AVAHO

HAMBURG, Germany — The human microbiome comprises 39 to 44 billion microbes. That is ten times more than the number of cells in our body. Hendrik Poeck, MD, managing senior physician of internal medicine at the University Hospital Regensburg, illustrated this point at the annual meeting of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology. If the gut microbiome falls out of balance, then “intestinal dysbiosis potentially poses a risk for the pathogenesis of local and systemic diseases,” explained Dr. Poeck.

Cancers and their therapies can also be influenced in this way. “Microbial diversity affects whether a tumor grows, whether it leads to inflammation, immune escape mechanisms or genomic instability, or whether therapeutic resistances develop,” said Dr. Poeck.

Microbial diversity could be beneficial for cancer therapy, too. The composition of the microbiome varies significantly from host to host and can mutate. These properties make it a target for precision microbiotics, which involves using the gut microbiome as a biomarker to predict various physical reactions and to develop individualized diets.

Microbiome and Pathogenesis

The body’s microbiome fulfills a barrier function, especially where the body is exposed to an external environment: at the epidermis and the internal mucous membranes, in the gastrointestinal tract, and in the lungs, chest, and urogenital system.

Association studies on humans and experimental manipulations on mouse models of cancer showed that certain microorganisms can have either protective or harmful effects on cancer development, on the progression of a malignant disease, and on the response to therapy.

A Master Regulator?

Disruptions of the microbial system in the gut, as occur during antibiotic therapy, can have significant effects on a patient’s response to immunotherapy. Taking antibiotics shortly before or after starting therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) significantly affected both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), as reported in a recent review and meta-analysis, for example.

Proton pump inhibitors also affect the gut microbiome and reduce the response to immunotherapy; this effect was demonstrated by an analysis of data from more than 2700 cancer patients that was recently presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).

The extent to which the gut microbiome influences the efficacy of an ICI or predicts said efficacy was examined in a retrospective analysis published in Science in 2018, which Dr. Poeck presented. Resistance to ICI correlated with the relative frequency of the bacteria Akkermansia muciniphila in the gut of patients with cancer. In mouse models, the researchers restored the efficacy of the PD-1 blockade through a stool transplant.

Predicting Immunotherapy Response

If A muciniphila is present, can the composition of the microbiome act as a predictor for an effective ICI therapy?

Laurence Zitvogel, MD, PhD, and her working group at the National Institute of Health and Medical Research in Villejuif, France, performed a prospective study in 338 patients with non–small cell lung cancer and examined the prognostic significance of the fecal bacteria A muciniphila (Akk). The “Akkerman status” (low Akk vs high Akk) in a patient’s stool correlated with an increased objective response rate and a longer OS, independently of PD-L1 expression, antibiotics, and performance status. The OS for low Akk was 13.4 months, vs 18.8 months for high Akk in first-line treatment.

These results are promising, said Dr. Poeck. But there is no one-size-fits-all solution. No conclusions can be drawn from one bacterium on the efficacy of therapies in humans, since “the entirety of the bacteria is decisive,” said Dr. Poeck. In addition to the gut microbiome, the composition of gut metabolites influences the response to immunotherapies, as shown in a study with ICI.

Therapeutic Interventions

One possible therapeutic intervention to restore the gut microbiome is fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT). In a phase 1 study presented by Dr. Poeck, FMT was effective in the treatment of 20 patients with melanoma with ICI in an advanced and treatment-naive stage. Seven days after the patients received FMT, the first cycle with anti-PD-1 immunotherapy was initiated, with a total administration of three to four cycles. After 12 weeks, most patients were in complete or partial remission, as evidenced on imaging.

However, FMT also carries some risks. Two cases of sepsis with multiresistant Escherichia coli occurred, as well as other serious infections. Since then, there has been an FDA condition for extended screening of the donor stool, said Dr. Poeck. Nevertheless, this intervention is promising. A search of the keywords “FMT in cancer/transplant setting” reveals 46 currently clinical studies on clinicaltrials.gov.

Nutritional Interventions

Dr. Poeck advises caution about over-the-counter products. These products usually contain only a few species, such as Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium. “Over-the-counter probiotics can even delay the reconstitution of the microbiome after antibiotics,” said Dr. Poeck, according to a study. In some studies, the response rates were significantly lower after probiotic intake or led to controversial results, according to Dr. Poeck.

In contrast, Dr. Poeck said prebiotics (that is, a fiber-rich diet with indigestible carbohydrates) were promising. During digestion, prebiotics are split into short-chain fatty acids by bacterial enzymes and promote the growth of certain microbiota.

In this way, just 20 g of extremely fiber-rich food had a significant effect on PFS in 128 patients with melanoma undergoing anti-PD-1 immunotherapy. With 20 g of fiber-rich food per day, the PFS was stable over 60 months. The most significant benefit was observed in patients with a sufficient fiber intake who were not taking probiotics.

What to Recommend?

In summary, Dr. Poeck said that it is important to “budget” well, particularly with antibiotic administration, and to strive for calculated therapy with as narrow a spectrum as possible. For patients who experience complications such as cytokine release syndrome as a reaction to cell therapy, delaying the use of antibiotics is important. However, it is often difficult to differentiate this syndrome from neutropenic fever. The aim should be to avoid high-risk antibiotics, if clinically justifiable. Patients should avoid taking antibiotics for 30 days before starting immunotherapy.

Regarding nutritional interventions, Dr. Poeck referred to the recent Onkopedia recommendation for nutrition after cancer and the 10 nutritional rules of the German Nutrition Society. According to Dr. Poeck, the important aspects of these recommendations are a fiber-rich diet (> 20 g/d) from various plant products and avoiding artificial sweeteners and flavorings, as well as ultraprocessed (convenience) foods. In addition, meat should be consumed only in moderation, and as little processed meat as possible should be consumed. In addition, regular (aerobic and anaerobic) physical activity is important.

“Looking ahead into the future,” said Dr. Poeck, “we need a uniform and functional understanding and we need a randomized prediction for diagnosis.”


This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG, Germany — The human microbiome comprises 39 to 44 billion microbes. That is ten times more than the number of cells in our body. Hendrik Poeck, MD, managing senior physician of internal medicine at the University Hospital Regensburg, illustrated this point at the annual meeting of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology. If the gut microbiome falls out of balance, then “intestinal dysbiosis potentially poses a risk for the pathogenesis of local and systemic diseases,” explained Dr. Poeck.

Cancers and their therapies can also be influenced in this way. “Microbial diversity affects whether a tumor grows, whether it leads to inflammation, immune escape mechanisms or genomic instability, or whether therapeutic resistances develop,” said Dr. Poeck.

Microbial diversity could be beneficial for cancer therapy, too. The composition of the microbiome varies significantly from host to host and can mutate. These properties make it a target for precision microbiotics, which involves using the gut microbiome as a biomarker to predict various physical reactions and to develop individualized diets.

Microbiome and Pathogenesis

The body’s microbiome fulfills a barrier function, especially where the body is exposed to an external environment: at the epidermis and the internal mucous membranes, in the gastrointestinal tract, and in the lungs, chest, and urogenital system.

Association studies on humans and experimental manipulations on mouse models of cancer showed that certain microorganisms can have either protective or harmful effects on cancer development, on the progression of a malignant disease, and on the response to therapy.

A Master Regulator?

Disruptions of the microbial system in the gut, as occur during antibiotic therapy, can have significant effects on a patient’s response to immunotherapy. Taking antibiotics shortly before or after starting therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) significantly affected both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), as reported in a recent review and meta-analysis, for example.

Proton pump inhibitors also affect the gut microbiome and reduce the response to immunotherapy; this effect was demonstrated by an analysis of data from more than 2700 cancer patients that was recently presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).

The extent to which the gut microbiome influences the efficacy of an ICI or predicts said efficacy was examined in a retrospective analysis published in Science in 2018, which Dr. Poeck presented. Resistance to ICI correlated with the relative frequency of the bacteria Akkermansia muciniphila in the gut of patients with cancer. In mouse models, the researchers restored the efficacy of the PD-1 blockade through a stool transplant.

Predicting Immunotherapy Response

If A muciniphila is present, can the composition of the microbiome act as a predictor for an effective ICI therapy?

Laurence Zitvogel, MD, PhD, and her working group at the National Institute of Health and Medical Research in Villejuif, France, performed a prospective study in 338 patients with non–small cell lung cancer and examined the prognostic significance of the fecal bacteria A muciniphila (Akk). The “Akkerman status” (low Akk vs high Akk) in a patient’s stool correlated with an increased objective response rate and a longer OS, independently of PD-L1 expression, antibiotics, and performance status. The OS for low Akk was 13.4 months, vs 18.8 months for high Akk in first-line treatment.

These results are promising, said Dr. Poeck. But there is no one-size-fits-all solution. No conclusions can be drawn from one bacterium on the efficacy of therapies in humans, since “the entirety of the bacteria is decisive,” said Dr. Poeck. In addition to the gut microbiome, the composition of gut metabolites influences the response to immunotherapies, as shown in a study with ICI.

Therapeutic Interventions

One possible therapeutic intervention to restore the gut microbiome is fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT). In a phase 1 study presented by Dr. Poeck, FMT was effective in the treatment of 20 patients with melanoma with ICI in an advanced and treatment-naive stage. Seven days after the patients received FMT, the first cycle with anti-PD-1 immunotherapy was initiated, with a total administration of three to four cycles. After 12 weeks, most patients were in complete or partial remission, as evidenced on imaging.

However, FMT also carries some risks. Two cases of sepsis with multiresistant Escherichia coli occurred, as well as other serious infections. Since then, there has been an FDA condition for extended screening of the donor stool, said Dr. Poeck. Nevertheless, this intervention is promising. A search of the keywords “FMT in cancer/transplant setting” reveals 46 currently clinical studies on clinicaltrials.gov.

Nutritional Interventions

Dr. Poeck advises caution about over-the-counter products. These products usually contain only a few species, such as Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium. “Over-the-counter probiotics can even delay the reconstitution of the microbiome after antibiotics,” said Dr. Poeck, according to a study. In some studies, the response rates were significantly lower after probiotic intake or led to controversial results, according to Dr. Poeck.

In contrast, Dr. Poeck said prebiotics (that is, a fiber-rich diet with indigestible carbohydrates) were promising. During digestion, prebiotics are split into short-chain fatty acids by bacterial enzymes and promote the growth of certain microbiota.

In this way, just 20 g of extremely fiber-rich food had a significant effect on PFS in 128 patients with melanoma undergoing anti-PD-1 immunotherapy. With 20 g of fiber-rich food per day, the PFS was stable over 60 months. The most significant benefit was observed in patients with a sufficient fiber intake who were not taking probiotics.

What to Recommend?

In summary, Dr. Poeck said that it is important to “budget” well, particularly with antibiotic administration, and to strive for calculated therapy with as narrow a spectrum as possible. For patients who experience complications such as cytokine release syndrome as a reaction to cell therapy, delaying the use of antibiotics is important. However, it is often difficult to differentiate this syndrome from neutropenic fever. The aim should be to avoid high-risk antibiotics, if clinically justifiable. Patients should avoid taking antibiotics for 30 days before starting immunotherapy.

Regarding nutritional interventions, Dr. Poeck referred to the recent Onkopedia recommendation for nutrition after cancer and the 10 nutritional rules of the German Nutrition Society. According to Dr. Poeck, the important aspects of these recommendations are a fiber-rich diet (> 20 g/d) from various plant products and avoiding artificial sweeteners and flavorings, as well as ultraprocessed (convenience) foods. In addition, meat should be consumed only in moderation, and as little processed meat as possible should be consumed. In addition, regular (aerobic and anaerobic) physical activity is important.

“Looking ahead into the future,” said Dr. Poeck, “we need a uniform and functional understanding and we need a randomized prediction for diagnosis.”


This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG, Germany — The human microbiome comprises 39 to 44 billion microbes. That is ten times more than the number of cells in our body. Hendrik Poeck, MD, managing senior physician of internal medicine at the University Hospital Regensburg, illustrated this point at the annual meeting of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology. If the gut microbiome falls out of balance, then “intestinal dysbiosis potentially poses a risk for the pathogenesis of local and systemic diseases,” explained Dr. Poeck.

Cancers and their therapies can also be influenced in this way. “Microbial diversity affects whether a tumor grows, whether it leads to inflammation, immune escape mechanisms or genomic instability, or whether therapeutic resistances develop,” said Dr. Poeck.

Microbial diversity could be beneficial for cancer therapy, too. The composition of the microbiome varies significantly from host to host and can mutate. These properties make it a target for precision microbiotics, which involves using the gut microbiome as a biomarker to predict various physical reactions and to develop individualized diets.

Microbiome and Pathogenesis

The body’s microbiome fulfills a barrier function, especially where the body is exposed to an external environment: at the epidermis and the internal mucous membranes, in the gastrointestinal tract, and in the lungs, chest, and urogenital system.

Association studies on humans and experimental manipulations on mouse models of cancer showed that certain microorganisms can have either protective or harmful effects on cancer development, on the progression of a malignant disease, and on the response to therapy.

A Master Regulator?

Disruptions of the microbial system in the gut, as occur during antibiotic therapy, can have significant effects on a patient’s response to immunotherapy. Taking antibiotics shortly before or after starting therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) significantly affected both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), as reported in a recent review and meta-analysis, for example.

Proton pump inhibitors also affect the gut microbiome and reduce the response to immunotherapy; this effect was demonstrated by an analysis of data from more than 2700 cancer patients that was recently presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).

The extent to which the gut microbiome influences the efficacy of an ICI or predicts said efficacy was examined in a retrospective analysis published in Science in 2018, which Dr. Poeck presented. Resistance to ICI correlated with the relative frequency of the bacteria Akkermansia muciniphila in the gut of patients with cancer. In mouse models, the researchers restored the efficacy of the PD-1 blockade through a stool transplant.

Predicting Immunotherapy Response

If A muciniphila is present, can the composition of the microbiome act as a predictor for an effective ICI therapy?

Laurence Zitvogel, MD, PhD, and her working group at the National Institute of Health and Medical Research in Villejuif, France, performed a prospective study in 338 patients with non–small cell lung cancer and examined the prognostic significance of the fecal bacteria A muciniphila (Akk). The “Akkerman status” (low Akk vs high Akk) in a patient’s stool correlated with an increased objective response rate and a longer OS, independently of PD-L1 expression, antibiotics, and performance status. The OS for low Akk was 13.4 months, vs 18.8 months for high Akk in first-line treatment.

These results are promising, said Dr. Poeck. But there is no one-size-fits-all solution. No conclusions can be drawn from one bacterium on the efficacy of therapies in humans, since “the entirety of the bacteria is decisive,” said Dr. Poeck. In addition to the gut microbiome, the composition of gut metabolites influences the response to immunotherapies, as shown in a study with ICI.

Therapeutic Interventions

One possible therapeutic intervention to restore the gut microbiome is fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT). In a phase 1 study presented by Dr. Poeck, FMT was effective in the treatment of 20 patients with melanoma with ICI in an advanced and treatment-naive stage. Seven days after the patients received FMT, the first cycle with anti-PD-1 immunotherapy was initiated, with a total administration of three to four cycles. After 12 weeks, most patients were in complete or partial remission, as evidenced on imaging.

However, FMT also carries some risks. Two cases of sepsis with multiresistant Escherichia coli occurred, as well as other serious infections. Since then, there has been an FDA condition for extended screening of the donor stool, said Dr. Poeck. Nevertheless, this intervention is promising. A search of the keywords “FMT in cancer/transplant setting” reveals 46 currently clinical studies on clinicaltrials.gov.

Nutritional Interventions

Dr. Poeck advises caution about over-the-counter products. These products usually contain only a few species, such as Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium. “Over-the-counter probiotics can even delay the reconstitution of the microbiome after antibiotics,” said Dr. Poeck, according to a study. In some studies, the response rates were significantly lower after probiotic intake or led to controversial results, according to Dr. Poeck.

In contrast, Dr. Poeck said prebiotics (that is, a fiber-rich diet with indigestible carbohydrates) were promising. During digestion, prebiotics are split into short-chain fatty acids by bacterial enzymes and promote the growth of certain microbiota.

In this way, just 20 g of extremely fiber-rich food had a significant effect on PFS in 128 patients with melanoma undergoing anti-PD-1 immunotherapy. With 20 g of fiber-rich food per day, the PFS was stable over 60 months. The most significant benefit was observed in patients with a sufficient fiber intake who were not taking probiotics.

What to Recommend?

In summary, Dr. Poeck said that it is important to “budget” well, particularly with antibiotic administration, and to strive for calculated therapy with as narrow a spectrum as possible. For patients who experience complications such as cytokine release syndrome as a reaction to cell therapy, delaying the use of antibiotics is important. However, it is often difficult to differentiate this syndrome from neutropenic fever. The aim should be to avoid high-risk antibiotics, if clinically justifiable. Patients should avoid taking antibiotics for 30 days before starting immunotherapy.

Regarding nutritional interventions, Dr. Poeck referred to the recent Onkopedia recommendation for nutrition after cancer and the 10 nutritional rules of the German Nutrition Society. According to Dr. Poeck, the important aspects of these recommendations are a fiber-rich diet (> 20 g/d) from various plant products and avoiding artificial sweeteners and flavorings, as well as ultraprocessed (convenience) foods. In addition, meat should be consumed only in moderation, and as little processed meat as possible should be consumed. In addition, regular (aerobic and anaerobic) physical activity is important.

“Looking ahead into the future,” said Dr. Poeck, “we need a uniform and functional understanding and we need a randomized prediction for diagnosis.”


This article was translated from the Medscape German edition.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early diagnosis improves lung cancer survival. Yet in the general population, only 17% of cases are diagnosed at an early stage. Among veterans, that rises to more than 30%.

Despite the impact lung cancer screening (LCS) has on improving survival, screening rates in the US remain low. In November 2017, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued a memorandum providing recommendations for LCS with low-dose computer tomography (CT) scans at VA facilities. The memorandum was updated July 2022. While the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) called the memoranda “guidelines,” it also stipulated to VA facilities that they may “only” perform LCS when they meet all 10 mandatory elements:  

• Standardized, evidence-based criteria for eligibility, frequency, and duration of LCS
• Processes to facilitate the identification of patients who meet VA LCS eligibility criteria
• Patient education materials and shared decision making for patients regarding participation in an LCS program
• Clinical LCS coordinator(s) to coordinate the care and management of patients in the program
• Access to an effective, evidence-based smoking cessation program
• An LCS program oversight board responsible for oversight of the program’s conduct and management
• Access to a multidisciplinary lung nodule management board with clinical expertise in lung nodule management and diagnostic pathways
• Access to a tumor board with expertise in lung cancer treatment
• Optimized radiology CT protocols and standardized procedure names, along with standardized reporting methodology/codes and lung nodule management guidelines
• A patient management tool/registry to rigorously track and manage patients to ensure high levels of adherence to LCS management guidelines

However, in a recent investigation, the OIG found that facility staff involved in LCS reported that VA LCS guideline requirements “presented barriers to broader adoption of LCS” and did not ensure consistent implementation.

One problem, the OIG found, was the limited use of LCS at VA facilities. Just over half of the surveyed VA facilities reported having an established LCS program consistent with VA guidelines for LCS in 2022. There were also barriers to implementing LCS program requirements, such as the absence of an LCS coordinator, the lack of adequate staffing, the absence of a patient registry, and the lack of a multidisciplinary board.

Another problem was the inconsistent implementation of screening. Facilities with LCS programs reported varied use of program elements, including inconsistent use of an LCS coordinator to manage patients in the program.

The OIG also found that regardless of whether facilities had established an adherent LCS program, they varied in how they identified screening-eligible patients. The VA National Center for LCS recommends the use of clinical reminders as the preferred method to identify patients—but it is not required and not all facilities use it. The clinical reminder, the OIG report points out, can capture accurate smoking history information within the electronic health record to support identifying patients meeting LCS criteria.

The facilities also varied in their methods for interpreting low-dose CT scans. Ten sites, for instance, reported not using an established system for the classification of the results. The OIG notes that this could lead to inaccurate interpretation of the low-dose CT scan results and increase the risk for patient harm and health care costs.

The OIG made the following 3 recommendations to the Under Secretary for Health: (1) Review the operational memorandum for lung cancer screening implementation and assess whether LCS rates could be enhanced by allowing a facility to conduct LCS while developing all mandated elements; (2) Review the operational memorandum for LCS implementation and assess whether LCS rates could be enhanced by reevaluating, prioritizing, and clarifying the mandated elements; and (3) Consider mandating eligible patients be offered LCS consistent with other required cancer screenings in the VA.

The Under Secretary for Health concurred with the recommendations and provided an acceptable action plan. The OIG will follow up on the planned actions until they are completed.

Early diagnosis improves lung cancer survival. Yet in the general population, only 17% of cases are diagnosed at an early stage. Among veterans, that rises to more than 30%.

Despite the impact lung cancer screening (LCS) has on improving survival, screening rates in the US remain low. In November 2017, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued a memorandum providing recommendations for LCS with low-dose computer tomography (CT) scans at VA facilities. The memorandum was updated July 2022. While the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) called the memoranda “guidelines,” it also stipulated to VA facilities that they may “only” perform LCS when they meet all 10 mandatory elements:  

• Standardized, evidence-based criteria for eligibility, frequency, and duration of LCS
• Processes to facilitate the identification of patients who meet VA LCS eligibility criteria
• Patient education materials and shared decision making for patients regarding participation in an LCS program
• Clinical LCS coordinator(s) to coordinate the care and management of patients in the program
• Access to an effective, evidence-based smoking cessation program
• An LCS program oversight board responsible for oversight of the program’s conduct and management
• Access to a multidisciplinary lung nodule management board with clinical expertise in lung nodule management and diagnostic pathways
• Access to a tumor board with expertise in lung cancer treatment
• Optimized radiology CT protocols and standardized procedure names, along with standardized reporting methodology/codes and lung nodule management guidelines
• A patient management tool/registry to rigorously track and manage patients to ensure high levels of adherence to LCS management guidelines

However, in a recent investigation, the OIG found that facility staff involved in LCS reported that VA LCS guideline requirements “presented barriers to broader adoption of LCS” and did not ensure consistent implementation.

One problem, the OIG found, was the limited use of LCS at VA facilities. Just over half of the surveyed VA facilities reported having an established LCS program consistent with VA guidelines for LCS in 2022. There were also barriers to implementing LCS program requirements, such as the absence of an LCS coordinator, the lack of adequate staffing, the absence of a patient registry, and the lack of a multidisciplinary board.

Another problem was the inconsistent implementation of screening. Facilities with LCS programs reported varied use of program elements, including inconsistent use of an LCS coordinator to manage patients in the program.

The OIG also found that regardless of whether facilities had established an adherent LCS program, they varied in how they identified screening-eligible patients. The VA National Center for LCS recommends the use of clinical reminders as the preferred method to identify patients—but it is not required and not all facilities use it. The clinical reminder, the OIG report points out, can capture accurate smoking history information within the electronic health record to support identifying patients meeting LCS criteria.

The facilities also varied in their methods for interpreting low-dose CT scans. Ten sites, for instance, reported not using an established system for the classification of the results. The OIG notes that this could lead to inaccurate interpretation of the low-dose CT scan results and increase the risk for patient harm and health care costs.

The OIG made the following 3 recommendations to the Under Secretary for Health: (1) Review the operational memorandum for lung cancer screening implementation and assess whether LCS rates could be enhanced by allowing a facility to conduct LCS while developing all mandated elements; (2) Review the operational memorandum for LCS implementation and assess whether LCS rates could be enhanced by reevaluating, prioritizing, and clarifying the mandated elements; and (3) Consider mandating eligible patients be offered LCS consistent with other required cancer screenings in the VA.

The Under Secretary for Health concurred with the recommendations and provided an acceptable action plan. The OIG will follow up on the planned actions until they are completed.

Early diagnosis improves lung cancer survival. Yet in the general population, only 17% of cases are diagnosed at an early stage. Among veterans, that rises to more than 30%.

Despite the impact lung cancer screening (LCS) has on improving survival, screening rates in the US remain low. In November 2017, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued a memorandum providing recommendations for LCS with low-dose computer tomography (CT) scans at VA facilities. The memorandum was updated July 2022. While the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) called the memoranda “guidelines,” it also stipulated to VA facilities that they may “only” perform LCS when they meet all 10 mandatory elements:  

• Standardized, evidence-based criteria for eligibility, frequency, and duration of LCS
• Processes to facilitate the identification of patients who meet VA LCS eligibility criteria
• Patient education materials and shared decision making for patients regarding participation in an LCS program
• Clinical LCS coordinator(s) to coordinate the care and management of patients in the program
• Access to an effective, evidence-based smoking cessation program
• An LCS program oversight board responsible for oversight of the program’s conduct and management
• Access to a multidisciplinary lung nodule management board with clinical expertise in lung nodule management and diagnostic pathways
• Access to a tumor board with expertise in lung cancer treatment
• Optimized radiology CT protocols and standardized procedure names, along with standardized reporting methodology/codes and lung nodule management guidelines
• A patient management tool/registry to rigorously track and manage patients to ensure high levels of adherence to LCS management guidelines

However, in a recent investigation, the OIG found that facility staff involved in LCS reported that VA LCS guideline requirements “presented barriers to broader adoption of LCS” and did not ensure consistent implementation.

One problem, the OIG found, was the limited use of LCS at VA facilities. Just over half of the surveyed VA facilities reported having an established LCS program consistent with VA guidelines for LCS in 2022. There were also barriers to implementing LCS program requirements, such as the absence of an LCS coordinator, the lack of adequate staffing, the absence of a patient registry, and the lack of a multidisciplinary board.

Another problem was the inconsistent implementation of screening. Facilities with LCS programs reported varied use of program elements, including inconsistent use of an LCS coordinator to manage patients in the program.

The OIG also found that regardless of whether facilities had established an adherent LCS program, they varied in how they identified screening-eligible patients. The VA National Center for LCS recommends the use of clinical reminders as the preferred method to identify patients—but it is not required and not all facilities use it. The clinical reminder, the OIG report points out, can capture accurate smoking history information within the electronic health record to support identifying patients meeting LCS criteria.

The facilities also varied in their methods for interpreting low-dose CT scans. Ten sites, for instance, reported not using an established system for the classification of the results. The OIG notes that this could lead to inaccurate interpretation of the low-dose CT scan results and increase the risk for patient harm and health care costs.

The OIG made the following 3 recommendations to the Under Secretary for Health: (1) Review the operational memorandum for lung cancer screening implementation and assess whether LCS rates could be enhanced by allowing a facility to conduct LCS while developing all mandated elements; (2) Review the operational memorandum for LCS implementation and assess whether LCS rates could be enhanced by reevaluating, prioritizing, and clarifying the mandated elements; and (3) Consider mandating eligible patients be offered LCS consistent with other required cancer screenings in the VA.

The Under Secretary for Health concurred with the recommendations and provided an acceptable action plan. The OIG will follow up on the planned actions until they are completed.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to pirtobrutinib (Jaypirca; Eli Lilly and Company) for third-line or later treatment in adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who previously received a Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor.

The agent was initially approved in January 2023 for patients with mantle cell lymphoma who had previously received a BTK inhibitor.

Like the mantle cell approval, the CLL/SLL approval was based on findings from the open-label, single-arm, phase 1/2 BRUIN study that included adults with at least two prior lines of therapy, including a BTK inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor.

The trial included 108 patients with either CLL or SLL. Overall, patients demonstrated an overall response rate of 72%, all of which were partial responses, and median duration of response of 12.2 months.

Before starting pirtobrutinib, 77% of patients with CLL or SLL had discontinued their last BTK inhibitor for refractory or progressive disease.

“Once patients with CLL or SLL have progressed on covalent BTK inhibitor and BCL-2 inhibitor therapies, treatments are limited and outcomes can be poor, making the approval of Jaypirca a meaningful advance and much-needed new treatment option for these patients,” William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an Eli Lilly press release. 

Treatment during the study included the recommended dose of 200 mg given orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Common adverse reactions that occurred in at least 20% of patients included fatigue, bruising, cough, musculoskeletal pain, COVID-19, diarrhea, pneumonia, abdominal pain, dyspnea, hemorrhage, edema, nausea, pyrexia, and headache. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in more than 10% of patients included decreased neutrophil counts, anemia, and decreased platelet counts.

Serious infections occurred in 32% of patients, including fatal infections in 10% of patients. The prescribing information for pirtobrutinib includes warnings about infections, hemorrhage, cytopenias, cardiac arrhythmias, and secondary primary malignancies.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to pirtobrutinib (Jaypirca; Eli Lilly and Company) for third-line or later treatment in adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who previously received a Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor.

The agent was initially approved in January 2023 for patients with mantle cell lymphoma who had previously received a BTK inhibitor.

Like the mantle cell approval, the CLL/SLL approval was based on findings from the open-label, single-arm, phase 1/2 BRUIN study that included adults with at least two prior lines of therapy, including a BTK inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor.

The trial included 108 patients with either CLL or SLL. Overall, patients demonstrated an overall response rate of 72%, all of which were partial responses, and median duration of response of 12.2 months.

Before starting pirtobrutinib, 77% of patients with CLL or SLL had discontinued their last BTK inhibitor for refractory or progressive disease.

“Once patients with CLL or SLL have progressed on covalent BTK inhibitor and BCL-2 inhibitor therapies, treatments are limited and outcomes can be poor, making the approval of Jaypirca a meaningful advance and much-needed new treatment option for these patients,” William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an Eli Lilly press release. 

Treatment during the study included the recommended dose of 200 mg given orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Common adverse reactions that occurred in at least 20% of patients included fatigue, bruising, cough, musculoskeletal pain, COVID-19, diarrhea, pneumonia, abdominal pain, dyspnea, hemorrhage, edema, nausea, pyrexia, and headache. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in more than 10% of patients included decreased neutrophil counts, anemia, and decreased platelet counts.

Serious infections occurred in 32% of patients, including fatal infections in 10% of patients. The prescribing information for pirtobrutinib includes warnings about infections, hemorrhage, cytopenias, cardiac arrhythmias, and secondary primary malignancies.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted accelerated approval to pirtobrutinib (Jaypirca; Eli Lilly and Company) for third-line or later treatment in adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) who previously received a Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor.

The agent was initially approved in January 2023 for patients with mantle cell lymphoma who had previously received a BTK inhibitor.

Like the mantle cell approval, the CLL/SLL approval was based on findings from the open-label, single-arm, phase 1/2 BRUIN study that included adults with at least two prior lines of therapy, including a BTK inhibitor and a BCL-2 inhibitor.

The trial included 108 patients with either CLL or SLL. Overall, patients demonstrated an overall response rate of 72%, all of which were partial responses, and median duration of response of 12.2 months.

Before starting pirtobrutinib, 77% of patients with CLL or SLL had discontinued their last BTK inhibitor for refractory or progressive disease.

“Once patients with CLL or SLL have progressed on covalent BTK inhibitor and BCL-2 inhibitor therapies, treatments are limited and outcomes can be poor, making the approval of Jaypirca a meaningful advance and much-needed new treatment option for these patients,” William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in an Eli Lilly press release. 

Treatment during the study included the recommended dose of 200 mg given orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Common adverse reactions that occurred in at least 20% of patients included fatigue, bruising, cough, musculoskeletal pain, COVID-19, diarrhea, pneumonia, abdominal pain, dyspnea, hemorrhage, edema, nausea, pyrexia, and headache. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in more than 10% of patients included decreased neutrophil counts, anemia, and decreased platelet counts.

Serious infections occurred in 32% of patients, including fatal infections in 10% of patients. The prescribing information for pirtobrutinib includes warnings about infections, hemorrhage, cytopenias, cardiac arrhythmias, and secondary primary malignancies.

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

TOPLINE:

Biopsies that rely on MRI to detect prostate cancer are worth the cost, according to research published online  in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators ran a simulation of a hypothetical group of 65-year-old men who were at risk for the cancer, as indicated by their prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels.
• The costs and benefits of periodic ultrasound biopsies were modeled in comparison with those of an annual MRI plus MRI-guided biopsies using epidemiologic and clinical data.
• The investigators compared the cost-effectiveness of each biopsy approach over a decade, as measured by the cost of procedures divided by the projected gain in life-years.
• Cost-effectiveness was defined as less than $100,000 for each life-year gain using an MRI in comparison with ultrasound.
• They stratified the cost-effectiveness of the MRI approach by severity of PSA level: less than 2.5 ng/mL, 2.5-4.0 ng/mL, 4.1-10.0 ng/mL, and greater than 10.0 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• For three of the four PSA levels (2.5-4.0 ng/mL, 4.1-10.0 ng/mL, and greater than 10.0 ng/mL) the combination of MRI plus MRI-guided biopsy was cost effective.
• The MRI-based approach cost $6,000 more than ultrasound for each life-year gained at the highest PSA level of greater than 10.0 ng/mL, which was significantly below the $100,000 threshold.
• At the lowest PSA level of less than 2.5 ng/mL, the difference between MRI and ultrasound was $187,000, which was above the threshold.

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers wrote that there is “a growing consensus that the use of MRI and potential MRI-guided biopsy is cost effective.”

SOURCE:

Ali Jalali, PhD, a health economist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, is the senior author of the study. Simulation data come from the National Vital Statistics Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Medicare fee schedule.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is a hypothetical simulation of what could happen under different conditions, not an analysis of data developed over time in clinical practice. It also assumes that PSA levels remain constant over time.

DISCLOSURES:

One author receives grants from Siemens Healthineers for MRI technology development, and another author consults for Promaxo, which develops MRI tools.

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

TOPLINE:

Biopsies that rely on MRI to detect prostate cancer are worth the cost, according to research published online  in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators ran a simulation of a hypothetical group of 65-year-old men who were at risk for the cancer, as indicated by their prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels.
• The costs and benefits of periodic ultrasound biopsies were modeled in comparison with those of an annual MRI plus MRI-guided biopsies using epidemiologic and clinical data.
• The investigators compared the cost-effectiveness of each biopsy approach over a decade, as measured by the cost of procedures divided by the projected gain in life-years.
• Cost-effectiveness was defined as less than $100,000 for each life-year gain using an MRI in comparison with ultrasound.
• They stratified the cost-effectiveness of the MRI approach by severity of PSA level: less than 2.5 ng/mL, 2.5-4.0 ng/mL, 4.1-10.0 ng/mL, and greater than 10.0 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• For three of the four PSA levels (2.5-4.0 ng/mL, 4.1-10.0 ng/mL, and greater than 10.0 ng/mL) the combination of MRI plus MRI-guided biopsy was cost effective.
• The MRI-based approach cost $6,000 more than ultrasound for each life-year gained at the highest PSA level of greater than 10.0 ng/mL, which was significantly below the $100,000 threshold.
• At the lowest PSA level of less than 2.5 ng/mL, the difference between MRI and ultrasound was $187,000, which was above the threshold.

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers wrote that there is “a growing consensus that the use of MRI and potential MRI-guided biopsy is cost effective.”

SOURCE:

Ali Jalali, PhD, a health economist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, is the senior author of the study. Simulation data come from the National Vital Statistics Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Medicare fee schedule.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is a hypothetical simulation of what could happen under different conditions, not an analysis of data developed over time in clinical practice. It also assumes that PSA levels remain constant over time.

DISCLOSURES:

One author receives grants from Siemens Healthineers for MRI technology development, and another author consults for Promaxo, which develops MRI tools.

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

TOPLINE:

Biopsies that rely on MRI to detect prostate cancer are worth the cost, according to research published online  in JAMA Network Open.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators ran a simulation of a hypothetical group of 65-year-old men who were at risk for the cancer, as indicated by their prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels.
• The costs and benefits of periodic ultrasound biopsies were modeled in comparison with those of an annual MRI plus MRI-guided biopsies using epidemiologic and clinical data.
• The investigators compared the cost-effectiveness of each biopsy approach over a decade, as measured by the cost of procedures divided by the projected gain in life-years.
• Cost-effectiveness was defined as less than $100,000 for each life-year gain using an MRI in comparison with ultrasound.
• They stratified the cost-effectiveness of the MRI approach by severity of PSA level: less than 2.5 ng/mL, 2.5-4.0 ng/mL, 4.1-10.0 ng/mL, and greater than 10.0 ng/mL.

TAKEAWAY:

• For three of the four PSA levels (2.5-4.0 ng/mL, 4.1-10.0 ng/mL, and greater than 10.0 ng/mL) the combination of MRI plus MRI-guided biopsy was cost effective.
• The MRI-based approach cost $6,000 more than ultrasound for each life-year gained at the highest PSA level of greater than 10.0 ng/mL, which was significantly below the $100,000 threshold.
• At the lowest PSA level of less than 2.5 ng/mL, the difference between MRI and ultrasound was $187,000, which was above the threshold.

IN PRACTICE:

The researchers wrote that there is “a growing consensus that the use of MRI and potential MRI-guided biopsy is cost effective.”

SOURCE:

Ali Jalali, PhD, a health economist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, is the senior author of the study. Simulation data come from the National Vital Statistics Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Medicare fee schedule.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is a hypothetical simulation of what could happen under different conditions, not an analysis of data developed over time in clinical practice. It also assumes that PSA levels remain constant over time.

DISCLOSURES:

One author receives grants from Siemens Healthineers for MRI technology development, and another author consults for Promaxo, which develops MRI tools.

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

Individuals with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) that lack “worrisome or high-risk features” have no greater risk of pancreatic cancer than individuals without IPMNs, based on a retrospective cohort study from Mayo Clinic.

These findings, if validated in a larger population, could challenge current surveillance practices for IPMNs, reported researchers who were led by Shounak Majumder, MD, a gastroenterologist in the pancreas clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

“Among intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) that were Fukuoka negative at baseline, fewer than 10% developed worrisome or high-risk features on follow-up. Pancreatic cancer development in IPMN was a rare event overall,” the authors wrote.

“Current international consensus guidelines for the management of IPMNs recommend image-based surveillance with the aim to detect clinical and imaging features of advanced neoplasia,” the authors wrote. Yet “there are no population-based estimates of the burden of pancreatic cancer in individuals with IPMNs or the proportion of pancreatic cancers that develop from or adjacent to an IPMN.”

Researchers aimed to address this knowledge gap with a population-based cohort study. Drawing data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which includes longitudinal medical records from residents of Olmsted County, Minn., investigators identified two cohorts. The first group comprised 2,114 patients 50 years old or older who had undergone abdominal CT scans between 2000 and 2015, among whom 231 (10.9%) had IPMNs. The second cohort included 320 patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer between 2000 and 2019, among whom 31 (9.8%) had IPMNs.

Further analysis showed that 81% of the patients with IPMNs in the first cohort lacked Fukuoka high-risk or worrisome features. Within this subgroup, the incidence rate of pancreatic cancer per 100 years was not significantly different than among individuals without IPMNs.

“Although the risk of IPMN-PC is has been extensively described, our population-based study further demonstrates that most IPMNs did not progress in Fukuoka stage and did not transform into pancreatic cancer, a similar message was expressed by the current American Gastroenterological Association pancreatic cyst guidelines, published in 2015, and studies published in 2022 and 2016,” the investigators wrote.

Analyzing the cohort of 320 patients with pancreatic cancer showed those with IPMNs had significantly better outcomes than those without IPMNs, including longer survival and lower rate of metastatic disease upon diagnosis. These findings align with previous research, the investigators wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Stefano Crippa, MD, PhD, of Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, and colleagues offered their perspective on the findings.

“Although results of this study should be validated in larger cohorts, they represent useful clinical data from an unselected population-based cohort that helps challenge current IPMN surveillance policies that recommend lifetime active surveillance for all fit individuals,” they wrote. “Currently, we can use follow-up data from studies like this one to identify patients with IPMNs who are not at risk of progression based on clinical-radiological parameters. We can furthermore start selecting subgroups of patients with limited life expectancy due to age or comorbidities to be considered for surveillance discontinuation.”

Timothy Louis Frankel, MD, a gastrointestinal surgeon at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, specializing in malignancies, said the findings are most useful for reassuring patients who have been diagnosed with an IPMN.

“The real take-home message is that in the absence of worrisome features people [with an IPMN] should feel comfortable that their risk is no higher than the general population for developing pancreatic cancer,” Dr. Frankel said in an interview.

Before any changes to surveillance can be considered, however, Dr. Frankel echoed the investigators’ call for a larger study, noting the relatively small population, most of whom (92%) were White.

“We do know that pancreas cancer and pancreas diseases vary significantly by race,” Dr. Frankel said. “So we do need to be a little bit cautious about changing the way that we manage patients based on a fairly homogeneous subset.”

He also pointed out that two patients had IPMNs that developed increased risk over time.

“They actually went from no risk features to having features that put them at risk,” Dr. Frankel said. “Those are patients who were saved by surveillance. So I’m not sure that this study was necessarily designed to let us know if and when we can stop following these lesions.”

Study authors had no relevant disclosures. The editorial writers reported no conflicts of interest.

Individuals with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) that lack “worrisome or high-risk features” have no greater risk of pancreatic cancer than individuals without IPMNs, based on a retrospective cohort study from Mayo Clinic.

These findings, if validated in a larger population, could challenge current surveillance practices for IPMNs, reported researchers who were led by Shounak Majumder, MD, a gastroenterologist in the pancreas clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

“Among intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) that were Fukuoka negative at baseline, fewer than 10% developed worrisome or high-risk features on follow-up. Pancreatic cancer development in IPMN was a rare event overall,” the authors wrote.

“Current international consensus guidelines for the management of IPMNs recommend image-based surveillance with the aim to detect clinical and imaging features of advanced neoplasia,” the authors wrote. Yet “there are no population-based estimates of the burden of pancreatic cancer in individuals with IPMNs or the proportion of pancreatic cancers that develop from or adjacent to an IPMN.”

Researchers aimed to address this knowledge gap with a population-based cohort study. Drawing data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which includes longitudinal medical records from residents of Olmsted County, Minn., investigators identified two cohorts. The first group comprised 2,114 patients 50 years old or older who had undergone abdominal CT scans between 2000 and 2015, among whom 231 (10.9%) had IPMNs. The second cohort included 320 patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer between 2000 and 2019, among whom 31 (9.8%) had IPMNs.

Further analysis showed that 81% of the patients with IPMNs in the first cohort lacked Fukuoka high-risk or worrisome features. Within this subgroup, the incidence rate of pancreatic cancer per 100 years was not significantly different than among individuals without IPMNs.

“Although the risk of IPMN-PC is has been extensively described, our population-based study further demonstrates that most IPMNs did not progress in Fukuoka stage and did not transform into pancreatic cancer, a similar message was expressed by the current American Gastroenterological Association pancreatic cyst guidelines, published in 2015, and studies published in 2022 and 2016,” the investigators wrote.

Analyzing the cohort of 320 patients with pancreatic cancer showed those with IPMNs had significantly better outcomes than those without IPMNs, including longer survival and lower rate of metastatic disease upon diagnosis. These findings align with previous research, the investigators wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Stefano Crippa, MD, PhD, of Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, and colleagues offered their perspective on the findings.

“Although results of this study should be validated in larger cohorts, they represent useful clinical data from an unselected population-based cohort that helps challenge current IPMN surveillance policies that recommend lifetime active surveillance for all fit individuals,” they wrote. “Currently, we can use follow-up data from studies like this one to identify patients with IPMNs who are not at risk of progression based on clinical-radiological parameters. We can furthermore start selecting subgroups of patients with limited life expectancy due to age or comorbidities to be considered for surveillance discontinuation.”

Timothy Louis Frankel, MD, a gastrointestinal surgeon at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, specializing in malignancies, said the findings are most useful for reassuring patients who have been diagnosed with an IPMN.

“The real take-home message is that in the absence of worrisome features people [with an IPMN] should feel comfortable that their risk is no higher than the general population for developing pancreatic cancer,” Dr. Frankel said in an interview.

Before any changes to surveillance can be considered, however, Dr. Frankel echoed the investigators’ call for a larger study, noting the relatively small population, most of whom (92%) were White.

“We do know that pancreas cancer and pancreas diseases vary significantly by race,” Dr. Frankel said. “So we do need to be a little bit cautious about changing the way that we manage patients based on a fairly homogeneous subset.”

He also pointed out that two patients had IPMNs that developed increased risk over time.

“They actually went from no risk features to having features that put them at risk,” Dr. Frankel said. “Those are patients who were saved by surveillance. So I’m not sure that this study was necessarily designed to let us know if and when we can stop following these lesions.”

Study authors had no relevant disclosures. The editorial writers reported no conflicts of interest.

Individuals with intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) that lack “worrisome or high-risk features” have no greater risk of pancreatic cancer than individuals without IPMNs, based on a retrospective cohort study from Mayo Clinic.

These findings, if validated in a larger population, could challenge current surveillance practices for IPMNs, reported researchers who were led by Shounak Majumder, MD, a gastroenterologist in the pancreas clinic at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. The study was published in JAMA Network Open.

“Among intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) that were Fukuoka negative at baseline, fewer than 10% developed worrisome or high-risk features on follow-up. Pancreatic cancer development in IPMN was a rare event overall,” the authors wrote.

“Current international consensus guidelines for the management of IPMNs recommend image-based surveillance with the aim to detect clinical and imaging features of advanced neoplasia,” the authors wrote. Yet “there are no population-based estimates of the burden of pancreatic cancer in individuals with IPMNs or the proportion of pancreatic cancers that develop from or adjacent to an IPMN.”

Researchers aimed to address this knowledge gap with a population-based cohort study. Drawing data from the Rochester Epidemiology Project, which includes longitudinal medical records from residents of Olmsted County, Minn., investigators identified two cohorts. The first group comprised 2,114 patients 50 years old or older who had undergone abdominal CT scans between 2000 and 2015, among whom 231 (10.9%) had IPMNs. The second cohort included 320 patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer between 2000 and 2019, among whom 31 (9.8%) had IPMNs.

Further analysis showed that 81% of the patients with IPMNs in the first cohort lacked Fukuoka high-risk or worrisome features. Within this subgroup, the incidence rate of pancreatic cancer per 100 years was not significantly different than among individuals without IPMNs.

“Although the risk of IPMN-PC is has been extensively described, our population-based study further demonstrates that most IPMNs did not progress in Fukuoka stage and did not transform into pancreatic cancer, a similar message was expressed by the current American Gastroenterological Association pancreatic cyst guidelines, published in 2015, and studies published in 2022 and 2016,” the investigators wrote.

Analyzing the cohort of 320 patients with pancreatic cancer showed those with IPMNs had significantly better outcomes than those without IPMNs, including longer survival and lower rate of metastatic disease upon diagnosis. These findings align with previous research, the investigators wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Stefano Crippa, MD, PhD, of Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, and colleagues offered their perspective on the findings.

“Although results of this study should be validated in larger cohorts, they represent useful clinical data from an unselected population-based cohort that helps challenge current IPMN surveillance policies that recommend lifetime active surveillance for all fit individuals,” they wrote. “Currently, we can use follow-up data from studies like this one to identify patients with IPMNs who are not at risk of progression based on clinical-radiological parameters. We can furthermore start selecting subgroups of patients with limited life expectancy due to age or comorbidities to be considered for surveillance discontinuation.”

Timothy Louis Frankel, MD, a gastrointestinal surgeon at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, specializing in malignancies, said the findings are most useful for reassuring patients who have been diagnosed with an IPMN.

“The real take-home message is that in the absence of worrisome features people [with an IPMN] should feel comfortable that their risk is no higher than the general population for developing pancreatic cancer,” Dr. Frankel said in an interview.

Before any changes to surveillance can be considered, however, Dr. Frankel echoed the investigators’ call for a larger study, noting the relatively small population, most of whom (92%) were White.

“We do know that pancreas cancer and pancreas diseases vary significantly by race,” Dr. Frankel said. “So we do need to be a little bit cautious about changing the way that we manage patients based on a fairly homogeneous subset.”

He also pointed out that two patients had IPMNs that developed increased risk over time.

“They actually went from no risk features to having features that put them at risk,” Dr. Frankel said. “Those are patients who were saved by surveillance. So I’m not sure that this study was necessarily designed to let us know if and when we can stop following these lesions.”

Study authors had no relevant disclosures. The editorial writers reported no conflicts of interest.

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new colony-stimulating factor, efbemalenograstim alfa (Ryzneuta, Evive Biotech), to decrease the incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia, in adults with nonmyeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs.

Efbemalenograstim joins other agents already on the U.S. market, including pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), that aim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

The approval of efbemalenograstim was based on two randomized trials. The first included 122 women with either metastatic or nonmetastatic breast cancer who were receiving doxorubicin and docetaxel. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either one subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or placebo on the second day of their first chemotherapy cycle. All patients received efbemalenograstim on the second day of cycles two through four.

The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the first cycle was 1.4 days with efbemalenograstim versus 4.3 days with placebo. Only 4.8% of patients who received efbemalenograstim experienced chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, compared with 25.6% who received the placebo.

The new agent went up against pegfilgrastim in the second trial, which included 393 women who received docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as treatment for nonmetastatic breast cancer. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a single subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or pegfilgrastim on the second day of each cycle.

During the first cycle, patients in both arms of the trial experienced a mean of 0.2 days of grade 4 neutropenia.

The most common side effects associated with efbemalenograstim were nausea, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Similar to pegfilgrastim’s label, efbemalenograstim’s label warns of possible splenic rupture, respiratory distress syndrome, sickle cell crisis, and other serious adverse events.

The FDA recommends a dose of 20 mg subcutaneous once per chemotherapy cycle.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new colony-stimulating factor, efbemalenograstim alfa (Ryzneuta, Evive Biotech), to decrease the incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia, in adults with nonmyeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs.

Efbemalenograstim joins other agents already on the U.S. market, including pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), that aim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

The approval of efbemalenograstim was based on two randomized trials. The first included 122 women with either metastatic or nonmetastatic breast cancer who were receiving doxorubicin and docetaxel. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either one subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or placebo on the second day of their first chemotherapy cycle. All patients received efbemalenograstim on the second day of cycles two through four.

The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the first cycle was 1.4 days with efbemalenograstim versus 4.3 days with placebo. Only 4.8% of patients who received efbemalenograstim experienced chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, compared with 25.6% who received the placebo.

The new agent went up against pegfilgrastim in the second trial, which included 393 women who received docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as treatment for nonmetastatic breast cancer. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a single subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or pegfilgrastim on the second day of each cycle.

During the first cycle, patients in both arms of the trial experienced a mean of 0.2 days of grade 4 neutropenia.

The most common side effects associated with efbemalenograstim were nausea, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Similar to pegfilgrastim’s label, efbemalenograstim’s label warns of possible splenic rupture, respiratory distress syndrome, sickle cell crisis, and other serious adverse events.

The FDA recommends a dose of 20 mg subcutaneous once per chemotherapy cycle.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new colony-stimulating factor, efbemalenograstim alfa (Ryzneuta, Evive Biotech), to decrease the incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia, in adults with nonmyeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs.

Efbemalenograstim joins other agents already on the U.S. market, including pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), that aim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

The approval of efbemalenograstim was based on two randomized trials. The first included 122 women with either metastatic or nonmetastatic breast cancer who were receiving doxorubicin and docetaxel. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either one subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or placebo on the second day of their first chemotherapy cycle. All patients received efbemalenograstim on the second day of cycles two through four.

The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the first cycle was 1.4 days with efbemalenograstim versus 4.3 days with placebo. Only 4.8% of patients who received efbemalenograstim experienced chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, compared with 25.6% who received the placebo.

The new agent went up against pegfilgrastim in the second trial, which included 393 women who received docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as treatment for nonmetastatic breast cancer. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a single subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or pegfilgrastim on the second day of each cycle.

During the first cycle, patients in both arms of the trial experienced a mean of 0.2 days of grade 4 neutropenia.

The most common side effects associated with efbemalenograstim were nausea, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Similar to pegfilgrastim’s label, efbemalenograstim’s label warns of possible splenic rupture, respiratory distress syndrome, sickle cell crisis, and other serious adverse events.

The FDA recommends a dose of 20 mg subcutaneous once per chemotherapy cycle.

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

CHICAGO – The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has developed clinical pathways to guide its clinicians through cancer care, but they should not be considered mandatory strategies, a top VA cancer director told colleagues at the 2023 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.

“They’re not a cookbook for how to practice oncology,” said Michael Kelley, MD, the VA National Program Director for Oncology, Professor of Medicine at Duke University, and Chief of Hematology and Oncology at the Durham VA Medical Center. “You cannot look at the pathway and think that you know how to practice. It is a preferred-decision flow map—not a requirement to do that. We expect that all providers will be off the pathways some of the time and most of the time, they will be on there.”

The VA has an extensive series of clinical pathways in oncology that are designed to help clinicians navigate through the treatment of 20 types of cancer, including common types—breast, lung, and colon—and rarer types, such as salivary gland and biliary tract cancer. Many of the pathways have been updated within just the past few months, and more are in the works.

The pathways are developed through subject-matter expert groups made up of experts from National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, Kelley said. “The pathway is published as a PDF document on internally and externally facing websites, then it's built into the medical record system.” Clinicians who diverge from the pathways have to note this in the health record system, enter reasons why, and provide the alternative care strategy, Kelley explained.

Moving forward, the VA is “committed to doing a formal review of all the pathways at least quarterly, and we will do ad hoc reviews and alterations as information merits.” He said, “There are hundreds of oncology providers in the VA, and we want everyone to have an opportunity to have input. That's your opportunity: We do read every comment, and we'll actually generate a response to every comment.”

CHICAGO – The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has developed clinical pathways to guide its clinicians through cancer care, but they should not be considered mandatory strategies, a top VA cancer director told colleagues at the 2023 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.

“They’re not a cookbook for how to practice oncology,” said Michael Kelley, MD, the VA National Program Director for Oncology, Professor of Medicine at Duke University, and Chief of Hematology and Oncology at the Durham VA Medical Center. “You cannot look at the pathway and think that you know how to practice. It is a preferred-decision flow map—not a requirement to do that. We expect that all providers will be off the pathways some of the time and most of the time, they will be on there.”

The VA has an extensive series of clinical pathways in oncology that are designed to help clinicians navigate through the treatment of 20 types of cancer, including common types—breast, lung, and colon—and rarer types, such as salivary gland and biliary tract cancer. Many of the pathways have been updated within just the past few months, and more are in the works.

The pathways are developed through subject-matter expert groups made up of experts from National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, Kelley said. “The pathway is published as a PDF document on internally and externally facing websites, then it's built into the medical record system.” Clinicians who diverge from the pathways have to note this in the health record system, enter reasons why, and provide the alternative care strategy, Kelley explained.

Moving forward, the VA is “committed to doing a formal review of all the pathways at least quarterly, and we will do ad hoc reviews and alterations as information merits.” He said, “There are hundreds of oncology providers in the VA, and we want everyone to have an opportunity to have input. That's your opportunity: We do read every comment, and we'll actually generate a response to every comment.”

CHICAGO – The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has developed clinical pathways to guide its clinicians through cancer care, but they should not be considered mandatory strategies, a top VA cancer director told colleagues at the 2023 annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology.

“They’re not a cookbook for how to practice oncology,” said Michael Kelley, MD, the VA National Program Director for Oncology, Professor of Medicine at Duke University, and Chief of Hematology and Oncology at the Durham VA Medical Center. “You cannot look at the pathway and think that you know how to practice. It is a preferred-decision flow map—not a requirement to do that. We expect that all providers will be off the pathways some of the time and most of the time, they will be on there.”

The VA has an extensive series of clinical pathways in oncology that are designed to help clinicians navigate through the treatment of 20 types of cancer, including common types—breast, lung, and colon—and rarer types, such as salivary gland and biliary tract cancer. Many of the pathways have been updated within just the past few months, and more are in the works.

The pathways are developed through subject-matter expert groups made up of experts from National Cancer Institute–designated cancer centers, Kelley said. “The pathway is published as a PDF document on internally and externally facing websites, then it's built into the medical record system.” Clinicians who diverge from the pathways have to note this in the health record system, enter reasons why, and provide the alternative care strategy, Kelley explained.

Moving forward, the VA is “committed to doing a formal review of all the pathways at least quarterly, and we will do ad hoc reviews and alterations as information merits.” He said, “There are hundreds of oncology providers in the VA, and we want everyone to have an opportunity to have input. That's your opportunity: We do read every comment, and we'll actually generate a response to every comment.”

TOPLINE:

Getting patients to return unused oral anticancer drugs to the pharmacy and then having the pharmacy redispense those medications that meet quality standards is a promising strategy to save money and reduce waste, a Dutch study has found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Ongoing drug shortages and growing drug prices contribute to access issues in oncology.
• Researchers compared the reduction in drug waste and cost savings from redispensing oral anticancer drugs versus the standard practice of disposing of them.
• Outpatient pharmacies at four Dutch hospitals participated. A total of 1,071 patients with cancer receiving oral anticancer drugs for at-home use were given special packaging for returning unused medication to the pharmacy.
• The pharmacy ensured the quality of returned drugs based on authenticity, appearance, remaining shelf-life, and adequate storage temperature.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 13,069 oral anticancer drug packages, containing an average of 27 daily doses per package, were dispensed during the study period.
• Overall, 16% of patients (n = 171) returned 335 (2.6%) unused oral anticancer drug packages, of which 68% were redispensed after passing quality control.
• Redispensing unused oral anticancer drugs reduced waste by 68%, compared with disposing of them, and provided a mean net annual cost savings of €576 (U.S. $682) per patient per year.
• When just those patients who took targeted oral anticancer drugs for up to 24 months were looked at, the mean net annual cost savings associated with the quality check protocol increased to €934 (U.S. $1,019) per patient or of only the visual quality check was €1,348 (U.S. $1,474) per patient.

IN PRACTICE:

“New strategies targeting waste are required to improve financial and ecologic sustainability of expensive therapies, such as oral anticancer drugs, that frequently remain unused by patients,” the authors write. “These findings provide a waste-minimizing strategy to contribute to sustainable and affordable access to drugs.”

SOURCE:

The study, by Elisabeth M. Smale, PharmD, of Radboud University Medical Center, the Netherlands, and colleagues, was published online  in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Novel drugs are substantially more expensive in the United States, and the Dutch findings might underestimate potential cost savings generated through redispensing programs in the United States. Participants were prompted to return unused oral anticancer drugs through reminders at the pharmacy, but all such drugs may not have been returned.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by ZonMw, the Dutch national organization for health research and development. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Getting patients to return unused oral anticancer drugs to the pharmacy and then having the pharmacy redispense those medications that meet quality standards is a promising strategy to save money and reduce waste, a Dutch study has found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Ongoing drug shortages and growing drug prices contribute to access issues in oncology.
• Researchers compared the reduction in drug waste and cost savings from redispensing oral anticancer drugs versus the standard practice of disposing of them.
• Outpatient pharmacies at four Dutch hospitals participated. A total of 1,071 patients with cancer receiving oral anticancer drugs for at-home use were given special packaging for returning unused medication to the pharmacy.
• The pharmacy ensured the quality of returned drugs based on authenticity, appearance, remaining shelf-life, and adequate storage temperature.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 13,069 oral anticancer drug packages, containing an average of 27 daily doses per package, were dispensed during the study period.
• Overall, 16% of patients (n = 171) returned 335 (2.6%) unused oral anticancer drug packages, of which 68% were redispensed after passing quality control.
• Redispensing unused oral anticancer drugs reduced waste by 68%, compared with disposing of them, and provided a mean net annual cost savings of €576 (U.S. $682) per patient per year.
• When just those patients who took targeted oral anticancer drugs for up to 24 months were looked at, the mean net annual cost savings associated with the quality check protocol increased to €934 (U.S. $1,019) per patient or of only the visual quality check was €1,348 (U.S. $1,474) per patient.

IN PRACTICE:

“New strategies targeting waste are required to improve financial and ecologic sustainability of expensive therapies, such as oral anticancer drugs, that frequently remain unused by patients,” the authors write. “These findings provide a waste-minimizing strategy to contribute to sustainable and affordable access to drugs.”

SOURCE:

The study, by Elisabeth M. Smale, PharmD, of Radboud University Medical Center, the Netherlands, and colleagues, was published online  in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Novel drugs are substantially more expensive in the United States, and the Dutch findings might underestimate potential cost savings generated through redispensing programs in the United States. Participants were prompted to return unused oral anticancer drugs through reminders at the pharmacy, but all such drugs may not have been returned.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by ZonMw, the Dutch national organization for health research and development. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Getting patients to return unused oral anticancer drugs to the pharmacy and then having the pharmacy redispense those medications that meet quality standards is a promising strategy to save money and reduce waste, a Dutch study has found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Ongoing drug shortages and growing drug prices contribute to access issues in oncology.
• Researchers compared the reduction in drug waste and cost savings from redispensing oral anticancer drugs versus the standard practice of disposing of them.
• Outpatient pharmacies at four Dutch hospitals participated. A total of 1,071 patients with cancer receiving oral anticancer drugs for at-home use were given special packaging for returning unused medication to the pharmacy.
• The pharmacy ensured the quality of returned drugs based on authenticity, appearance, remaining shelf-life, and adequate storage temperature.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 13,069 oral anticancer drug packages, containing an average of 27 daily doses per package, were dispensed during the study period.
• Overall, 16% of patients (n = 171) returned 335 (2.6%) unused oral anticancer drug packages, of which 68% were redispensed after passing quality control.
• Redispensing unused oral anticancer drugs reduced waste by 68%, compared with disposing of them, and provided a mean net annual cost savings of €576 (U.S. $682) per patient per year.
• When just those patients who took targeted oral anticancer drugs for up to 24 months were looked at, the mean net annual cost savings associated with the quality check protocol increased to €934 (U.S. $1,019) per patient or of only the visual quality check was €1,348 (U.S. $1,474) per patient.

IN PRACTICE:

“New strategies targeting waste are required to improve financial and ecologic sustainability of expensive therapies, such as oral anticancer drugs, that frequently remain unused by patients,” the authors write. “These findings provide a waste-minimizing strategy to contribute to sustainable and affordable access to drugs.”

SOURCE:

The study, by Elisabeth M. Smale, PharmD, of Radboud University Medical Center, the Netherlands, and colleagues, was published online  in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Novel drugs are substantially more expensive in the United States, and the Dutch findings might underestimate potential cost savings generated through redispensing programs in the United States. Participants were prompted to return unused oral anticancer drugs through reminders at the pharmacy, but all such drugs may not have been returned.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by ZonMw, the Dutch national organization for health research and development. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), used for diabetes or obesity, are associated with a significantly lower quality of bowel preparation and a greater need for repeat colonoscopy, new research suggests.

“We began observing inadequate bowel preparation in our patients undergoing colonoscopy who were on GLP-1 RAs, which raised questions, especially given the association between these medications and delays in intestinal transit,” study investigator Eric. J. Vargas, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. The team decided to investigate.

The “most surprising finding” was the “notably higher rate of inadequate bowel preparation, which necessitates a repeat colonoscopy within 12 months to ensure adequate screening and surveillance for colorectal cancers,” he said. “Specifically, for every 14 patients treated with GLP-1 RAs, one patient would require a repeat colonoscopy due to suboptimal preparation.”

In light of the findings, “clinicians should consider patients on GLP-1 RAs to be a population at risk for poor quality of bowel preparation,” he said.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Low prep scores

The investigators analyzed a cohort of patients who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopy at Mayo Clinic between 2021 and 2022. Patients taking any GLP-1 RA for diabetes or obesity at the time of colonoscopy were defined as “cases,” and those who were prescribed a GLP-1 RA at one point but had not taken it within 3 months of colonoscopy were controls.

The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used to assess bowel preparation quality.

The study included 446 patients: 265 (59%) taking a GLP-1 RA and 181 controls (41%). Overall, the average age was 59 years, about 54% were women, and 91% were White. Among those taking a GLP-1 RA, 86% had diabetes, as did 74% of controls.

Of patients on a GLP-1 RA, 48.8% took subcutaneous semaglutide, 3.1% took oral semaglutide, 34.6% took dulaglutide, 11% took liraglutide, and very small percentages took tirzepatide or exenatide.

There were no statistically significant differences between groups at baseline except for the diabetes diagnosis.

After diabetes was controlled for, the mean BBPS was significantly higher in controls than in GLP-1 RA recipients (7.5 vs. 7), and the percentage of patients with a total BBPS score less than 5 was significantly higher in the GLP-1 RA group than in the control group (15.5% vs. 6.6%).

In a secondary analysis of those with diabetes, the proportion of patients with a BBPS score less than or equal to 1 in any segment was higher in those taking a GLP-1 RA than in controls (24.9% vs. 13.3%).

The proportion of patients who required a repeat colonoscopy owing to inadequate bowel prep was higher among those taking a GLP-1 RA than among controls (18.9% vs. 11.1%). This corresponded to a number needed to harm of 14.

“GLP-1 RAs are increasingly used for the treatment of diabetes and obesity and have been demonstrated to reduce gastrointestinal motility,” the authors write. “Our data signal that the use of these medications in this patient population may be an additional factor in suboptimal bowel preparation.”

Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study, its focus on a single health system with a large majority of non-Hispanic White patients, and lack of data on diabetic complications and the use of insulin – all of which “necessitate caution in interpreting the findings,” the authors write.
 

Research ‘evolving rapidly’

“We will continue gathering more information on colonoscopy preparations and GLP-1 RA medication use, and whether the newer type 2 diabetes medications have a similar effect,” Dr. Vargas said. “The newer and upcoming medications are double and/or triple agonists, and it remains to be determined if these have a similar effect on gastric transit times.”

The recent lowering of the recommended colorectal cancer screening age for average-risk individuals to 45 combined with increasing use of GLP-1 RAs make it important to minimize repeat colonoscopies, he added.

“In the absence of specific guidance on timing of periprocedural discontinuation of GLP-1 RAs, clinicians can enhance counseling and educational efforts in this population,” Dr. Vargas suggested. They can also consider interventions such as “extending bowel preparation regimens, issuing a clear liquid diet recommendation 48-72 hours before colonoscopy, and nurse education visits on colonoscopy preparation.”

Commenting on the study, David A. Greenwald, MD, director of clinical gastroenterology and endoscopy at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, noted the potential confounding in a retrospective study, as well as the relatively small sample size. “Nonetheless, the findings make sense and are important to guide clinical decision-making,” he told this news organization.

Gastric emptying with GLP-1 RAs can lead to retained fluid and food in the stomach, which increase the risk for aspiration at endoscopy, he said.

“We are concerned about that primarily for upper endoscopy but have seen vomiting and aspiration occur during colonoscopy in patients who have been using [these] medications,” Dr. Greenwald said. It’s reasonable to postulate that GLP-1 RAs could delay passage of colonoscopy preps through the gastrointestinal tract, which would affect the outcome of prep, he added.

“Research around GLP-1 agonist use and endoscopy is evolving rapidly, and we hope to have data-driven guidance soon on whether these agents need to be held in the peri-endoscopic period, and if so, for how long,” Dr. Greenwald noted. “At the moment, guidance has been published but is very much driven by expert opinion and limited studies.”

The study received no financial support. Dr. Vargas and Dr. Greenwald report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), used for diabetes or obesity, are associated with a significantly lower quality of bowel preparation and a greater need for repeat colonoscopy, new research suggests.

“We began observing inadequate bowel preparation in our patients undergoing colonoscopy who were on GLP-1 RAs, which raised questions, especially given the association between these medications and delays in intestinal transit,” study investigator Eric. J. Vargas, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. The team decided to investigate.

The “most surprising finding” was the “notably higher rate of inadequate bowel preparation, which necessitates a repeat colonoscopy within 12 months to ensure adequate screening and surveillance for colorectal cancers,” he said. “Specifically, for every 14 patients treated with GLP-1 RAs, one patient would require a repeat colonoscopy due to suboptimal preparation.”

In light of the findings, “clinicians should consider patients on GLP-1 RAs to be a population at risk for poor quality of bowel preparation,” he said.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Low prep scores

The investigators analyzed a cohort of patients who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopy at Mayo Clinic between 2021 and 2022. Patients taking any GLP-1 RA for diabetes or obesity at the time of colonoscopy were defined as “cases,” and those who were prescribed a GLP-1 RA at one point but had not taken it within 3 months of colonoscopy were controls.

The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used to assess bowel preparation quality.

The study included 446 patients: 265 (59%) taking a GLP-1 RA and 181 controls (41%). Overall, the average age was 59 years, about 54% were women, and 91% were White. Among those taking a GLP-1 RA, 86% had diabetes, as did 74% of controls.

Of patients on a GLP-1 RA, 48.8% took subcutaneous semaglutide, 3.1% took oral semaglutide, 34.6% took dulaglutide, 11% took liraglutide, and very small percentages took tirzepatide or exenatide.

There were no statistically significant differences between groups at baseline except for the diabetes diagnosis.

After diabetes was controlled for, the mean BBPS was significantly higher in controls than in GLP-1 RA recipients (7.5 vs. 7), and the percentage of patients with a total BBPS score less than 5 was significantly higher in the GLP-1 RA group than in the control group (15.5% vs. 6.6%).

In a secondary analysis of those with diabetes, the proportion of patients with a BBPS score less than or equal to 1 in any segment was higher in those taking a GLP-1 RA than in controls (24.9% vs. 13.3%).

The proportion of patients who required a repeat colonoscopy owing to inadequate bowel prep was higher among those taking a GLP-1 RA than among controls (18.9% vs. 11.1%). This corresponded to a number needed to harm of 14.

“GLP-1 RAs are increasingly used for the treatment of diabetes and obesity and have been demonstrated to reduce gastrointestinal motility,” the authors write. “Our data signal that the use of these medications in this patient population may be an additional factor in suboptimal bowel preparation.”

Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study, its focus on a single health system with a large majority of non-Hispanic White patients, and lack of data on diabetic complications and the use of insulin – all of which “necessitate caution in interpreting the findings,” the authors write.
 

Research ‘evolving rapidly’

“We will continue gathering more information on colonoscopy preparations and GLP-1 RA medication use, and whether the newer type 2 diabetes medications have a similar effect,” Dr. Vargas said. “The newer and upcoming medications are double and/or triple agonists, and it remains to be determined if these have a similar effect on gastric transit times.”

The recent lowering of the recommended colorectal cancer screening age for average-risk individuals to 45 combined with increasing use of GLP-1 RAs make it important to minimize repeat colonoscopies, he added.

“In the absence of specific guidance on timing of periprocedural discontinuation of GLP-1 RAs, clinicians can enhance counseling and educational efforts in this population,” Dr. Vargas suggested. They can also consider interventions such as “extending bowel preparation regimens, issuing a clear liquid diet recommendation 48-72 hours before colonoscopy, and nurse education visits on colonoscopy preparation.”

Commenting on the study, David A. Greenwald, MD, director of clinical gastroenterology and endoscopy at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, noted the potential confounding in a retrospective study, as well as the relatively small sample size. “Nonetheless, the findings make sense and are important to guide clinical decision-making,” he told this news organization.

Gastric emptying with GLP-1 RAs can lead to retained fluid and food in the stomach, which increase the risk for aspiration at endoscopy, he said.

“We are concerned about that primarily for upper endoscopy but have seen vomiting and aspiration occur during colonoscopy in patients who have been using [these] medications,” Dr. Greenwald said. It’s reasonable to postulate that GLP-1 RAs could delay passage of colonoscopy preps through the gastrointestinal tract, which would affect the outcome of prep, he added.

“Research around GLP-1 agonist use and endoscopy is evolving rapidly, and we hope to have data-driven guidance soon on whether these agents need to be held in the peri-endoscopic period, and if so, for how long,” Dr. Greenwald noted. “At the moment, guidance has been published but is very much driven by expert opinion and limited studies.”

The study received no financial support. Dr. Vargas and Dr. Greenwald report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), used for diabetes or obesity, are associated with a significantly lower quality of bowel preparation and a greater need for repeat colonoscopy, new research suggests.

“We began observing inadequate bowel preparation in our patients undergoing colonoscopy who were on GLP-1 RAs, which raised questions, especially given the association between these medications and delays in intestinal transit,” study investigator Eric. J. Vargas, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., told this news organization. The team decided to investigate.

The “most surprising finding” was the “notably higher rate of inadequate bowel preparation, which necessitates a repeat colonoscopy within 12 months to ensure adequate screening and surveillance for colorectal cancers,” he said. “Specifically, for every 14 patients treated with GLP-1 RAs, one patient would require a repeat colonoscopy due to suboptimal preparation.”

In light of the findings, “clinicians should consider patients on GLP-1 RAs to be a population at risk for poor quality of bowel preparation,” he said.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Low prep scores

The investigators analyzed a cohort of patients who underwent screening or surveillance colonoscopy at Mayo Clinic between 2021 and 2022. Patients taking any GLP-1 RA for diabetes or obesity at the time of colonoscopy were defined as “cases,” and those who were prescribed a GLP-1 RA at one point but had not taken it within 3 months of colonoscopy were controls.

The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was used to assess bowel preparation quality.

The study included 446 patients: 265 (59%) taking a GLP-1 RA and 181 controls (41%). Overall, the average age was 59 years, about 54% were women, and 91% were White. Among those taking a GLP-1 RA, 86% had diabetes, as did 74% of controls.

Of patients on a GLP-1 RA, 48.8% took subcutaneous semaglutide, 3.1% took oral semaglutide, 34.6% took dulaglutide, 11% took liraglutide, and very small percentages took tirzepatide or exenatide.

There were no statistically significant differences between groups at baseline except for the diabetes diagnosis.

After diabetes was controlled for, the mean BBPS was significantly higher in controls than in GLP-1 RA recipients (7.5 vs. 7), and the percentage of patients with a total BBPS score less than 5 was significantly higher in the GLP-1 RA group than in the control group (15.5% vs. 6.6%).

In a secondary analysis of those with diabetes, the proportion of patients with a BBPS score less than or equal to 1 in any segment was higher in those taking a GLP-1 RA than in controls (24.9% vs. 13.3%).

The proportion of patients who required a repeat colonoscopy owing to inadequate bowel prep was higher among those taking a GLP-1 RA than among controls (18.9% vs. 11.1%). This corresponded to a number needed to harm of 14.

“GLP-1 RAs are increasingly used for the treatment of diabetes and obesity and have been demonstrated to reduce gastrointestinal motility,” the authors write. “Our data signal that the use of these medications in this patient population may be an additional factor in suboptimal bowel preparation.”

Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study, its focus on a single health system with a large majority of non-Hispanic White patients, and lack of data on diabetic complications and the use of insulin – all of which “necessitate caution in interpreting the findings,” the authors write.
 

Research ‘evolving rapidly’

“We will continue gathering more information on colonoscopy preparations and GLP-1 RA medication use, and whether the newer type 2 diabetes medications have a similar effect,” Dr. Vargas said. “The newer and upcoming medications are double and/or triple agonists, and it remains to be determined if these have a similar effect on gastric transit times.”

The recent lowering of the recommended colorectal cancer screening age for average-risk individuals to 45 combined with increasing use of GLP-1 RAs make it important to minimize repeat colonoscopies, he added.

“In the absence of specific guidance on timing of periprocedural discontinuation of GLP-1 RAs, clinicians can enhance counseling and educational efforts in this population,” Dr. Vargas suggested. They can also consider interventions such as “extending bowel preparation regimens, issuing a clear liquid diet recommendation 48-72 hours before colonoscopy, and nurse education visits on colonoscopy preparation.”

Commenting on the study, David A. Greenwald, MD, director of clinical gastroenterology and endoscopy at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, noted the potential confounding in a retrospective study, as well as the relatively small sample size. “Nonetheless, the findings make sense and are important to guide clinical decision-making,” he told this news organization.

Gastric emptying with GLP-1 RAs can lead to retained fluid and food in the stomach, which increase the risk for aspiration at endoscopy, he said.

“We are concerned about that primarily for upper endoscopy but have seen vomiting and aspiration occur during colonoscopy in patients who have been using [these] medications,” Dr. Greenwald said. It’s reasonable to postulate that GLP-1 RAs could delay passage of colonoscopy preps through the gastrointestinal tract, which would affect the outcome of prep, he added.

“Research around GLP-1 agonist use and endoscopy is evolving rapidly, and we hope to have data-driven guidance soon on whether these agents need to be held in the peri-endoscopic period, and if so, for how long,” Dr. Greenwald noted. “At the moment, guidance has been published but is very much driven by expert opinion and limited studies.”

The study received no financial support. Dr. Vargas and Dr. Greenwald report no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Proctectomy and other surgeries are falling out of favor to treat stage II and III rectal cancer in the United States.

METHODOLOGY:

• The National Comprehensive Cancer Network endorses watchful waiting, instead of surgery, when patients with rectal cancer have a complete clinical response to neoadjuvant therapy, but it’s unclear how often patients and providers opt for this organ preservation approach.
• To find out, investigators reviewed 175,545 adults in the National Cancer Database treated for rectal adenocarcinoma from 2006 to 2020.
• The research team assessed changes in the proportion of patients who were treated with chemotherapy and/or radiation without tumor resection, transanal local excision, or removal of the rectum. 
• Patients had a mean age of 63 years, 39.7% were women, 17.4% had stage 1 disease, 24.7% had stage 2A-C disease, and 32.1% had stage 3A-C tumors; tumor stage was unknown in just over a quarter of patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• The absolute annual proportion of organ preservation increased by more than 50% from 18.4% in 2006 to 28.2% in 2020.
• In that time frame, organ preservation increased from 19.5% to 32.5% – a percent increase of about 67% – for patients with stage 2A-C disease, 16.2% to 29.1% – a percent increase of about 80% – for patients with stage 3A-C disease, and 16.5% to 26.6% – a percent increase of about 60% – for those with unknown stages.
• However, the rate of proctectomies increased by 6.1 percentage points, or by about 30%, among patients with stage I rectal cancer – from 20.3% to 26.4%.
• Among patients who did have surgery, the proportion who had complete pathologic responses to neoadjuvant therapy nearly tripled, increasing from 6.5% to 18.8%.

IN PRACTICE:

“This case series shows that rectal cancer is increasingly being managed medically, especially among patients whose treatment historically relied on proctectomy,” the authors concluded. However, protocols to standardize the approach are lacking, which is why “establishing quality standards for organ preservation is a pressing issue that should involve all relevant stakeholders, including patients.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Anthony Loria, MD, MSCI, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The percentage of people who needed surgery for recurrence, patient and facility factors associated with organ preservation, and overall survival outcomes were not addressed.

DISCLOSURES:

No external funding was reported, and the investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Proctectomy and other surgeries are falling out of favor to treat stage II and III rectal cancer in the United States.

METHODOLOGY:

• The National Comprehensive Cancer Network endorses watchful waiting, instead of surgery, when patients with rectal cancer have a complete clinical response to neoadjuvant therapy, but it’s unclear how often patients and providers opt for this organ preservation approach.
• To find out, investigators reviewed 175,545 adults in the National Cancer Database treated for rectal adenocarcinoma from 2006 to 2020.
• The research team assessed changes in the proportion of patients who were treated with chemotherapy and/or radiation without tumor resection, transanal local excision, or removal of the rectum. 
• Patients had a mean age of 63 years, 39.7% were women, 17.4% had stage 1 disease, 24.7% had stage 2A-C disease, and 32.1% had stage 3A-C tumors; tumor stage was unknown in just over a quarter of patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• The absolute annual proportion of organ preservation increased by more than 50% from 18.4% in 2006 to 28.2% in 2020.
• In that time frame, organ preservation increased from 19.5% to 32.5% – a percent increase of about 67% – for patients with stage 2A-C disease, 16.2% to 29.1% – a percent increase of about 80% – for patients with stage 3A-C disease, and 16.5% to 26.6% – a percent increase of about 60% – for those with unknown stages.
• However, the rate of proctectomies increased by 6.1 percentage points, or by about 30%, among patients with stage I rectal cancer – from 20.3% to 26.4%.
• Among patients who did have surgery, the proportion who had complete pathologic responses to neoadjuvant therapy nearly tripled, increasing from 6.5% to 18.8%.

IN PRACTICE:

“This case series shows that rectal cancer is increasingly being managed medically, especially among patients whose treatment historically relied on proctectomy,” the authors concluded. However, protocols to standardize the approach are lacking, which is why “establishing quality standards for organ preservation is a pressing issue that should involve all relevant stakeholders, including patients.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Anthony Loria, MD, MSCI, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The percentage of people who needed surgery for recurrence, patient and facility factors associated with organ preservation, and overall survival outcomes were not addressed.

DISCLOSURES:

No external funding was reported, and the investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Proctectomy and other surgeries are falling out of favor to treat stage II and III rectal cancer in the United States.

METHODOLOGY:

• The National Comprehensive Cancer Network endorses watchful waiting, instead of surgery, when patients with rectal cancer have a complete clinical response to neoadjuvant therapy, but it’s unclear how often patients and providers opt for this organ preservation approach.
• To find out, investigators reviewed 175,545 adults in the National Cancer Database treated for rectal adenocarcinoma from 2006 to 2020.
• The research team assessed changes in the proportion of patients who were treated with chemotherapy and/or radiation without tumor resection, transanal local excision, or removal of the rectum. 
• Patients had a mean age of 63 years, 39.7% were women, 17.4% had stage 1 disease, 24.7% had stage 2A-C disease, and 32.1% had stage 3A-C tumors; tumor stage was unknown in just over a quarter of patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• The absolute annual proportion of organ preservation increased by more than 50% from 18.4% in 2006 to 28.2% in 2020.
• In that time frame, organ preservation increased from 19.5% to 32.5% – a percent increase of about 67% – for patients with stage 2A-C disease, 16.2% to 29.1% – a percent increase of about 80% – for patients with stage 3A-C disease, and 16.5% to 26.6% – a percent increase of about 60% – for those with unknown stages.
• However, the rate of proctectomies increased by 6.1 percentage points, or by about 30%, among patients with stage I rectal cancer – from 20.3% to 26.4%.
• Among patients who did have surgery, the proportion who had complete pathologic responses to neoadjuvant therapy nearly tripled, increasing from 6.5% to 18.8%.

IN PRACTICE:

“This case series shows that rectal cancer is increasingly being managed medically, especially among patients whose treatment historically relied on proctectomy,” the authors concluded. However, protocols to standardize the approach are lacking, which is why “establishing quality standards for organ preservation is a pressing issue that should involve all relevant stakeholders, including patients.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Anthony Loria, MD, MSCI, of the University of Rochester (N.Y.), was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The percentage of people who needed surgery for recurrence, patient and facility factors associated with organ preservation, and overall survival outcomes were not addressed.

DISCLOSURES:

No external funding was reported, and the investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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