaged or achieve a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant therapy (34.4% and 35.3%, respectively) than White (28.4%) and Hispanic patients (30.8%).

IN PRACTICE:

The authors found that “Asian and Hispanic race and ethnicity were independently associated with improved [overall survival] compared with Black and White race,” even after adjusting for variables including multimodality treatment regimen and response to neoadjuvant therapy.

The authors explained that overall Asian and Black patients responded more favorably to neoadjuvant therapy, demonstrating significantly higher rates of downstaging or pathologic complete response, which may help explain why Black patients demonstrated better overall survival than White patients who received neoadjuvant therapy.

SOURCE:

The research, led by Steve Kwon, MD, MPH, of Roger Williams Medical Center and Boston University, Providence, Rhode Island, was published online on December 21 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis is constrained by the database, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The authors determined the response to neoadjuvant therapy by comparing clinical stage with postoperative pathologic stage.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Overall survival among US patients with resected stage II or III gastric cancer differs by race and ethnicity, with Asian and Hispanic patients demonstrating better overall survival than White and Black patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have revealed disparities in gastric cancer outcomes among different racial and ethnic groups in the United States, but the reasons are unclear.
• To better understand the disparities, researchers analyzed survival outcomes by race and ethnicity, treatment type, and a range of other factors.
• The retrospective analysis included 6938 patients with clinical stages IIA-IIIC gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent partial or total gastrectomy between 2006 and 2019, excluding those with a history of cancer. Patient data came from the National Cancer Database, which covers about 70% of all new cancer diagnoses.
• The researchers compared factors, including race and ethnicity, surgical margins, and lymph nodes, as well as treatment modality (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy only, neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemoradiation only, or perioperative chemotherapy with radiation or surgical care only).
• Just over half of the patients (53.6%) were White, 24.3% were Black, 17.8% were Hispanic, 15.8% were Asian, and 2.6% were other race or ethnicity (information was missing for 4.8%). White patients were more likely to be older and insured; Black and White patients had more comorbidities than Asian and Hispanic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Perioperative chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79), while surgical resection alone (HR, 1.79), more positive lymph nodes (HR, 2.95 for 10 or more), and positive surgical margins were associated with the biggest decreases in overall survival.
• Asian and Hispanic patients had significantly better overall survival (HR, 0.64 and 0.77, respectively) than White patients.
• In general, Black and White patients had similar overall survival (HR, 0.96), except among Black patients who received neoadjuvant therapy — these patients had better overall survival than White patients (HR, 0.78).
• Black and Asian patients were more likely to be downstaged or achieve a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant therapy (34.4% and 35.3%, respectively) than White (28.4%) and Hispanic patients (30.8%).

IN PRACTICE:

The authors found that “Asian and Hispanic race and ethnicity were independently associated with improved [overall survival] compared with Black and White race,” even after adjusting for variables including multimodality treatment regimen and response to neoadjuvant therapy.

The authors explained that overall Asian and Black patients responded more favorably to neoadjuvant therapy, demonstrating significantly higher rates of downstaging or pathologic complete response, which may help explain why Black patients demonstrated better overall survival than White patients who received neoadjuvant therapy.

SOURCE:

The research, led by Steve Kwon, MD, MPH, of Roger Williams Medical Center and Boston University, Providence, Rhode Island, was published online on December 21 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis is constrained by the database, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The authors determined the response to neoadjuvant therapy by comparing clinical stage with postoperative pathologic stage.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Overall survival among US patients with resected stage II or III gastric cancer differs by race and ethnicity, with Asian and Hispanic patients demonstrating better overall survival than White and Black patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have revealed disparities in gastric cancer outcomes among different racial and ethnic groups in the United States, but the reasons are unclear.
• To better understand the disparities, researchers analyzed survival outcomes by race and ethnicity, treatment type, and a range of other factors.
• The retrospective analysis included 6938 patients with clinical stages IIA-IIIC gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent partial or total gastrectomy between 2006 and 2019, excluding those with a history of cancer. Patient data came from the National Cancer Database, which covers about 70% of all new cancer diagnoses.
• The researchers compared factors, including race and ethnicity, surgical margins, and lymph nodes, as well as treatment modality (neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy only, neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemoradiation only, or perioperative chemotherapy with radiation or surgical care only).
• Just over half of the patients (53.6%) were White, 24.3% were Black, 17.8% were Hispanic, 15.8% were Asian, and 2.6% were other race or ethnicity (information was missing for 4.8%). White patients were more likely to be older and insured; Black and White patients had more comorbidities than Asian and Hispanic patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Perioperative chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79), while surgical resection alone (HR, 1.79), more positive lymph nodes (HR, 2.95 for 10 or more), and positive surgical margins were associated with the biggest decreases in overall survival.
• Asian and Hispanic patients had significantly better overall survival (HR, 0.64 and 0.77, respectively) than White patients.
• In general, Black and White patients had similar overall survival (HR, 0.96), except among Black patients who received neoadjuvant therapy — these patients had better overall survival than White patients (HR, 0.78).
• Black and Asian patients were more likely to be downstaged or achieve a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant therapy (34.4% and 35.3%, respectively) than White (28.4%) and Hispanic patients (30.8%).

IN PRACTICE:

The authors found that “Asian and Hispanic race and ethnicity were independently associated with improved [overall survival] compared with Black and White race,” even after adjusting for variables including multimodality treatment regimen and response to neoadjuvant therapy.

The authors explained that overall Asian and Black patients responded more favorably to neoadjuvant therapy, demonstrating significantly higher rates of downstaging or pathologic complete response, which may help explain why Black patients demonstrated better overall survival than White patients who received neoadjuvant therapy.

SOURCE:

The research, led by Steve Kwon, MD, MPH, of Roger Williams Medical Center and Boston University, Providence, Rhode Island, was published online on December 21 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis is constrained by the database, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. The authors determined the response to neoadjuvant therapy by comparing clinical stage with postoperative pathologic stage.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Paramagnetic seeds work just as well as standard guidewires for breast tumor localization and are easier for surgeons, radiologists, and operating room planners to use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Paramagnetic seeds have shown promise over standard guidewire localization, but the two methods of tagging breast lesions for surgical removal have never been compared head-to-head in a randomized trial.
• Paramagnetic seeds are magnetic markers smaller than a grain of rice that are injected into the lesion under ultrasound or x-ray guidance. While traditional guidewires are placed on the day of surgery, seeds can be placed up to 4 weeks ahead of time.
• In the current study, investigators at three hospitals in Sweden randomized 426 women undergoing breast-conserving surgery for early breast cancer to either paramagnetic seed (Magseed, Endomag, Cambridge, UK) or guidewire localization.
• Sentinel lymph nodes were also marked magnetically for removal by superparamagnetic iron oxide (Magtrace, Endomag, Cambridge, UK ) injected into the breast before surgery. This approach — an alternative to traditional radioisotopes and blue dye — can be done days before surgery.

TAKEAWAY:

• The investigators found no significant difference in re-excision rates (2.84% vs 2.87%), sentinel lymph node detection (98.1% vs 99.0%), or resection ratios — a metric of surgical precision — between the guidewire and seed approaches.
• The rate of failed localizations was significantly higher in the guidewire group (10.1% vs 1.9%; P < .001).
• Median operative time was significantly shorter in the seed localization group (69 min vs 75.5 min; P = .03).
• Surgery coordinators reported greater ease of planning with the seeds, radiologists reported easier preoperative localization, and surgeons reported easier detection of marked tumors during surgery.

IN PRACTICE:

Overall, the randomized trial found that “a paramagnetic marker was equivalent to the guidewire in re-excisions and excised specimen volumes, with advantages of shorter operative time, safer localization, and preferable logistics,” the authors concluded.

Another advantage of paramagnetic seeds: Surgical staff and patients were not confined to the same-day “restrictions posed by guidewire localization or radioisotope-based methods, making it an attractive alternative for numerous and diverse clinical settings,” the authors added.

SOURCE:

The work, led by Eirini Pantiora, MD, of Uppsala University, Sweden, was published in JAMA Surgery .

LIMITATIONS:

The investigators don’t yet know whether the benefits of implementing seed localization outweigh the costs.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by Uppsala University, the Swedish Breast Cancer Association, and others. The senior investigator reported receiving grants from Endomag, the maker of the technology tested in the trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Paramagnetic seeds work just as well as standard guidewires for breast tumor localization and are easier for surgeons, radiologists, and operating room planners to use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Paramagnetic seeds have shown promise over standard guidewire localization, but the two methods of tagging breast lesions for surgical removal have never been compared head-to-head in a randomized trial.
• Paramagnetic seeds are magnetic markers smaller than a grain of rice that are injected into the lesion under ultrasound or x-ray guidance. While traditional guidewires are placed on the day of surgery, seeds can be placed up to 4 weeks ahead of time.
• In the current study, investigators at three hospitals in Sweden randomized 426 women undergoing breast-conserving surgery for early breast cancer to either paramagnetic seed (Magseed, Endomag, Cambridge, UK) or guidewire localization.
• Sentinel lymph nodes were also marked magnetically for removal by superparamagnetic iron oxide (Magtrace, Endomag, Cambridge, UK ) injected into the breast before surgery. This approach — an alternative to traditional radioisotopes and blue dye — can be done days before surgery.

TAKEAWAY:

• The investigators found no significant difference in re-excision rates (2.84% vs 2.87%), sentinel lymph node detection (98.1% vs 99.0%), or resection ratios — a metric of surgical precision — between the guidewire and seed approaches.
• The rate of failed localizations was significantly higher in the guidewire group (10.1% vs 1.9%; P < .001).
• Median operative time was significantly shorter in the seed localization group (69 min vs 75.5 min; P = .03).
• Surgery coordinators reported greater ease of planning with the seeds, radiologists reported easier preoperative localization, and surgeons reported easier detection of marked tumors during surgery.

IN PRACTICE:

Overall, the randomized trial found that “a paramagnetic marker was equivalent to the guidewire in re-excisions and excised specimen volumes, with advantages of shorter operative time, safer localization, and preferable logistics,” the authors concluded.

Another advantage of paramagnetic seeds: Surgical staff and patients were not confined to the same-day “restrictions posed by guidewire localization or radioisotope-based methods, making it an attractive alternative for numerous and diverse clinical settings,” the authors added.

SOURCE:

The work, led by Eirini Pantiora, MD, of Uppsala University, Sweden, was published in JAMA Surgery .

LIMITATIONS:

The investigators don’t yet know whether the benefits of implementing seed localization outweigh the costs.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by Uppsala University, the Swedish Breast Cancer Association, and others. The senior investigator reported receiving grants from Endomag, the maker of the technology tested in the trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Paramagnetic seeds work just as well as standard guidewires for breast tumor localization and are easier for surgeons, radiologists, and operating room planners to use.

METHODOLOGY:

• Paramagnetic seeds have shown promise over standard guidewire localization, but the two methods of tagging breast lesions for surgical removal have never been compared head-to-head in a randomized trial.
• Paramagnetic seeds are magnetic markers smaller than a grain of rice that are injected into the lesion under ultrasound or x-ray guidance. While traditional guidewires are placed on the day of surgery, seeds can be placed up to 4 weeks ahead of time.
• In the current study, investigators at three hospitals in Sweden randomized 426 women undergoing breast-conserving surgery for early breast cancer to either paramagnetic seed (Magseed, Endomag, Cambridge, UK) or guidewire localization.
• Sentinel lymph nodes were also marked magnetically for removal by superparamagnetic iron oxide (Magtrace, Endomag, Cambridge, UK ) injected into the breast before surgery. This approach — an alternative to traditional radioisotopes and blue dye — can be done days before surgery.

TAKEAWAY:

• The investigators found no significant difference in re-excision rates (2.84% vs 2.87%), sentinel lymph node detection (98.1% vs 99.0%), or resection ratios — a metric of surgical precision — between the guidewire and seed approaches.
• The rate of failed localizations was significantly higher in the guidewire group (10.1% vs 1.9%; P < .001).
• Median operative time was significantly shorter in the seed localization group (69 min vs 75.5 min; P = .03).
• Surgery coordinators reported greater ease of planning with the seeds, radiologists reported easier preoperative localization, and surgeons reported easier detection of marked tumors during surgery.

IN PRACTICE:

Overall, the randomized trial found that “a paramagnetic marker was equivalent to the guidewire in re-excisions and excised specimen volumes, with advantages of shorter operative time, safer localization, and preferable logistics,” the authors concluded.

Another advantage of paramagnetic seeds: Surgical staff and patients were not confined to the same-day “restrictions posed by guidewire localization or radioisotope-based methods, making it an attractive alternative for numerous and diverse clinical settings,” the authors added.

SOURCE:

The work, led by Eirini Pantiora, MD, of Uppsala University, Sweden, was published in JAMA Surgery .

LIMITATIONS:

The investigators don’t yet know whether the benefits of implementing seed localization outweigh the costs.

DISCLOSURES:

The work was funded by Uppsala University, the Swedish Breast Cancer Association, and others. The senior investigator reported receiving grants from Endomag, the maker of the technology tested in the trial.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Seventeen years ago, Philip Segal, a retired accountant from suburban Toronto, Canada, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in a private clinic. After rejecting brachytherapy recommended by an oncologist, he went on active surveillance to watch, but not treat, the Gleason 6 (grade group 1) tumor. As he approaches his 80th birthday later this year, Mr. Segal said he plans to maintain the status quo. “It definitely brings me some peace of mind. I’d rather do that than not follow it and kick myself if there was a serious change,” he said.

Meanwhile, 2 years ago and 200 miles away in suburban Detroit, Bruno Barrey, a robotics engineer, was diagnosed with three cores of Gleason 6 and went on active surveillance.

Six months after the original diagnosis, however, Mr. Barrey, 57, underwent a follow-up biopsy. This time, all 16 cores were positive, with a mix of low-risk Gleason 6 and more advanced Gleason 3 + 4 lesions. His tumor was so large he underwent radiation therapy in 2023, ending his brief stint on the monitoring approach.

The two cases illustrate the complicated truth of active surveillance. For some men, the strategy can prove to be short-lived, perhaps 5 years or less, or a life-long approach lasting until the man dies from another cause.

Which kind of race a man will run depends on a wide range of factors: His comfort level living with a cancer, or at least a tumor that might well evolve into an aggressive malignancy, changes in his prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and results of a magnetic resonance imaging test, the volume of his cancer, results of genetic testing of the patient himself and his lesion, and his urologist’s philosophy about surveillance. Where a patient lives matters, too, because variations in surveillance levels exist in different geographic areas, domestically and internationally.

“Active surveillance is a strategy of monitoring until it is necessary to be treated. For some people, it is very short, and for others, essentially indefinite,” said Michael Leapman, MD, clinical lead at Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut. “While there are differences, I think they are mainly about who is the ideal patient.”

Most studies show that roughly half of men in the United States who go on active surveillance abandon it within 5 years of diagnosis. Rashid Sayyid, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of Toronto, Canada, found in a paper presented to the American Urological Association in 2022 that the number leaving active surveillance increased to nearly two thirds at 10 years.

Peter Carroll, MD, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and a pioneer in the active surveillance in the late 1990s, said the major reason men abandon the strategy is because monitoring reveals the presence of a more aggressive cancer, typically a grade group 2 (Gleason 3 + 4) lesion. But other reasons include anxiety and other emotional distress and upgrades in blood levels of PSA and increases in the rating scale for MRI for the likelihood of the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, who coined the term active surveillance strategy in 1997 and published the first studies in the early 2000s, said it is important to consider when the data on surveillance were collected.

Since 2013, when MRI began to be adopted as a surveillance modality for men with prostate cancer, the dropout rate began declining. The reason? According to Dr. Klotz, MRIs and targeted biopsies result in greater accuracy in staging the disease, determining which patients need to be biopsied, which helps some men avoid being diagnosed to begin with.

Dr. Klotz cited as an example of the emerging change a 2020 study in the Journal of Urology, which found a 24% dropout rate for surveillance at 5 years, 36% at 10 years, and 42% at 15 years in a series of 2664 grade group 1 patients on active surveillance at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City from 2000 to 2017.

Dr. Leapman cited a 2023 study in JNCI Cancer Spectrum using the National Cancer Database that found a decline in the percentage of patients who had grade group 1 in biopsies from 45% in 2010 to 25% in 2019.

“There is more judicious use of PSA testing and biopsy in individuals who are more likely to have significant prostate cancer,” Dr. Leapman told this news organization. “And MRI could also play a role by finding more high-grade cancers that would have otherwise been hidden.”

The changing statistics of prostate cancer also may reflect decreases in screening in response to a 2012 statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force advising against PSA testing. The American Cancer Society in January 2023 said that statement could be driving more diagnoses of late-stage disease, which has been surging for the first time in two decades, especially among Black men.

Dr. Sayyid said patients must be selected carefully for active surveillance. And he said urologists should not promise their active surveillance patients that they will avoid treatment. “There are numerous factors at stake that influence the ultimate outcome,” he said.

Progression of Gleason scores is estimated at 1%-2% per year, Dr. Sayyid added. When active surveillance fails in the short to medium term — 5-10 years — the reason usually is that higher-grade cancers with Gleason 3 + 4 or above were initially missed.

Dr. Sayyid said he counsels patients aged 70 years and older differently than those in their 50s, telling younger patients they are more likely to need treatment eventually than the older patients.

Factors that can affect the longevity of active surveillance include the presence or absence of germline mutations and the overall health and life expectancy and comorbidities such as heart disease and diabetes in a given patient, he said.

Urologists hold varying philosophies here, especially involving younger patients and the presence of any level of Gleason 4 cancer.

William Catalona, MD, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, who developed the concept of mass screening with PSA testing, originally opposed active surveillance. In recent years, he has modified his views but still takes a more conservative approach.

“I consider active surveillance a foolish strategy or, at best, a short-term strategy for young, otherwise healthy men, especially those having any Gleason pattern 4 disease.”

“More than half will ultimately convert to active treatment, some too late, and will require multiple treatments with multiple side effects. Some will develop metastases, and some will die of prostate cancer.”

Dr. Sayyid takes a more liberal approach. “I would counsel an eligible patient considering active surveillance that at the current time, I see no strong reason why you should be subjected to treatment and the associated side effects,” he said. “And as long as your overall disease ‘state’ [the combination of grade, volume, PSA, and imaging tests] remains relatively stable, there should be no reason for us to ‘jump ship’. In my practice, another term for active surveillance is ‘active partnership’ — working together to decide if this is a sprint or a lifelong marathon.”

Dr. Carroll reported research funding from the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Seventeen years ago, Philip Segal, a retired accountant from suburban Toronto, Canada, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in a private clinic. After rejecting brachytherapy recommended by an oncologist, he went on active surveillance to watch, but not treat, the Gleason 6 (grade group 1) tumor. As he approaches his 80th birthday later this year, Mr. Segal said he plans to maintain the status quo. “It definitely brings me some peace of mind. I’d rather do that than not follow it and kick myself if there was a serious change,” he said.

Meanwhile, 2 years ago and 200 miles away in suburban Detroit, Bruno Barrey, a robotics engineer, was diagnosed with three cores of Gleason 6 and went on active surveillance.

Six months after the original diagnosis, however, Mr. Barrey, 57, underwent a follow-up biopsy. This time, all 16 cores were positive, with a mix of low-risk Gleason 6 and more advanced Gleason 3 + 4 lesions. His tumor was so large he underwent radiation therapy in 2023, ending his brief stint on the monitoring approach.

The two cases illustrate the complicated truth of active surveillance. For some men, the strategy can prove to be short-lived, perhaps 5 years or less, or a life-long approach lasting until the man dies from another cause.

Which kind of race a man will run depends on a wide range of factors: His comfort level living with a cancer, or at least a tumor that might well evolve into an aggressive malignancy, changes in his prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and results of a magnetic resonance imaging test, the volume of his cancer, results of genetic testing of the patient himself and his lesion, and his urologist’s philosophy about surveillance. Where a patient lives matters, too, because variations in surveillance levels exist in different geographic areas, domestically and internationally.

“Active surveillance is a strategy of monitoring until it is necessary to be treated. For some people, it is very short, and for others, essentially indefinite,” said Michael Leapman, MD, clinical lead at Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut. “While there are differences, I think they are mainly about who is the ideal patient.”

Most studies show that roughly half of men in the United States who go on active surveillance abandon it within 5 years of diagnosis. Rashid Sayyid, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of Toronto, Canada, found in a paper presented to the American Urological Association in 2022 that the number leaving active surveillance increased to nearly two thirds at 10 years.

Peter Carroll, MD, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and a pioneer in the active surveillance in the late 1990s, said the major reason men abandon the strategy is because monitoring reveals the presence of a more aggressive cancer, typically a grade group 2 (Gleason 3 + 4) lesion. But other reasons include anxiety and other emotional distress and upgrades in blood levels of PSA and increases in the rating scale for MRI for the likelihood of the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, who coined the term active surveillance strategy in 1997 and published the first studies in the early 2000s, said it is important to consider when the data on surveillance were collected.

Since 2013, when MRI began to be adopted as a surveillance modality for men with prostate cancer, the dropout rate began declining. The reason? According to Dr. Klotz, MRIs and targeted biopsies result in greater accuracy in staging the disease, determining which patients need to be biopsied, which helps some men avoid being diagnosed to begin with.

Dr. Klotz cited as an example of the emerging change a 2020 study in the Journal of Urology, which found a 24% dropout rate for surveillance at 5 years, 36% at 10 years, and 42% at 15 years in a series of 2664 grade group 1 patients on active surveillance at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City from 2000 to 2017.

Dr. Leapman cited a 2023 study in JNCI Cancer Spectrum using the National Cancer Database that found a decline in the percentage of patients who had grade group 1 in biopsies from 45% in 2010 to 25% in 2019.

“There is more judicious use of PSA testing and biopsy in individuals who are more likely to have significant prostate cancer,” Dr. Leapman told this news organization. “And MRI could also play a role by finding more high-grade cancers that would have otherwise been hidden.”

The changing statistics of prostate cancer also may reflect decreases in screening in response to a 2012 statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force advising against PSA testing. The American Cancer Society in January 2023 said that statement could be driving more diagnoses of late-stage disease, which has been surging for the first time in two decades, especially among Black men.

Dr. Sayyid said patients must be selected carefully for active surveillance. And he said urologists should not promise their active surveillance patients that they will avoid treatment. “There are numerous factors at stake that influence the ultimate outcome,” he said.

Progression of Gleason scores is estimated at 1%-2% per year, Dr. Sayyid added. When active surveillance fails in the short to medium term — 5-10 years — the reason usually is that higher-grade cancers with Gleason 3 + 4 or above were initially missed.

Dr. Sayyid said he counsels patients aged 70 years and older differently than those in their 50s, telling younger patients they are more likely to need treatment eventually than the older patients.

Factors that can affect the longevity of active surveillance include the presence or absence of germline mutations and the overall health and life expectancy and comorbidities such as heart disease and diabetes in a given patient, he said.

Urologists hold varying philosophies here, especially involving younger patients and the presence of any level of Gleason 4 cancer.

William Catalona, MD, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, who developed the concept of mass screening with PSA testing, originally opposed active surveillance. In recent years, he has modified his views but still takes a more conservative approach.

“I consider active surveillance a foolish strategy or, at best, a short-term strategy for young, otherwise healthy men, especially those having any Gleason pattern 4 disease.”

“More than half will ultimately convert to active treatment, some too late, and will require multiple treatments with multiple side effects. Some will develop metastases, and some will die of prostate cancer.”

Dr. Sayyid takes a more liberal approach. “I would counsel an eligible patient considering active surveillance that at the current time, I see no strong reason why you should be subjected to treatment and the associated side effects,” he said. “And as long as your overall disease ‘state’ [the combination of grade, volume, PSA, and imaging tests] remains relatively stable, there should be no reason for us to ‘jump ship’. In my practice, another term for active surveillance is ‘active partnership’ — working together to decide if this is a sprint or a lifelong marathon.”

Dr. Carroll reported research funding from the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Seventeen years ago, Philip Segal, a retired accountant from suburban Toronto, Canada, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in a private clinic. After rejecting brachytherapy recommended by an oncologist, he went on active surveillance to watch, but not treat, the Gleason 6 (grade group 1) tumor. As he approaches his 80th birthday later this year, Mr. Segal said he plans to maintain the status quo. “It definitely brings me some peace of mind. I’d rather do that than not follow it and kick myself if there was a serious change,” he said.

Meanwhile, 2 years ago and 200 miles away in suburban Detroit, Bruno Barrey, a robotics engineer, was diagnosed with three cores of Gleason 6 and went on active surveillance.

Six months after the original diagnosis, however, Mr. Barrey, 57, underwent a follow-up biopsy. This time, all 16 cores were positive, with a mix of low-risk Gleason 6 and more advanced Gleason 3 + 4 lesions. His tumor was so large he underwent radiation therapy in 2023, ending his brief stint on the monitoring approach.

The two cases illustrate the complicated truth of active surveillance. For some men, the strategy can prove to be short-lived, perhaps 5 years or less, or a life-long approach lasting until the man dies from another cause.

Which kind of race a man will run depends on a wide range of factors: His comfort level living with a cancer, or at least a tumor that might well evolve into an aggressive malignancy, changes in his prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level and results of a magnetic resonance imaging test, the volume of his cancer, results of genetic testing of the patient himself and his lesion, and his urologist’s philosophy about surveillance. Where a patient lives matters, too, because variations in surveillance levels exist in different geographic areas, domestically and internationally.

“Active surveillance is a strategy of monitoring until it is necessary to be treated. For some people, it is very short, and for others, essentially indefinite,” said Michael Leapman, MD, clinical lead at Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Connecticut. “While there are differences, I think they are mainly about who is the ideal patient.”

Most studies show that roughly half of men in the United States who go on active surveillance abandon it within 5 years of diagnosis. Rashid Sayyid, MD, a clinical fellow at the University of Toronto, Canada, found in a paper presented to the American Urological Association in 2022 that the number leaving active surveillance increased to nearly two thirds at 10 years.

Peter Carroll, MD, a urologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and a pioneer in the active surveillance in the late 1990s, said the major reason men abandon the strategy is because monitoring reveals the presence of a more aggressive cancer, typically a grade group 2 (Gleason 3 + 4) lesion. But other reasons include anxiety and other emotional distress and upgrades in blood levels of PSA and increases in the rating scale for MRI for the likelihood of the presence of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Laurence Klotz, MD, of the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, who coined the term active surveillance strategy in 1997 and published the first studies in the early 2000s, said it is important to consider when the data on surveillance were collected.

Since 2013, when MRI began to be adopted as a surveillance modality for men with prostate cancer, the dropout rate began declining. The reason? According to Dr. Klotz, MRIs and targeted biopsies result in greater accuracy in staging the disease, determining which patients need to be biopsied, which helps some men avoid being diagnosed to begin with.

Dr. Klotz cited as an example of the emerging change a 2020 study in the Journal of Urology, which found a 24% dropout rate for surveillance at 5 years, 36% at 10 years, and 42% at 15 years in a series of 2664 grade group 1 patients on active surveillance at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City from 2000 to 2017.

Dr. Leapman cited a 2023 study in JNCI Cancer Spectrum using the National Cancer Database that found a decline in the percentage of patients who had grade group 1 in biopsies from 45% in 2010 to 25% in 2019.

“There is more judicious use of PSA testing and biopsy in individuals who are more likely to have significant prostate cancer,” Dr. Leapman told this news organization. “And MRI could also play a role by finding more high-grade cancers that would have otherwise been hidden.”

The changing statistics of prostate cancer also may reflect decreases in screening in response to a 2012 statement from the US Preventive Services Task Force advising against PSA testing. The American Cancer Society in January 2023 said that statement could be driving more diagnoses of late-stage disease, which has been surging for the first time in two decades, especially among Black men.

Dr. Sayyid said patients must be selected carefully for active surveillance. And he said urologists should not promise their active surveillance patients that they will avoid treatment. “There are numerous factors at stake that influence the ultimate outcome,” he said.

Progression of Gleason scores is estimated at 1%-2% per year, Dr. Sayyid added. When active surveillance fails in the short to medium term — 5-10 years — the reason usually is that higher-grade cancers with Gleason 3 + 4 or above were initially missed.

Dr. Sayyid said he counsels patients aged 70 years and older differently than those in their 50s, telling younger patients they are more likely to need treatment eventually than the older patients.

Factors that can affect the longevity of active surveillance include the presence or absence of germline mutations and the overall health and life expectancy and comorbidities such as heart disease and diabetes in a given patient, he said.

Urologists hold varying philosophies here, especially involving younger patients and the presence of any level of Gleason 4 cancer.

William Catalona, MD, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, Illinois, who developed the concept of mass screening with PSA testing, originally opposed active surveillance. In recent years, he has modified his views but still takes a more conservative approach.

“I consider active surveillance a foolish strategy or, at best, a short-term strategy for young, otherwise healthy men, especially those having any Gleason pattern 4 disease.”

“More than half will ultimately convert to active treatment, some too late, and will require multiple treatments with multiple side effects. Some will develop metastases, and some will die of prostate cancer.”

Dr. Sayyid takes a more liberal approach. “I would counsel an eligible patient considering active surveillance that at the current time, I see no strong reason why you should be subjected to treatment and the associated side effects,” he said. “And as long as your overall disease ‘state’ [the combination of grade, volume, PSA, and imaging tests] remains relatively stable, there should be no reason for us to ‘jump ship’. In my practice, another term for active surveillance is ‘active partnership’ — working together to decide if this is a sprint or a lifelong marathon.”

Dr. Carroll reported research funding from the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Imposing a new prior authorization requirement increased the likelihood that older patients with cancer will delay or stop filling their prescription for oral anticancer drugs, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior authorization requirements, especially in oncology, continue to increase, but how these policies affect patients’ access to care remains less clear.
• Researchers analyzed Medicare Part D claims from 2010 to 2020 to assess the effects of prior authorization changes on prescriptions fills for 1 of 11 oral anticancer drugs.
• The study included 2495 patients filling a prescription for these medications prior to their health plan imposing a new prior authorization policy and 22,641 patients filling prescriptions for the same drugs with no change in prior authorization policy (control).
• Beneficiaries had at least three 30-day fills in the 120 days before the new prior authorization policy was established on January 1 and continued to be enrolled in the same plan 120 days after the policy change.
• The researchers focused on how often patients discontinued their therapy within 120 days following a prior authorization policy change, as well as the time to fill a prescription after this change.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients subjected to a new prior authorization policy on an established drug had a sevenfold higher likelihood of stopping the drug within 120 days than those who had no change in prior authorization requirements (adjusted odds ratio, 7.1).
• The adjusted probability of discontinuing an oral cancer regimen within 120 days after an index date of January 1 (when most health plan policy changes occur) was 5.8% for those with a new prior authorization policy vs 1.4% for the control group.
• A new prior authorization requirement was also associated with an average 10-day delay to refill the first prescription following the policy change (P < .001).
• The probability of a delay of more than 30 days was 22% after a policy change vs 7% after no policy change.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest concerns about delayed and foregone care related to prior authorization are warranted,” the authors said. Overall, this study found that “prior authorization wasted time and undermined the policy priorities of access to care and oral anticancer drug adherence for patients who were regular users of a particular medication.”

SOURCE:

The study by Michael Anna Kyle, PhD, RN, and Nancy Keating, MD, MPH, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not look at patients starting new oral anticancer drugs, which may come with more complex prior authorization processes and create more significant access issues. The results are also limited to patients taking 1 of 11 oral anticancer agents in Medicare Part D.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the study was provided by the National Cancer Institute. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Imposing a new prior authorization requirement increased the likelihood that older patients with cancer will delay or stop filling their prescription for oral anticancer drugs, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior authorization requirements, especially in oncology, continue to increase, but how these policies affect patients’ access to care remains less clear.
• Researchers analyzed Medicare Part D claims from 2010 to 2020 to assess the effects of prior authorization changes on prescriptions fills for 1 of 11 oral anticancer drugs.
• The study included 2495 patients filling a prescription for these medications prior to their health plan imposing a new prior authorization policy and 22,641 patients filling prescriptions for the same drugs with no change in prior authorization policy (control).
• Beneficiaries had at least three 30-day fills in the 120 days before the new prior authorization policy was established on January 1 and continued to be enrolled in the same plan 120 days after the policy change.
• The researchers focused on how often patients discontinued their therapy within 120 days following a prior authorization policy change, as well as the time to fill a prescription after this change.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients subjected to a new prior authorization policy on an established drug had a sevenfold higher likelihood of stopping the drug within 120 days than those who had no change in prior authorization requirements (adjusted odds ratio, 7.1).
• The adjusted probability of discontinuing an oral cancer regimen within 120 days after an index date of January 1 (when most health plan policy changes occur) was 5.8% for those with a new prior authorization policy vs 1.4% for the control group.
• A new prior authorization requirement was also associated with an average 10-day delay to refill the first prescription following the policy change (P < .001).
• The probability of a delay of more than 30 days was 22% after a policy change vs 7% after no policy change.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest concerns about delayed and foregone care related to prior authorization are warranted,” the authors said. Overall, this study found that “prior authorization wasted time and undermined the policy priorities of access to care and oral anticancer drug adherence for patients who were regular users of a particular medication.”

SOURCE:

The study by Michael Anna Kyle, PhD, RN, and Nancy Keating, MD, MPH, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not look at patients starting new oral anticancer drugs, which may come with more complex prior authorization processes and create more significant access issues. The results are also limited to patients taking 1 of 11 oral anticancer agents in Medicare Part D.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the study was provided by the National Cancer Institute. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Imposing a new prior authorization requirement increased the likelihood that older patients with cancer will delay or stop filling their prescription for oral anticancer drugs, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior authorization requirements, especially in oncology, continue to increase, but how these policies affect patients’ access to care remains less clear.
• Researchers analyzed Medicare Part D claims from 2010 to 2020 to assess the effects of prior authorization changes on prescriptions fills for 1 of 11 oral anticancer drugs.
• The study included 2495 patients filling a prescription for these medications prior to their health plan imposing a new prior authorization policy and 22,641 patients filling prescriptions for the same drugs with no change in prior authorization policy (control).
• Beneficiaries had at least three 30-day fills in the 120 days before the new prior authorization policy was established on January 1 and continued to be enrolled in the same plan 120 days after the policy change.
• The researchers focused on how often patients discontinued their therapy within 120 days following a prior authorization policy change, as well as the time to fill a prescription after this change.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients subjected to a new prior authorization policy on an established drug had a sevenfold higher likelihood of stopping the drug within 120 days than those who had no change in prior authorization requirements (adjusted odds ratio, 7.1).
• The adjusted probability of discontinuing an oral cancer regimen within 120 days after an index date of January 1 (when most health plan policy changes occur) was 5.8% for those with a new prior authorization policy vs 1.4% for the control group.
• A new prior authorization requirement was also associated with an average 10-day delay to refill the first prescription following the policy change (P < .001).
• The probability of a delay of more than 30 days was 22% after a policy change vs 7% after no policy change.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest concerns about delayed and foregone care related to prior authorization are warranted,” the authors said. Overall, this study found that “prior authorization wasted time and undermined the policy priorities of access to care and oral anticancer drug adherence for patients who were regular users of a particular medication.”

SOURCE:

The study by Michael Anna Kyle, PhD, RN, and Nancy Keating, MD, MPH, with Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not look at patients starting new oral anticancer drugs, which may come with more complex prior authorization processes and create more significant access issues. The results are also limited to patients taking 1 of 11 oral anticancer agents in Medicare Part D.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding for the study was provided by the National Cancer Institute. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Mark Lewis, MD, saw the pain in his patient’s body. The man’s gastrointestinal tumor had metastasized to his bones. Even breathing had become agonizing.

It was a Friday afternoon. Dr. Lewis could see his patient would struggle to make it through the weekend without some pain relief.

When this happens, “the clock is ticking,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah. “A patient, especially one with more advanced disease, only has so much time to wait for care.”

Dr. Lewis sent in an electronic request for an opioid prescription to help ease his patient’s pain through the weekend. Once the prescription had gone through, Dr. Lewis told his patient the medication should be ready to pick up at his local pharmacy.

Dr. Lewis left work that Friday feeling a little lighter, knowing the pain medication would help his patient over the weekend.

Moments after walking into the clinic on Monday morning, Dr. Lewis received an unexpected message: “Your patient is in the hospital.”

The events of the weekend soon unfolded.

Dr. Lewis learned that when his patient went to the pharmacy to pick up his pain medication, the pharmacist told him the prescription required prior authorization.

The patient left the pharmacy empty-handed. Hours later, he was in the emergency room (ER) in extreme pain — the exact situation Dr. Lewis had been trying to avoid.

Dr. Lewis felt a sense of powerlessness in that moment.

“I had been left in the dark,” he said. The oncologist-patient relationship is predicated on trust and “that trust is eroded when I can’t give my patients the care they need,” he explained. “I can’t stand overpromising and underdelivering to them.”

Dr. Lewis had received no communication from the insurer that the prescription required prior authorization, no red flag that the request had been denied, and no notification to call the insurer.

Although physicians may need to tread carefully when prescribing opioids over the long term, “this was simply a prescription for 2-3 days of opioids for the exact patient who the drugs were developed to benefit,” Dr. Lewis said. But instead, “he ended up in ER with a pain crisis.”

Prior authorization delays like this often mean patients pay the price.

“These delays are not trivial,” Dr. Lewis said.

A recent study, presented at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in October, found that among 3304 supportive care prescriptions requiring prior authorization, insurance companies denied 8% of requests, with final denials taking as long as 78 days. Among approved prescriptions, about 40% happened on the same day, while the remaining took anywhere from 1 to 54 days.

Denying or delaying necessary and cost-effective care, even briefly, can harm patients and lead to higher costs. A 2022 survey from the American Medical Association found that instead of reducing low-value care as insurance companies claim, prior authorization often leads to higher overall use of healthcare resources. More specifically, almost half of physicians surveyed said that prior authorization led to an ER visit or need for immediate care.

In this patient’s case, filling the opioid prescription that Friday would have cost no more than $300, possibly as little as $30. The ER visit to manage the patient’s pain crisis costs thousands.

The major issue overall, Dr. Lewis said, is the disconnect between the time spent waiting for prior authorization approvals and the necessity of these treatments. Dr. Lewis says even standard chemotherapy often requires prior authorization.

“The currency we all share is time,” Dr. Lewis said. “But it often feels like there’s very little urgency on insurance company side to approve a treatment, which places a heavy weight on patients and physicians.”

“It just shouldn’t be this hard,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com as part of the Gatekeepers of Care series on issues oncologists and people with cancer face navigating health insurance company requirements. Read more about the series here. Please email [email protected] to share experiences with prior authorization or other challenges receiving care.

Mark Lewis, MD, saw the pain in his patient’s body. The man’s gastrointestinal tumor had metastasized to his bones. Even breathing had become agonizing.

It was a Friday afternoon. Dr. Lewis could see his patient would struggle to make it through the weekend without some pain relief.

When this happens, “the clock is ticking,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah. “A patient, especially one with more advanced disease, only has so much time to wait for care.”

Dr. Lewis sent in an electronic request for an opioid prescription to help ease his patient’s pain through the weekend. Once the prescription had gone through, Dr. Lewis told his patient the medication should be ready to pick up at his local pharmacy.

Dr. Lewis left work that Friday feeling a little lighter, knowing the pain medication would help his patient over the weekend.

Moments after walking into the clinic on Monday morning, Dr. Lewis received an unexpected message: “Your patient is in the hospital.”

The events of the weekend soon unfolded.

Dr. Lewis learned that when his patient went to the pharmacy to pick up his pain medication, the pharmacist told him the prescription required prior authorization.

The patient left the pharmacy empty-handed. Hours later, he was in the emergency room (ER) in extreme pain — the exact situation Dr. Lewis had been trying to avoid.

Dr. Lewis felt a sense of powerlessness in that moment.

“I had been left in the dark,” he said. The oncologist-patient relationship is predicated on trust and “that trust is eroded when I can’t give my patients the care they need,” he explained. “I can’t stand overpromising and underdelivering to them.”

Dr. Lewis had received no communication from the insurer that the prescription required prior authorization, no red flag that the request had been denied, and no notification to call the insurer.

Although physicians may need to tread carefully when prescribing opioids over the long term, “this was simply a prescription for 2-3 days of opioids for the exact patient who the drugs were developed to benefit,” Dr. Lewis said. But instead, “he ended up in ER with a pain crisis.”

Prior authorization delays like this often mean patients pay the price.

“These delays are not trivial,” Dr. Lewis said.

A recent study, presented at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in October, found that among 3304 supportive care prescriptions requiring prior authorization, insurance companies denied 8% of requests, with final denials taking as long as 78 days. Among approved prescriptions, about 40% happened on the same day, while the remaining took anywhere from 1 to 54 days.

Denying or delaying necessary and cost-effective care, even briefly, can harm patients and lead to higher costs. A 2022 survey from the American Medical Association found that instead of reducing low-value care as insurance companies claim, prior authorization often leads to higher overall use of healthcare resources. More specifically, almost half of physicians surveyed said that prior authorization led to an ER visit or need for immediate care.

In this patient’s case, filling the opioid prescription that Friday would have cost no more than $300, possibly as little as $30. The ER visit to manage the patient’s pain crisis costs thousands.

The major issue overall, Dr. Lewis said, is the disconnect between the time spent waiting for prior authorization approvals and the necessity of these treatments. Dr. Lewis says even standard chemotherapy often requires prior authorization.

“The currency we all share is time,” Dr. Lewis said. “But it often feels like there’s very little urgency on insurance company side to approve a treatment, which places a heavy weight on patients and physicians.”

“It just shouldn’t be this hard,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com as part of the Gatekeepers of Care series on issues oncologists and people with cancer face navigating health insurance company requirements. Read more about the series here. Please email [email protected] to share experiences with prior authorization or other challenges receiving care.

Mark Lewis, MD, saw the pain in his patient’s body. The man’s gastrointestinal tumor had metastasized to his bones. Even breathing had become agonizing.

It was a Friday afternoon. Dr. Lewis could see his patient would struggle to make it through the weekend without some pain relief.

When this happens, “the clock is ticking,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Health in Salt Lake City, Utah. “A patient, especially one with more advanced disease, only has so much time to wait for care.”

Dr. Lewis sent in an electronic request for an opioid prescription to help ease his patient’s pain through the weekend. Once the prescription had gone through, Dr. Lewis told his patient the medication should be ready to pick up at his local pharmacy.

Dr. Lewis left work that Friday feeling a little lighter, knowing the pain medication would help his patient over the weekend.

Moments after walking into the clinic on Monday morning, Dr. Lewis received an unexpected message: “Your patient is in the hospital.”

The events of the weekend soon unfolded.

Dr. Lewis learned that when his patient went to the pharmacy to pick up his pain medication, the pharmacist told him the prescription required prior authorization.

The patient left the pharmacy empty-handed. Hours later, he was in the emergency room (ER) in extreme pain — the exact situation Dr. Lewis had been trying to avoid.

Dr. Lewis felt a sense of powerlessness in that moment.

“I had been left in the dark,” he said. The oncologist-patient relationship is predicated on trust and “that trust is eroded when I can’t give my patients the care they need,” he explained. “I can’t stand overpromising and underdelivering to them.”

Dr. Lewis had received no communication from the insurer that the prescription required prior authorization, no red flag that the request had been denied, and no notification to call the insurer.

Although physicians may need to tread carefully when prescribing opioids over the long term, “this was simply a prescription for 2-3 days of opioids for the exact patient who the drugs were developed to benefit,” Dr. Lewis said. But instead, “he ended up in ER with a pain crisis.”

Prior authorization delays like this often mean patients pay the price.

“These delays are not trivial,” Dr. Lewis said.

A recent study, presented at the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in October, found that among 3304 supportive care prescriptions requiring prior authorization, insurance companies denied 8% of requests, with final denials taking as long as 78 days. Among approved prescriptions, about 40% happened on the same day, while the remaining took anywhere from 1 to 54 days.

Denying or delaying necessary and cost-effective care, even briefly, can harm patients and lead to higher costs. A 2022 survey from the American Medical Association found that instead of reducing low-value care as insurance companies claim, prior authorization often leads to higher overall use of healthcare resources. More specifically, almost half of physicians surveyed said that prior authorization led to an ER visit or need for immediate care.

In this patient’s case, filling the opioid prescription that Friday would have cost no more than $300, possibly as little as $30. The ER visit to manage the patient’s pain crisis costs thousands.

The major issue overall, Dr. Lewis said, is the disconnect between the time spent waiting for prior authorization approvals and the necessity of these treatments. Dr. Lewis says even standard chemotherapy often requires prior authorization.

“The currency we all share is time,” Dr. Lewis said. “But it often feels like there’s very little urgency on insurance company side to approve a treatment, which places a heavy weight on patients and physicians.”

“It just shouldn’t be this hard,” he said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com as part of the Gatekeepers of Care series on issues oncologists and people with cancer face navigating health insurance company requirements. Read more about the series here. Please email [email protected] to share experiences with prior authorization or other challenges receiving care.

TOPLINE:

Women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative invasive lobular carcinoma who are treated with endocrine therapy do not derive any additional survival benefit from neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies evaluating the long-term effects of chemotherapy in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma are limited and often “show inconclusive results,” the authors explained.
• Female patients diagnosed with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy were identified from the breast cancer database at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
• Linked information on patient and tumor characteristics, vital status, and treatment were then obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry.
• Patients also had to have an indication for chemotherapy based on lymph node status, tumor size, histologic tumor grade, and hormone receptor status, in line with national guidelines.
• Among 716 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma, 520 who had an indication for chemotherapy were included. Of those, 379 received chemotherapy and 141 did not.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients who received chemotherapy were younger at diagnosis than those who did not (51 vs 61 years), had an earlier average year of diagnosis (2010 vs 2015), and had longer follow-up (7.8 years vs 5.2 years).
• Chemotherapy recipients were more likely to have T3+ disease (33% vs 14%) and positive lymph node involvement (80% vs 49%), and less likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery (31% vs 43%).
• Researchers, however, found no difference between the chemotherapy and no-chemotherapy groups in terms of recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 0.63-2.31), breast cancer–specific survival (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.60-2.58), and overall survival (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.56-1.66) after adjustment for confounders.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors “observed no evidence for added value of chemotherapy” for ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy. “In view of the adverse effects of chemotherapy, our study takes an important step in answering a valuable question from the patient’s perspective,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, conducted by Bernadette A.M. Heemskerk-Gerritsen, PhD, from Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published in Cancer on November 20, 2023.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design means that there is a risk for residual confounding from factors not recorded in the database. The researchers believe that some patients did not receive chemotherapy owing to having comorbidities or patient preference, which could have influenced the results. Moreover, the duration of endocrine therapy was not recorded.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. One author declares relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, and Novartis. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.

TOPLINE:

Women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative invasive lobular carcinoma who are treated with endocrine therapy do not derive any additional survival benefit from neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies evaluating the long-term effects of chemotherapy in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma are limited and often “show inconclusive results,” the authors explained.
• Female patients diagnosed with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy were identified from the breast cancer database at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
• Linked information on patient and tumor characteristics, vital status, and treatment were then obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry.
• Patients also had to have an indication for chemotherapy based on lymph node status, tumor size, histologic tumor grade, and hormone receptor status, in line with national guidelines.
• Among 716 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma, 520 who had an indication for chemotherapy were included. Of those, 379 received chemotherapy and 141 did not.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients who received chemotherapy were younger at diagnosis than those who did not (51 vs 61 years), had an earlier average year of diagnosis (2010 vs 2015), and had longer follow-up (7.8 years vs 5.2 years).
• Chemotherapy recipients were more likely to have T3+ disease (33% vs 14%) and positive lymph node involvement (80% vs 49%), and less likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery (31% vs 43%).
• Researchers, however, found no difference between the chemotherapy and no-chemotherapy groups in terms of recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 0.63-2.31), breast cancer–specific survival (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.60-2.58), and overall survival (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.56-1.66) after adjustment for confounders.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors “observed no evidence for added value of chemotherapy” for ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy. “In view of the adverse effects of chemotherapy, our study takes an important step in answering a valuable question from the patient’s perspective,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, conducted by Bernadette A.M. Heemskerk-Gerritsen, PhD, from Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published in Cancer on November 20, 2023.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design means that there is a risk for residual confounding from factors not recorded in the database. The researchers believe that some patients did not receive chemotherapy owing to having comorbidities or patient preference, which could have influenced the results. Moreover, the duration of endocrine therapy was not recorded.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. One author declares relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, and Novartis. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.

TOPLINE:

Women with estrogen receptor (ER)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative invasive lobular carcinoma who are treated with endocrine therapy do not derive any additional survival benefit from neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies evaluating the long-term effects of chemotherapy in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma are limited and often “show inconclusive results,” the authors explained.
• Female patients diagnosed with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy were identified from the breast cancer database at Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
• Linked information on patient and tumor characteristics, vital status, and treatment were then obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry.
• Patients also had to have an indication for chemotherapy based on lymph node status, tumor size, histologic tumor grade, and hormone receptor status, in line with national guidelines.
• Among 716 patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma, 520 who had an indication for chemotherapy were included. Of those, 379 received chemotherapy and 141 did not.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients who received chemotherapy were younger at diagnosis than those who did not (51 vs 61 years), had an earlier average year of diagnosis (2010 vs 2015), and had longer follow-up (7.8 years vs 5.2 years).
• Chemotherapy recipients were more likely to have T3+ disease (33% vs 14%) and positive lymph node involvement (80% vs 49%), and less likely to undergo breast-conserving surgery (31% vs 43%).
• Researchers, however, found no difference between the chemotherapy and no-chemotherapy groups in terms of recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 0.63-2.31), breast cancer–specific survival (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.60-2.58), and overall survival (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.56-1.66) after adjustment for confounders.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors “observed no evidence for added value of chemotherapy” for ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive lobular carcinoma who received endocrine therapy. “In view of the adverse effects of chemotherapy, our study takes an important step in answering a valuable question from the patient’s perspective,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, conducted by Bernadette A.M. Heemskerk-Gerritsen, PhD, from Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, was published in Cancer on November 20, 2023.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design means that there is a risk for residual confounding from factors not recorded in the database. The researchers believe that some patients did not receive chemotherapy owing to having comorbidities or patient preference, which could have influenced the results. Moreover, the duration of endocrine therapy was not recorded.

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was declared. One author declares relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Menarini Silicon Biosystems, and Novartis. No other relevant financial relationships were declared.