AVAHO

Several new clinical trials in prostate cancer have started recruiting in recent months. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from enrolling?

Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer 

Adults with this diagnosis may be interested in a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study examining whether an experimental poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor called saruparib can further delay disease progression when added to a next-generation hormonal agent such as abiraterone (Zytiga), darolutamide (Nubeqa), or enzalutamide (Xtandi).

One group of participants will take daily oral doses of saruparib plus physician’s choice of a next-generation hormonal agent until disease progression or another reason for stopping therapy. The other group will add a placebo to a next-generation hormonal agent.

Sites in Rhode Island, Arkansas, California, Michigan, Australia, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and South Korea began seeking the trial’s 1800 participants in November 2023. Research centers in 31 other US states and 18 other countries are gearing up. The primary endpoint is radiographic progression-free survival. Overall survival and quality of life (QoL) are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

This news organization asked Marc Garnick, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, for his take on the trial. “The study is interesting since it is adding to the evaluations of continued intensification for first-line therapy and will help further elucidate the role of PARP inhibition regardless of homologous repair status,” Dr. Garnick said. “Plus, saruparib is supposedly more selective on PARP1, which in-and-of-itself is of potential benefit.”

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

People with this type of cancer who have progressed on a next-generation hormonal agent may be eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial testing an investigational oral treatment called MK-5684 to see if it increases survival more effectively than switching to an alternative next-generation hormonal agent.

MK-5684 is designed to inhibit the CYP11A1 enzyme, thereby disrupting the androgen-receptor signaling pathway.

One group will take twice-daily tablets of MK-5684 plus hormone replacement therapy, oral dexamethasone, and oral fludrocortisone acetate (Florinef), with rescue hydrocortisone as needed. The other participants will take daily tablets of a next-generation hormonal agent: Either enzalutamide or abiraterone. Patients assigned to abiraterone will also be given prednisone tablets.

US-based sites in nine states and Puerto Rico started looking for the trial’s 1500 participants in December 2023 in partnership with study centers in Australia, Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan. The primary endpoints are radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Patients in this situation who have progressed on taxane-based chemotherapy as well as a next-generation hormonal agent have the option to enroll in another phase 3 MK-5684 study.

Like the trial described above, all patients will remain on their respective therapy until disease progression. In this trial, one group will take twice-daily tablets of MK-5684 without hormone replacement therapy but the same mix of oral dexamethasone and fludrocortisone. Rescue hydrocortisone will also be available. The second group will be assigned either enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone.

Sites in Puerto Rico, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia, and five other countries outside the United States, opened their doors to the first of 1200 patients in December 2023. The primary endpoints are radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival, analyzed separately for patients with and without an androgen receptor ligand-binding domain mutation. QoL will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

High-risk prostate cancer

People with this diagnosis can join a randomized, open-label, phase 3 National Cancer Institute study to test whether stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is as effective as conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) at preventing metastasis.

SBRT delivers radiation to tumors with higher precision than EBRT. The advantage of SBRT is the ability to deliver fewer doses over a shorter duration with less collateral damage to surrounding tissues.

In the trial, half of participants will undergo five treatments of SBRT over 2 weeks, while the other half will receive 20-45 treatments of EBRT over 4-9 weeks. Study sites in 14 US states began recruiting the trial’s 1209 participants in November 2023. Metastasis-free survival over 15 years is the primary endpoint, overall survival is a secondary endpoint, and QoL measures, apart from fatigue, will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Dr. Garnick viewed this study as “problematic because patient accrual ends in 2036 with a readout in 2041.” He added, “What its relevance will be at that time is unlikely to provide practice changes, since in that interval there will undoubtedly be multiple advances in place.”

Newly diagnosed favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer

People with this type of cancer are eligible for an open-label, phase 4 real-world study of a radioactive diagnostic agent called piflufolastat F 18 (Pylarify) that targets prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–positive lesions. Piflufolastat is designed to enhance detection of metastases during PSMA-targeted PET.

Participants will receive a single injection of piflufolastat followed 1-2 hours later by a single whole-body PET-CT or PET-MRI scan. A study site at the Hoag Cancer Center in Irvine, California, welcomed the first of the trial’s 274 participants in February 2024. Sites in Tower Urology, Los Angeles, and the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, are gearing up. Detection rate is the primary endpoint. Overall survival and QoL are not measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov

Stages I-IV prostate cancer without bone metastases. People 60 years or older with this type of prostate cancer who are just starting androgen deprivation therapy are eligible for a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial investigating whether high-dose vitamin D can prevent or reduce androgen-deprivation therapy-induced bone loss.

For 1 year, participants will take tablets of high-dose vitamin D or a placebo and then undergo dual x-ray absorptiometry. The Ochsner Medical Center in Jefferson, Louisiana, started recruiting 366 trial participants in December 2023. Reduction in bone mineral density loss in the hip and spine over 1 year is the primary objective. QoL is a secondary objective, and overall survival will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov

Dr. Garnick expressed some concerns with the trial design so far, including that “the dose of vitamin D is not delineated nor is the target vitamin D level.”

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov). Dr. Garnick did not report conflicts with any of the trials.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Several new clinical trials in prostate cancer have started recruiting in recent months. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from enrolling?

Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer 

Adults with this diagnosis may be interested in a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study examining whether an experimental poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor called saruparib can further delay disease progression when added to a next-generation hormonal agent such as abiraterone (Zytiga), darolutamide (Nubeqa), or enzalutamide (Xtandi).

One group of participants will take daily oral doses of saruparib plus physician’s choice of a next-generation hormonal agent until disease progression or another reason for stopping therapy. The other group will add a placebo to a next-generation hormonal agent.

Sites in Rhode Island, Arkansas, California, Michigan, Australia, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and South Korea began seeking the trial’s 1800 participants in November 2023. Research centers in 31 other US states and 18 other countries are gearing up. The primary endpoint is radiographic progression-free survival. Overall survival and quality of life (QoL) are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

This news organization asked Marc Garnick, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, for his take on the trial. “The study is interesting since it is adding to the evaluations of continued intensification for first-line therapy and will help further elucidate the role of PARP inhibition regardless of homologous repair status,” Dr. Garnick said. “Plus, saruparib is supposedly more selective on PARP1, which in-and-of-itself is of potential benefit.”

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

People with this type of cancer who have progressed on a next-generation hormonal agent may be eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial testing an investigational oral treatment called MK-5684 to see if it increases survival more effectively than switching to an alternative next-generation hormonal agent.

MK-5684 is designed to inhibit the CYP11A1 enzyme, thereby disrupting the androgen-receptor signaling pathway.

One group will take twice-daily tablets of MK-5684 plus hormone replacement therapy, oral dexamethasone, and oral fludrocortisone acetate (Florinef), with rescue hydrocortisone as needed. The other participants will take daily tablets of a next-generation hormonal agent: Either enzalutamide or abiraterone. Patients assigned to abiraterone will also be given prednisone tablets.

US-based sites in nine states and Puerto Rico started looking for the trial’s 1500 participants in December 2023 in partnership with study centers in Australia, Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan. The primary endpoints are radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Patients in this situation who have progressed on taxane-based chemotherapy as well as a next-generation hormonal agent have the option to enroll in another phase 3 MK-5684 study.

Like the trial described above, all patients will remain on their respective therapy until disease progression. In this trial, one group will take twice-daily tablets of MK-5684 without hormone replacement therapy but the same mix of oral dexamethasone and fludrocortisone. Rescue hydrocortisone will also be available. The second group will be assigned either enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone.

Sites in Puerto Rico, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia, and five other countries outside the United States, opened their doors to the first of 1200 patients in December 2023. The primary endpoints are radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival, analyzed separately for patients with and without an androgen receptor ligand-binding domain mutation. QoL will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

High-risk prostate cancer

People with this diagnosis can join a randomized, open-label, phase 3 National Cancer Institute study to test whether stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is as effective as conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) at preventing metastasis.

SBRT delivers radiation to tumors with higher precision than EBRT. The advantage of SBRT is the ability to deliver fewer doses over a shorter duration with less collateral damage to surrounding tissues.

In the trial, half of participants will undergo five treatments of SBRT over 2 weeks, while the other half will receive 20-45 treatments of EBRT over 4-9 weeks. Study sites in 14 US states began recruiting the trial’s 1209 participants in November 2023. Metastasis-free survival over 15 years is the primary endpoint, overall survival is a secondary endpoint, and QoL measures, apart from fatigue, will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Dr. Garnick viewed this study as “problematic because patient accrual ends in 2036 with a readout in 2041.” He added, “What its relevance will be at that time is unlikely to provide practice changes, since in that interval there will undoubtedly be multiple advances in place.”

Newly diagnosed favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer

People with this type of cancer are eligible for an open-label, phase 4 real-world study of a radioactive diagnostic agent called piflufolastat F 18 (Pylarify) that targets prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–positive lesions. Piflufolastat is designed to enhance detection of metastases during PSMA-targeted PET.

Participants will receive a single injection of piflufolastat followed 1-2 hours later by a single whole-body PET-CT or PET-MRI scan. A study site at the Hoag Cancer Center in Irvine, California, welcomed the first of the trial’s 274 participants in February 2024. Sites in Tower Urology, Los Angeles, and the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, are gearing up. Detection rate is the primary endpoint. Overall survival and QoL are not measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov

Stages I-IV prostate cancer without bone metastases. People 60 years or older with this type of prostate cancer who are just starting androgen deprivation therapy are eligible for a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial investigating whether high-dose vitamin D can prevent or reduce androgen-deprivation therapy-induced bone loss.

For 1 year, participants will take tablets of high-dose vitamin D or a placebo and then undergo dual x-ray absorptiometry. The Ochsner Medical Center in Jefferson, Louisiana, started recruiting 366 trial participants in December 2023. Reduction in bone mineral density loss in the hip and spine over 1 year is the primary objective. QoL is a secondary objective, and overall survival will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov

Dr. Garnick expressed some concerns with the trial design so far, including that “the dose of vitamin D is not delineated nor is the target vitamin D level.”

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov). Dr. Garnick did not report conflicts with any of the trials.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Several new clinical trials in prostate cancer have started recruiting in recent months. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from enrolling?

Metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer 

Adults with this diagnosis may be interested in a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study examining whether an experimental poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor called saruparib can further delay disease progression when added to a next-generation hormonal agent such as abiraterone (Zytiga), darolutamide (Nubeqa), or enzalutamide (Xtandi).

One group of participants will take daily oral doses of saruparib plus physician’s choice of a next-generation hormonal agent until disease progression or another reason for stopping therapy. The other group will add a placebo to a next-generation hormonal agent.

Sites in Rhode Island, Arkansas, California, Michigan, Australia, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and South Korea began seeking the trial’s 1800 participants in November 2023. Research centers in 31 other US states and 18 other countries are gearing up. The primary endpoint is radiographic progression-free survival. Overall survival and quality of life (QoL) are secondary endpoints. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

This news organization asked Marc Garnick, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, for his take on the trial. “The study is interesting since it is adding to the evaluations of continued intensification for first-line therapy and will help further elucidate the role of PARP inhibition regardless of homologous repair status,” Dr. Garnick said. “Plus, saruparib is supposedly more selective on PARP1, which in-and-of-itself is of potential benefit.”

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

People with this type of cancer who have progressed on a next-generation hormonal agent may be eligible for a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial testing an investigational oral treatment called MK-5684 to see if it increases survival more effectively than switching to an alternative next-generation hormonal agent.

MK-5684 is designed to inhibit the CYP11A1 enzyme, thereby disrupting the androgen-receptor signaling pathway.

One group will take twice-daily tablets of MK-5684 plus hormone replacement therapy, oral dexamethasone, and oral fludrocortisone acetate (Florinef), with rescue hydrocortisone as needed. The other participants will take daily tablets of a next-generation hormonal agent: Either enzalutamide or abiraterone. Patients assigned to abiraterone will also be given prednisone tablets.

US-based sites in nine states and Puerto Rico started looking for the trial’s 1500 participants in December 2023 in partnership with study centers in Australia, Israel, South Korea, and Taiwan. The primary endpoints are radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. QoL will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Patients in this situation who have progressed on taxane-based chemotherapy as well as a next-generation hormonal agent have the option to enroll in another phase 3 MK-5684 study.

Like the trial described above, all patients will remain on their respective therapy until disease progression. In this trial, one group will take twice-daily tablets of MK-5684 without hormone replacement therapy but the same mix of oral dexamethasone and fludrocortisone. Rescue hydrocortisone will also be available. The second group will be assigned either enzalutamide or abiraterone plus prednisone.

Sites in Puerto Rico, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia, and five other countries outside the United States, opened their doors to the first of 1200 patients in December 2023. The primary endpoints are radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival, analyzed separately for patients with and without an androgen receptor ligand-binding domain mutation. QoL will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

High-risk prostate cancer

People with this diagnosis can join a randomized, open-label, phase 3 National Cancer Institute study to test whether stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is as effective as conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) at preventing metastasis.

SBRT delivers radiation to tumors with higher precision than EBRT. The advantage of SBRT is the ability to deliver fewer doses over a shorter duration with less collateral damage to surrounding tissues.

In the trial, half of participants will undergo five treatments of SBRT over 2 weeks, while the other half will receive 20-45 treatments of EBRT over 4-9 weeks. Study sites in 14 US states began recruiting the trial’s 1209 participants in November 2023. Metastasis-free survival over 15 years is the primary endpoint, overall survival is a secondary endpoint, and QoL measures, apart from fatigue, will not be tracked. More details at clinicaltrials.gov.

Dr. Garnick viewed this study as “problematic because patient accrual ends in 2036 with a readout in 2041.” He added, “What its relevance will be at that time is unlikely to provide practice changes, since in that interval there will undoubtedly be multiple advances in place.”

Newly diagnosed favorable intermediate risk prostate cancer

People with this type of cancer are eligible for an open-label, phase 4 real-world study of a radioactive diagnostic agent called piflufolastat F 18 (Pylarify) that targets prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–positive lesions. Piflufolastat is designed to enhance detection of metastases during PSMA-targeted PET.

Participants will receive a single injection of piflufolastat followed 1-2 hours later by a single whole-body PET-CT or PET-MRI scan. A study site at the Hoag Cancer Center in Irvine, California, welcomed the first of the trial’s 274 participants in February 2024. Sites in Tower Urology, Los Angeles, and the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, are gearing up. Detection rate is the primary endpoint. Overall survival and QoL are not measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov

Stages I-IV prostate cancer without bone metastases. People 60 years or older with this type of prostate cancer who are just starting androgen deprivation therapy are eligible for a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial investigating whether high-dose vitamin D can prevent or reduce androgen-deprivation therapy-induced bone loss.

For 1 year, participants will take tablets of high-dose vitamin D or a placebo and then undergo dual x-ray absorptiometry. The Ochsner Medical Center in Jefferson, Louisiana, started recruiting 366 trial participants in December 2023. Reduction in bone mineral density loss in the hip and spine over 1 year is the primary objective. QoL is a secondary objective, and overall survival will not be measured. More details at clinicaltrials.gov

Dr. Garnick expressed some concerns with the trial design so far, including that “the dose of vitamin D is not delineated nor is the target vitamin D level.”

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov). Dr. Garnick did not report conflicts with any of the trials.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

There are several new therapies on the horizon for polycythemia vera. What is the potential impact of these treatments coming to market?

Dr. Richard: There are a number of emerging therapies for polycythemia vera (PV), such as PTG-300, idasanutlin, and givinostat. PTG-300, or rusfertide, is a hepcidin mimetic that works by regulating iron metabolism and potentially controlling erythropoiesis, limiting the need for phlebotomy. Idasanutlin, a selective MDM2 inhibitor, targets p53 activity. Even though this drug is early in its development, everyone who treats patients with cancer has been hoping for a drug that works through p53. If it is effective here, who knows where else it could be effective across various other conditions.

Givinostat is well along the development pathway in advanced trials. This drug shows promise in modulating gene expression and reducing the inflammation and fibrosis associated with PV, potentially improving patient outcomes and quality of life. Everyone is hopeful that givinostat could show some effect on disease control and potentially an effect on the myeloproliferative clone. However, rigorous clinical trials and further research are necessary to validate their efficacy, safety profiles, and long-term impacts on patients with PV.

Now, with the approval of peginterferon, the next step is going to be to see how effective it will be and what the adverse events might be. I think we will be getting more data as it starts to be used more. My prediction is that there will be a slow uptake, largely because many older physicians such as myself remember the significant side effects from interferon in the past. Despite being an FDA-approved treatment, it remains an emerging therapy, particularly in the United States. Its adoption and efficacy will become clearer as time progresses.

Another promising drug early in its development is bomedemstat, which functions through a different mechanism as a deacetylase. While the potential effect of histone deacetylase drugs on patient treatment outcomes remains uncertain this year, there might be significant data—either positive or negative—that accelerate the progress of these drugs in their developmental trajectory.

We know that ruxolitinib can be used effectively for patients once they fail hydroxyurea. And now there has been the development of other JAK2 inhibitors that are approved for myelofibrosis. I am not quite sure how they can be evaluated in PV, since we are talking about relatively small numbers of patients, but they do seem to have some slight differences that may be significant and could be used in this space.

Those are the main therapies that I will have my eye on this year.

What is the potential significance of an accelerated dosing schedule for BESREMi (ropeginterferon-alfa-2b-njft), which is being investigated in the ECLIPSE PV phase 3b clinical trial?

Dr. Richard: The potential significance of an accelerated dosing schedule for BESREMi, as investigated in the ECLIPSE PV phase 3b clinical trial, lies in its capacity to enhance treatment efficacy and outcomes for patients with PV. I am incredibly pleased that it is being done as a trial, partly because a lot of people assume that once a phase 3 study is complete and a drug receives FDA approval, everything is finished and done, and we will move on to the next thing. I really appreciate it when phase 3b or 4 studies are performed, and the data get collected and published.

This study is going to follow a group of patients closely for adverse events and for the JAK2 signal. By administering BESREMi at an accelerated pace, researchers can evaluate its ability to better control hematocrit levels and symptoms associated with PV. In addition, an accelerated dosing schedule could potentially offer patients more efficient symptom management and disease control, leading to improved quality of life and reduced complications associated with PV. I believe that findings from this trial could thus pave the way for optimized treatment strategies and better outcomes for individuals living with PV.

What should future trials focus on to help improve prognosis and survival for patients with PV?

Dr. Richard: We are starting to move increasingly into finding better therapies for patients with PV, and I’ll add in essential thrombocytosis, which are based on informed prognostication. I would love to see studies that just pull out the patients at the highest risk, where the survival is down around 5 years—those are small numbers of patients. To conduct a study like that is exceedingly difficult to do. We are seeing increased consortiums of myeloproliferative neoplasm physicians. Europe has always been particularly good at this. The United States is getting better at it, so it is possible that a trial like that could be pulled together, where centers put in 1 or 2 patients at a time.

Future trials aimed at improving prognosis and survival for PV should prioritize several critical areas. First, there is a need for comprehensive studies to better understand the molecular mechanisms underlying PV pathogenesis, including the JAK2 mutation and its downstream effects. Exploring new therapeutic implications and improve long-term outcomes. Additionally, identifying reliable biomarkers for disease progression and treatment response can facilitate early intervention and personalized treatment approaches. Finally, trials should focus on assessing the impact of treatment on quality of life and addressing the unique needs of patients with PV to optimize overall prognosis and survival.

I have always held hope that the Veterans Administration could serve as a platform for conducting some of these studies, given that we possess the largest healthcare system in the country. Whether we participate in larger studies or conduct our research internally, this is something I have long envisioned.

There are several new therapies on the horizon for polycythemia vera. What is the potential impact of these treatments coming to market?

Dr. Richard: There are a number of emerging therapies for polycythemia vera (PV), such as PTG-300, idasanutlin, and givinostat. PTG-300, or rusfertide, is a hepcidin mimetic that works by regulating iron metabolism and potentially controlling erythropoiesis, limiting the need for phlebotomy. Idasanutlin, a selective MDM2 inhibitor, targets p53 activity. Even though this drug is early in its development, everyone who treats patients with cancer has been hoping for a drug that works through p53. If it is effective here, who knows where else it could be effective across various other conditions.

Givinostat is well along the development pathway in advanced trials. This drug shows promise in modulating gene expression and reducing the inflammation and fibrosis associated with PV, potentially improving patient outcomes and quality of life. Everyone is hopeful that givinostat could show some effect on disease control and potentially an effect on the myeloproliferative clone. However, rigorous clinical trials and further research are necessary to validate their efficacy, safety profiles, and long-term impacts on patients with PV.

Now, with the approval of peginterferon, the next step is going to be to see how effective it will be and what the adverse events might be. I think we will be getting more data as it starts to be used more. My prediction is that there will be a slow uptake, largely because many older physicians such as myself remember the significant side effects from interferon in the past. Despite being an FDA-approved treatment, it remains an emerging therapy, particularly in the United States. Its adoption and efficacy will become clearer as time progresses.

Another promising drug early in its development is bomedemstat, which functions through a different mechanism as a deacetylase. While the potential effect of histone deacetylase drugs on patient treatment outcomes remains uncertain this year, there might be significant data—either positive or negative—that accelerate the progress of these drugs in their developmental trajectory.

We know that ruxolitinib can be used effectively for patients once they fail hydroxyurea. And now there has been the development of other JAK2 inhibitors that are approved for myelofibrosis. I am not quite sure how they can be evaluated in PV, since we are talking about relatively small numbers of patients, but they do seem to have some slight differences that may be significant and could be used in this space.

Those are the main therapies that I will have my eye on this year.

What is the potential significance of an accelerated dosing schedule for BESREMi (ropeginterferon-alfa-2b-njft), which is being investigated in the ECLIPSE PV phase 3b clinical trial?

Dr. Richard: The potential significance of an accelerated dosing schedule for BESREMi, as investigated in the ECLIPSE PV phase 3b clinical trial, lies in its capacity to enhance treatment efficacy and outcomes for patients with PV. I am incredibly pleased that it is being done as a trial, partly because a lot of people assume that once a phase 3 study is complete and a drug receives FDA approval, everything is finished and done, and we will move on to the next thing. I really appreciate it when phase 3b or 4 studies are performed, and the data get collected and published.

This study is going to follow a group of patients closely for adverse events and for the JAK2 signal. By administering BESREMi at an accelerated pace, researchers can evaluate its ability to better control hematocrit levels and symptoms associated with PV. In addition, an accelerated dosing schedule could potentially offer patients more efficient symptom management and disease control, leading to improved quality of life and reduced complications associated with PV. I believe that findings from this trial could thus pave the way for optimized treatment strategies and better outcomes for individuals living with PV.

What should future trials focus on to help improve prognosis and survival for patients with PV?

Dr. Richard: We are starting to move increasingly into finding better therapies for patients with PV, and I’ll add in essential thrombocytosis, which are based on informed prognostication. I would love to see studies that just pull out the patients at the highest risk, where the survival is down around 5 years—those are small numbers of patients. To conduct a study like that is exceedingly difficult to do. We are seeing increased consortiums of myeloproliferative neoplasm physicians. Europe has always been particularly good at this. The United States is getting better at it, so it is possible that a trial like that could be pulled together, where centers put in 1 or 2 patients at a time.

Future trials aimed at improving prognosis and survival for PV should prioritize several critical areas. First, there is a need for comprehensive studies to better understand the molecular mechanisms underlying PV pathogenesis, including the JAK2 mutation and its downstream effects. Exploring new therapeutic implications and improve long-term outcomes. Additionally, identifying reliable biomarkers for disease progression and treatment response can facilitate early intervention and personalized treatment approaches. Finally, trials should focus on assessing the impact of treatment on quality of life and addressing the unique needs of patients with PV to optimize overall prognosis and survival.

I have always held hope that the Veterans Administration could serve as a platform for conducting some of these studies, given that we possess the largest healthcare system in the country. Whether we participate in larger studies or conduct our research internally, this is something I have long envisioned.

There are several new therapies on the horizon for polycythemia vera. What is the potential impact of these treatments coming to market?

Dr. Richard: There are a number of emerging therapies for polycythemia vera (PV), such as PTG-300, idasanutlin, and givinostat. PTG-300, or rusfertide, is a hepcidin mimetic that works by regulating iron metabolism and potentially controlling erythropoiesis, limiting the need for phlebotomy. Idasanutlin, a selective MDM2 inhibitor, targets p53 activity. Even though this drug is early in its development, everyone who treats patients with cancer has been hoping for a drug that works through p53. If it is effective here, who knows where else it could be effective across various other conditions.

Givinostat is well along the development pathway in advanced trials. This drug shows promise in modulating gene expression and reducing the inflammation and fibrosis associated with PV, potentially improving patient outcomes and quality of life. Everyone is hopeful that givinostat could show some effect on disease control and potentially an effect on the myeloproliferative clone. However, rigorous clinical trials and further research are necessary to validate their efficacy, safety profiles, and long-term impacts on patients with PV.

Now, with the approval of peginterferon, the next step is going to be to see how effective it will be and what the adverse events might be. I think we will be getting more data as it starts to be used more. My prediction is that there will be a slow uptake, largely because many older physicians such as myself remember the significant side effects from interferon in the past. Despite being an FDA-approved treatment, it remains an emerging therapy, particularly in the United States. Its adoption and efficacy will become clearer as time progresses.

Another promising drug early in its development is bomedemstat, which functions through a different mechanism as a deacetylase. While the potential effect of histone deacetylase drugs on patient treatment outcomes remains uncertain this year, there might be significant data—either positive or negative—that accelerate the progress of these drugs in their developmental trajectory.

We know that ruxolitinib can be used effectively for patients once they fail hydroxyurea. And now there has been the development of other JAK2 inhibitors that are approved for myelofibrosis. I am not quite sure how they can be evaluated in PV, since we are talking about relatively small numbers of patients, but they do seem to have some slight differences that may be significant and could be used in this space.

Those are the main therapies that I will have my eye on this year.

What is the potential significance of an accelerated dosing schedule for BESREMi (ropeginterferon-alfa-2b-njft), which is being investigated in the ECLIPSE PV phase 3b clinical trial?

Dr. Richard: The potential significance of an accelerated dosing schedule for BESREMi, as investigated in the ECLIPSE PV phase 3b clinical trial, lies in its capacity to enhance treatment efficacy and outcomes for patients with PV. I am incredibly pleased that it is being done as a trial, partly because a lot of people assume that once a phase 3 study is complete and a drug receives FDA approval, everything is finished and done, and we will move on to the next thing. I really appreciate it when phase 3b or 4 studies are performed, and the data get collected and published.

This study is going to follow a group of patients closely for adverse events and for the JAK2 signal. By administering BESREMi at an accelerated pace, researchers can evaluate its ability to better control hematocrit levels and symptoms associated with PV. In addition, an accelerated dosing schedule could potentially offer patients more efficient symptom management and disease control, leading to improved quality of life and reduced complications associated with PV. I believe that findings from this trial could thus pave the way for optimized treatment strategies and better outcomes for individuals living with PV.

What should future trials focus on to help improve prognosis and survival for patients with PV?

Dr. Richard: We are starting to move increasingly into finding better therapies for patients with PV, and I’ll add in essential thrombocytosis, which are based on informed prognostication. I would love to see studies that just pull out the patients at the highest risk, where the survival is down around 5 years—those are small numbers of patients. To conduct a study like that is exceedingly difficult to do. We are seeing increased consortiums of myeloproliferative neoplasm physicians. Europe has always been particularly good at this. The United States is getting better at it, so it is possible that a trial like that could be pulled together, where centers put in 1 or 2 patients at a time.

Future trials aimed at improving prognosis and survival for PV should prioritize several critical areas. First, there is a need for comprehensive studies to better understand the molecular mechanisms underlying PV pathogenesis, including the JAK2 mutation and its downstream effects. Exploring new therapeutic implications and improve long-term outcomes. Additionally, identifying reliable biomarkers for disease progression and treatment response can facilitate early intervention and personalized treatment approaches. Finally, trials should focus on assessing the impact of treatment on quality of life and addressing the unique needs of patients with PV to optimize overall prognosis and survival.

I have always held hope that the Veterans Administration could serve as a platform for conducting some of these studies, given that we possess the largest healthcare system in the country. Whether we participate in larger studies or conduct our research internally, this is something I have long envisioned.

A San Antonio oncology practice and diagnostic reference laboratory have agreed to settle a federal lawsuit, which alleged the two entities had entered an unlawful kickback arrangement.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on April 2 that Oncology San Antonio, PA, and its physicians have agreed to pay $1.3 million, and CorePath Laboratories, PA, has agreed to pay nearly $2.75 million plus accrued interest in civil settlements with the United States and Texas for alleged violations of the False Claims Act.

According to the DOJ, the diagnostic reference laboratory, CorePath Laboratories, conducted in-office bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio practice locations and performed diagnostic testing on the samples. CorePath Laboratories agreed to pay $115 for each biopsy referred by Oncology San Antonio physicians, and these biopsy payments were allegedly paid to the private practices of three physicians at Oncology San Antonio. This arrangement allegedly began in August 2016.

The DOJ claimed that the payments for referring biopsies constituted illegal kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits offering or receiving payments to encourage referrals of services covered by federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

“Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute involving oncology services can waste scarce federal healthcare program funds and corrupt the medical decision-making process,” Special Agent in Charge Jason E. Meadows with the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General said in a statement.

Oncology San Antonio told this news organization that the cost and distraction of prolonged litigation were the primary factors in its decision to settle. “The decision to settle was an extremely difficult one because Oncology San Antonio was confident that it would have prevailed in any action,” the practice said via email.

This civil settlement with Oncology San Antonio also resolved allegations that a physician affiliated with the practice, Jayasree Rao, MD, provided unnecessary tests, services, and treatments to patients covered by Medicare, TRICARE, and Texas Medicaid in the San Antonio Metro Area and billed these federal healthcare programs for the unnecessary services.

The DOJ identified Slavisa Gasic, MD, a physician formerly employed by Dr. Rao, as a whistleblower in the investigation. When asked for comment, Oncology San Antonio alleged Dr. Gasic was “disgruntled for not being promoted.”

According to Oncology San Antonio, the contract for bone marrow biopsies was negotiated and signed by a former nonphysician officer of the company without the input of Oncology San Antonio physicians. The contract permitted bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio clinics instead of requiring older adult and sick patients to go to a different facility for these services.

“Oncology San Antonio and Rao vehemently denied Gasic’s allegations as wholly unfounded,” the company told this news organization.

Dr. Rao retired in March and is no longer practicing. CorePath Laboratories, PA, did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.

According to the DOJ press release, the “investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A San Antonio oncology practice and diagnostic reference laboratory have agreed to settle a federal lawsuit, which alleged the two entities had entered an unlawful kickback arrangement.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on April 2 that Oncology San Antonio, PA, and its physicians have agreed to pay $1.3 million, and CorePath Laboratories, PA, has agreed to pay nearly $2.75 million plus accrued interest in civil settlements with the United States and Texas for alleged violations of the False Claims Act.

According to the DOJ, the diagnostic reference laboratory, CorePath Laboratories, conducted in-office bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio practice locations and performed diagnostic testing on the samples. CorePath Laboratories agreed to pay $115 for each biopsy referred by Oncology San Antonio physicians, and these biopsy payments were allegedly paid to the private practices of three physicians at Oncology San Antonio. This arrangement allegedly began in August 2016.

The DOJ claimed that the payments for referring biopsies constituted illegal kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits offering or receiving payments to encourage referrals of services covered by federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

“Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute involving oncology services can waste scarce federal healthcare program funds and corrupt the medical decision-making process,” Special Agent in Charge Jason E. Meadows with the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General said in a statement.

Oncology San Antonio told this news organization that the cost and distraction of prolonged litigation were the primary factors in its decision to settle. “The decision to settle was an extremely difficult one because Oncology San Antonio was confident that it would have prevailed in any action,” the practice said via email.

This civil settlement with Oncology San Antonio also resolved allegations that a physician affiliated with the practice, Jayasree Rao, MD, provided unnecessary tests, services, and treatments to patients covered by Medicare, TRICARE, and Texas Medicaid in the San Antonio Metro Area and billed these federal healthcare programs for the unnecessary services.

The DOJ identified Slavisa Gasic, MD, a physician formerly employed by Dr. Rao, as a whistleblower in the investigation. When asked for comment, Oncology San Antonio alleged Dr. Gasic was “disgruntled for not being promoted.”

According to Oncology San Antonio, the contract for bone marrow biopsies was negotiated and signed by a former nonphysician officer of the company without the input of Oncology San Antonio physicians. The contract permitted bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio clinics instead of requiring older adult and sick patients to go to a different facility for these services.

“Oncology San Antonio and Rao vehemently denied Gasic’s allegations as wholly unfounded,” the company told this news organization.

Dr. Rao retired in March and is no longer practicing. CorePath Laboratories, PA, did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.

According to the DOJ press release, the “investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A San Antonio oncology practice and diagnostic reference laboratory have agreed to settle a federal lawsuit, which alleged the two entities had entered an unlawful kickback arrangement.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on April 2 that Oncology San Antonio, PA, and its physicians have agreed to pay $1.3 million, and CorePath Laboratories, PA, has agreed to pay nearly $2.75 million plus accrued interest in civil settlements with the United States and Texas for alleged violations of the False Claims Act.

According to the DOJ, the diagnostic reference laboratory, CorePath Laboratories, conducted in-office bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio practice locations and performed diagnostic testing on the samples. CorePath Laboratories agreed to pay $115 for each biopsy referred by Oncology San Antonio physicians, and these biopsy payments were allegedly paid to the private practices of three physicians at Oncology San Antonio. This arrangement allegedly began in August 2016.

The DOJ claimed that the payments for referring biopsies constituted illegal kickbacks under the Anti-Kickback Statute, which prohibits offering or receiving payments to encourage referrals of services covered by federal healthcare programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

“Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute involving oncology services can waste scarce federal healthcare program funds and corrupt the medical decision-making process,” Special Agent in Charge Jason E. Meadows with the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General said in a statement.

Oncology San Antonio told this news organization that the cost and distraction of prolonged litigation were the primary factors in its decision to settle. “The decision to settle was an extremely difficult one because Oncology San Antonio was confident that it would have prevailed in any action,” the practice said via email.

This civil settlement with Oncology San Antonio also resolved allegations that a physician affiliated with the practice, Jayasree Rao, MD, provided unnecessary tests, services, and treatments to patients covered by Medicare, TRICARE, and Texas Medicaid in the San Antonio Metro Area and billed these federal healthcare programs for the unnecessary services.

The DOJ identified Slavisa Gasic, MD, a physician formerly employed by Dr. Rao, as a whistleblower in the investigation. When asked for comment, Oncology San Antonio alleged Dr. Gasic was “disgruntled for not being promoted.”

According to Oncology San Antonio, the contract for bone marrow biopsies was negotiated and signed by a former nonphysician officer of the company without the input of Oncology San Antonio physicians. The contract permitted bone marrow biopsies at Oncology San Antonio clinics instead of requiring older adult and sick patients to go to a different facility for these services.

“Oncology San Antonio and Rao vehemently denied Gasic’s allegations as wholly unfounded,” the company told this news organization.

Dr. Rao retired in March and is no longer practicing. CorePath Laboratories, PA, did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.

According to the DOJ press release, the “investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Immersive virtual reality (VR) distraction therapy may be more effective at controlling pain in hospitalized patients with cancer than a two-dimensional guided imagery experience, suggests a new randomized controlled trial.

While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.

MedStar Health

“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
 

Study Methods and Results

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.

“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”

The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.

“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.

Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.

“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
 

Downsides to Using VR

Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.

Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
 

Future VR Research

“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”

This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Immersive virtual reality (VR) distraction therapy may be more effective at controlling pain in hospitalized patients with cancer than a two-dimensional guided imagery experience, suggests a new randomized controlled trial.

While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.

MedStar Health

“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
 

Study Methods and Results

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.

“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”

The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.

“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.

Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.

“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
 

Downsides to Using VR

Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.

Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
 

Future VR Research

“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”

This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Immersive virtual reality (VR) distraction therapy may be more effective at controlling pain in hospitalized patients with cancer than a two-dimensional guided imagery experience, suggests a new randomized controlled trial.

While both interventions brought some pain relief, VR therapy yielded greater, longer-lasting comfort, reported lead author Hunter Groninger, MD, of MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland, and colleagues.

MedStar Health

“Investigators have explored immersive VR interventions in cancer populations for a variety of indications including anxiety, depression, fatigue, and procedure‐associated pain, particularly among patients with pediatric cancer and adult breast cancer,” the investigators wrote in Cancer. “Nevertheless, despite growing evidence supporting the efficacy of VR‐delivered interventions for analgesia, few data address its role to mitigate cancer‐related pain specifically.”

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Groninger and colleagues enrolled 128 adult hospitalized patients with cancer of any kind, all of whom had moderate to severe pain (self-reported score at least 4 out of 10) within the past 24 hours.
 

Study Methods and Results

Patients were randomized to receive either 10 minutes of immersive VR distraction therapy or 10 minutes of two-dimensional guided imagery distraction therapy.

“[The VR therapy] provides noncompetitive experiences in which the user can move around and explore natural environments (e.g., beachscape, forest) from standing, seated, or fixed positions, including within a hospital bed or chair,” the investigators wrote. “We provided over‐the‐ear headphones to assure high sound quality for the experience in the virtual natural environment.”

The two-dimensional intervention, delivered via electronic tablet, featured a meditation with images of natural landscapes and instrumental background music.

“We chose this active control because it is readily available and reflects content similar to relaxation‐focused television channels that are increasingly common in hospital settings,” the investigators noted.

Compared with this more common approach, patients who received VR therapy had significantly greater immediate reduction in pain (mean change in pain score, –1.4 vs –0.7; P = .03). Twenty-four hours later, improvements in the VR group generally persisted, while pain level in the two-dimensional group returned almost to baseline (P = .004). In addition, patients in the VR group reported significantly greater improvements in general distress and pain bothersomeness.

“VR therapies may modulate the pain experience by reducing the level of attention paid to noxious stimuli, thereby suppressing transmission of painful sensations via pain processing pathways to the cerebral cortex, particularly with more active VR experiences compared to passive experiences,” the investigators wrote.
 

Downsides to Using VR

Although VR brought more benefit, participants in the VR group more often reported difficulty using the intervention compared with those who interacted with an electronic tablet.

Plus, one VR user described mild dizziness that resolved with pharmacologic intervention. Still, approximately 9 out of 10 participants in each group reported willingness to try the intervention again.
 

Future VR Research

“Virtual reality is a rapidly evolving technology with a wealth of potential patient‐facing applications,” the investigators wrote. “Future studies should explore repeated use, optimal dosing, and impact on VR therapy on opioid analgesic requirements as well as usability testing, VR content preferences and facilitators of analgesia, and barriers and facilitators to use in acute care settings.”

This study was supported by the American Cancer Society. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

An “inevitable” global surge in prostate cancer is coming, with a worldwide doubling of cases to 2.9 million and an 85% increase in deaths to nearly 700,000 by the year 2040, the Lancet Commission on Prostate Cancer warned this week.

At a meeting of urologists in Paris, the commission said that the acceleration is already underway in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom but will gain momentum in low- and medium-income countries.

Nick James, MD, lead author of The Lancet report and professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, said that the surge, in part, is a medical success story.

“Prostate cancer paradoxically is a problem baked into the biology. Men get prostate cancer as they age,” Dr. James told this news organization. 

“There is a big rise in the high-income countries. But we’re going to see a big rise in the number of 50-, 60-, 70-year-olds in the coming decades in the poorer countries, and with that comes more prostate cancer. High-income countries such as the UK and USA will also see smaller increases for the same reason.”

According to the report, to be presented April 6 at the 2024 European Association of Urology Congress in Paris, “The case for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 50-70 years (and all men of African origin aged 45–70 years) in high-income countries is strengthening with improved use of technologies such as MRI and growing evidence for the safety of active surveillance.”

Andrew Vickers, PhD, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said that the Lancet Commission came to similar conclusions as he and an international group of researchers did in a 2023 policy paper in The BMJ. A major gap, Dr. Vickers said, is misuse of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. 

“We found that the ubiquitous policy compromise of letting patients decide for themselves about PSA has led to the worst possible outcomes of overuse in men unlikely to benefit, high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and economic and racial inequity,” Dr. Vickers said. “Our view is that PSA screening should be done well — by implementing straightforward harm-reduction strategies like restricting screening in older men and use of secondary tests before biopsy — or not at all.”

Dr. James said that undertreatment of advanced disease is widespread; only about 30%-40% of men in the United States receive combination hormone therapy for metastatic disease, for example. “Simply doing what we know works would improve outcomes,” he said.

Dr. James said that men of African ancestry are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer, but whether treatment should follow a different approach in these men is unclear. The new report stressed the need to include more men of African ancestry in research.

Brandon Mahal, MD, vice chair of research in radiation oncology the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and a coauthor of the report, said that new approaches are needed to enable earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in men in low- to middle-income countries, where most patients present with metastatic disease and are less likely to survive for long periods.

Dr. James recommended pop-up clinics and mobile testing to encourage men who are at high risk for prostate cancer but feel well to detect lethal cancers early.

In England, for example, Dr. James helped introduce an outreach program called The Man Van which provided free health checks, including PSA tests, to high-risk men in London. 

“By bringing a van with quick and easy testing straight to men at work and in the community, and targeting those who have a higher risk of prostate cancer, we provided thousands of health checks which resulted in almost 100 cancer diagnoses in men who might otherwise have only seen a doctor once their cancer has progressed to a more advanced stage,” he said.

He noted that the medical community worldwide is ill-prepared for the onslaught of prostate cancer cases.

“The solution cannot be training more urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists because it simply takes too long,” Dr. James said. However, increased use of nurses and artificial intelligence may help. “In my own hospital, biopsies are a nurse-led and -delivered service. AI is extraordinarily good at diagnosis already and will only get better,” he said.

In poorer countries, smartphones could fill gaps too. “The same technology that does face recognition already can say that’s a Gleason 7 prostate cancer,” Dr. James said. “It’s not being rolled out in countries like America of course because pathologists’ income is at risk.”

Dr. James, Dr. Vickers, and Dr. Mahal reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An “inevitable” global surge in prostate cancer is coming, with a worldwide doubling of cases to 2.9 million and an 85% increase in deaths to nearly 700,000 by the year 2040, the Lancet Commission on Prostate Cancer warned this week.

At a meeting of urologists in Paris, the commission said that the acceleration is already underway in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom but will gain momentum in low- and medium-income countries.

Nick James, MD, lead author of The Lancet report and professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, said that the surge, in part, is a medical success story.

“Prostate cancer paradoxically is a problem baked into the biology. Men get prostate cancer as they age,” Dr. James told this news organization. 

“There is a big rise in the high-income countries. But we’re going to see a big rise in the number of 50-, 60-, 70-year-olds in the coming decades in the poorer countries, and with that comes more prostate cancer. High-income countries such as the UK and USA will also see smaller increases for the same reason.”

According to the report, to be presented April 6 at the 2024 European Association of Urology Congress in Paris, “The case for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 50-70 years (and all men of African origin aged 45–70 years) in high-income countries is strengthening with improved use of technologies such as MRI and growing evidence for the safety of active surveillance.”

Andrew Vickers, PhD, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said that the Lancet Commission came to similar conclusions as he and an international group of researchers did in a 2023 policy paper in The BMJ. A major gap, Dr. Vickers said, is misuse of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. 

“We found that the ubiquitous policy compromise of letting patients decide for themselves about PSA has led to the worst possible outcomes of overuse in men unlikely to benefit, high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and economic and racial inequity,” Dr. Vickers said. “Our view is that PSA screening should be done well — by implementing straightforward harm-reduction strategies like restricting screening in older men and use of secondary tests before biopsy — or not at all.”

Dr. James said that undertreatment of advanced disease is widespread; only about 30%-40% of men in the United States receive combination hormone therapy for metastatic disease, for example. “Simply doing what we know works would improve outcomes,” he said.

Dr. James said that men of African ancestry are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer, but whether treatment should follow a different approach in these men is unclear. The new report stressed the need to include more men of African ancestry in research.

Brandon Mahal, MD, vice chair of research in radiation oncology the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and a coauthor of the report, said that new approaches are needed to enable earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in men in low- to middle-income countries, where most patients present with metastatic disease and are less likely to survive for long periods.

Dr. James recommended pop-up clinics and mobile testing to encourage men who are at high risk for prostate cancer but feel well to detect lethal cancers early.

In England, for example, Dr. James helped introduce an outreach program called The Man Van which provided free health checks, including PSA tests, to high-risk men in London. 

“By bringing a van with quick and easy testing straight to men at work and in the community, and targeting those who have a higher risk of prostate cancer, we provided thousands of health checks which resulted in almost 100 cancer diagnoses in men who might otherwise have only seen a doctor once their cancer has progressed to a more advanced stage,” he said.

He noted that the medical community worldwide is ill-prepared for the onslaught of prostate cancer cases.

“The solution cannot be training more urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists because it simply takes too long,” Dr. James said. However, increased use of nurses and artificial intelligence may help. “In my own hospital, biopsies are a nurse-led and -delivered service. AI is extraordinarily good at diagnosis already and will only get better,” he said.

In poorer countries, smartphones could fill gaps too. “The same technology that does face recognition already can say that’s a Gleason 7 prostate cancer,” Dr. James said. “It’s not being rolled out in countries like America of course because pathologists’ income is at risk.”

Dr. James, Dr. Vickers, and Dr. Mahal reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An “inevitable” global surge in prostate cancer is coming, with a worldwide doubling of cases to 2.9 million and an 85% increase in deaths to nearly 700,000 by the year 2040, the Lancet Commission on Prostate Cancer warned this week.

At a meeting of urologists in Paris, the commission said that the acceleration is already underway in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom but will gain momentum in low- and medium-income countries.

Nick James, MD, lead author of The Lancet report and professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, said that the surge, in part, is a medical success story.

“Prostate cancer paradoxically is a problem baked into the biology. Men get prostate cancer as they age,” Dr. James told this news organization. 

“There is a big rise in the high-income countries. But we’re going to see a big rise in the number of 50-, 60-, 70-year-olds in the coming decades in the poorer countries, and with that comes more prostate cancer. High-income countries such as the UK and USA will also see smaller increases for the same reason.”

According to the report, to be presented April 6 at the 2024 European Association of Urology Congress in Paris, “The case for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 50-70 years (and all men of African origin aged 45–70 years) in high-income countries is strengthening with improved use of technologies such as MRI and growing evidence for the safety of active surveillance.”

Andrew Vickers, PhD, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said that the Lancet Commission came to similar conclusions as he and an international group of researchers did in a 2023 policy paper in The BMJ. A major gap, Dr. Vickers said, is misuse of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. 

“We found that the ubiquitous policy compromise of letting patients decide for themselves about PSA has led to the worst possible outcomes of overuse in men unlikely to benefit, high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and economic and racial inequity,” Dr. Vickers said. “Our view is that PSA screening should be done well — by implementing straightforward harm-reduction strategies like restricting screening in older men and use of secondary tests before biopsy — or not at all.”

Dr. James said that undertreatment of advanced disease is widespread; only about 30%-40% of men in the United States receive combination hormone therapy for metastatic disease, for example. “Simply doing what we know works would improve outcomes,” he said.

Dr. James said that men of African ancestry are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer, but whether treatment should follow a different approach in these men is unclear. The new report stressed the need to include more men of African ancestry in research.

Brandon Mahal, MD, vice chair of research in radiation oncology the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and a coauthor of the report, said that new approaches are needed to enable earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in men in low- to middle-income countries, where most patients present with metastatic disease and are less likely to survive for long periods.

Dr. James recommended pop-up clinics and mobile testing to encourage men who are at high risk for prostate cancer but feel well to detect lethal cancers early.

In England, for example, Dr. James helped introduce an outreach program called The Man Van which provided free health checks, including PSA tests, to high-risk men in London. 

“By bringing a van with quick and easy testing straight to men at work and in the community, and targeting those who have a higher risk of prostate cancer, we provided thousands of health checks which resulted in almost 100 cancer diagnoses in men who might otherwise have only seen a doctor once their cancer has progressed to a more advanced stage,” he said.

He noted that the medical community worldwide is ill-prepared for the onslaught of prostate cancer cases.

“The solution cannot be training more urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists because it simply takes too long,” Dr. James said. However, increased use of nurses and artificial intelligence may help. “In my own hospital, biopsies are a nurse-led and -delivered service. AI is extraordinarily good at diagnosis already and will only get better,” he said.

In poorer countries, smartphones could fill gaps too. “The same technology that does face recognition already can say that’s a Gleason 7 prostate cancer,” Dr. James said. “It’s not being rolled out in countries like America of course because pathologists’ income is at risk.”

Dr. James, Dr. Vickers, and Dr. Mahal reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

Healthcare providers hold wide-ranging opinions about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, and many are haunted by the conflicting factors driving their views, from legal concerns to threats of violence, say the authors of new research.

These findings suggest that evidence-based, systematic guidance is needed to steer opioid usage in cancer survivorship, wrote lead author Hailey W. Bulls, PhD, of the University of Pittsburgh, and colleagues.

“Prescription opioids are considered the standard of care to treat moderate to severe cancer pain during active treatment, yet guidance in the posttreatment survivorship phase is much less clear,” the investigators wrote. “Existing clinical resources recognize that opioid prescribing in survivorship is complex and nuanced and that the relative benefits and risks in this population are not fully understood.”
 

Who Should Manage Chronic Cancer Pain?

Despite the knowledge gap, survivors are typically excluded from long-term opioid use studies, leaving providers in a largely data-free zone. Simultaneously, patients who had been receiving focused care during their cancer treatment find themselves with an ill-defined health care team.

“Without a clear transition of care, survivors may seek pain management services from a variety of specialties, including oncologists, palliative care clinicians, primary care clinicians, and pain management specialists,” the investigators wrote. “However, many clinicians may view pain management to be outside of their skill set and may not be well equipped to handle opioid continuation or deprescribing [or] to manage the potential consequences of long‐term opioid use like side effects, misuse, and/or opioid use disorder.”
 

What Factors Guide Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

To learn more about prescribing practices in this setting, Dr. Bulls and colleagues conducted qualitative interviews with 20 providers representing four specialties: oncology (n = 5), palliative care (n = 8), primary care (n = 5), and pain management (n = 2). Eighteen of these participants were physicians and two were advanced practice providers. Average time in clinical practice was about 16 years.

These interviews yielded three themes.

First, no “medical home” exists for chronic pain management in cancer survivors.

“Although clinicians generally agreed that minimizing the role of opioids in chronic pain management in cancer survivors was desirable, they described a lack of common treatment protocols to guide pain management in survivorship,” the investigators wrote.

Second, the interviews revealed that prescribing strategies are partly driven by peer pressure, sometimes leading to tension between providers and feelings of self-doubt.

“I feel like there’s been this weird judgment thing that’s happened [to] the prescribers,” one primary care provider said during the interview. “Because, when I trained … pain was a vital sign, and we were supposed to treat pain, and now I feel like we’re all being judged for that.”

The third theme revolved around fear of consequences resulting from prescribing practices, including fears of violent repercussions.

“You may not know, but pain specialists have been shot in this country for [refusing to prescribe opioids],” one pain management specialist said during the interview. “There’s been a number of shootings of pain specialists who would not prescribe opioids. So, I mean, there’s real issues of violence.”

Meanwhile, a palliative care provider described legal pressure from the opposite direction:

“I think there’s a lot of fear of litigiousness … and loss of licenses. That sort of makes them pressure us into not prescribing opioids or sticking with a certain number per day that might not be therapeutic for a patient.”

Reflecting on these themes, the investigators identified “a fundamental uncertainty in survivorship pain management.”
 

What Strategies Might Improve Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Cancer Pain?

After sharing their attitudes about prescribing opioids for chronic cancer pain, the clinicians were asked for suggestions to improve the situation.

They offered four main suggestions: create relevant guidelines, increase education and access to pain management options for clinicians, increase interdisciplinary communication across medical subspecialties, and promote multidisciplinary care in the survivorship setting.

Dr. Bulls and colleagues supported these strategies in their concluding remarks and called for more research.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute. The investigators disclosed relationships with Arcadia Health Solutions and Biomotivate.

Exposure to pesticides is associated with an increased risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, according to two French studies presented at the Francophone Days of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Digestive Oncology. One of them, a case-control study, showed an elevated risk in individuals whose adipose tissue contained substances that are now banned.

“The association between pesticides and pancreatic cancer exists. It is of low magnitude but robust, concerning cumulative pesticides and three substances: Mancozeb, glyphosate, and sulfur in spray form,” said Mathias Brugel, MD, hospital practitioner at Basque Coast Hospital Center in Bayonne, France, during his presentation.

Regarding the four other liposoluble substances associated with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer in the second study, “their use has been banned since the 1990s, but they are still present in soils and in the air,” Dr. Brugel told this news organization.

For example, in Reims, France, the assessment of air quality by ATMO Grand Est revealed the presence of banned pesticides in the air, he added. However, Dr. Brugel stressed that a cause-effect relationship between pesticide exposure and the risk for pancreatic cancer cannot be established with these studies.
 

Incidence Rising Constantly

The incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma has been increasing steadily for more than 30 years. In France, nearly 16,000 new cases were reported in 2023, which represented an annual increase of about 2%. According to the National Cancer Institute, “pancreatic adenocarcinoma could become the second leading cause of cancer mortality by 2030.”

“This increase in incidence is particularly strong in France compared with other Western countries. The causes are still poorly understood. One might wonder whether environmental factors like pesticides are involved,” said Dr. Brugel.

Known to have a mechanism of action favoring oncogenesis, pesticides are suspected of being responsible for the rise in certain cancers, especially given their extensive use in France. In total, around 300 substances are authorized, and 65,000 tons are applied each year, making France the largest consumer of pesticides in Europe.

“Contamination is ubiquitous, meaning they are found in soil, water, air, and in individuals,” said Dr. Brugel. According to a study by the Institute for Scientific Expertise Research, pesticide residues were detected in 64% of hair samples taken from French volunteers.

The literature increasingly reported data suggesting a link between pesticide exposure and the development of certain diseases like cancer. A 2021 document by Inserm notably confirmed the strong presumption of a link between occupational pesticide exposure and pathologies such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and prostate cancer.
 

High-Incidence Zones

To explore the link between pesticide exposure and pancreatic cancer, Dr. Brugel and his colleagues conducted the EcoPESTIPAC and PESTIPAC studies, the results of which were presented at this year’s conference.

In EcoPESTIPAC, researchers conducted a national ecological regression by dividing the entire French territory into 5529 spatial units. The number of pancreatic cancer cases per spatial unit per year (disease-mapping) was determined using the National Health Data System.

Nine chemicals, including glyphosate, were included, thus covering half of pesticide purchases in France. The cumulative quantity of pesticides, regardless of molecule, was also examined. Pesticide exposure was estimated by the median ratio between pesticide purchase and agricultural area per spatial unit over an 11-year period from early 2011 to the end of 2021.

Mor than 134,000 cases of pancreatic cancer were reported during this period. The analysis revealed three high-incidence zones located around Paris, in central France, and in the Mediterranean basin, while spatial units in the western region showed the lowest incidences.

The heterogeneous distribution of the disease suggests the involvement of risk factors, said Dr. Brugel. After adjusting for confounding factors such as smoking, the study showed an increased risk for pancreatic cancer associated with the cumulative quantity of pesticides and three specific substances: Sulfur in spray form, mancozeb, and glyphosate.
 

Risk Increases

A dose-response relationship was evident. For an increase in pesticide use of 2.5 kg/hectare over 11 years, the risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma increased from 0.9% to 1.4%. “The increase is relatively small, but one must not forget that this risk applies to all of France,” said Dr. Brugel. Indeed, the risk appeared homogeneous across the entire territory.

This was the first study to explore this link at the national level. Although the association between the four identified factors and pancreatic risk was robust, the study had some limitations. It relied on the quantities of pesticides purchased to estimate the quantities used, Dr. Brugel pointed out.

The second study, PESTIPAC, was a case-control study conducted at the Reims University Hospital to explore the association between pancreatic adenocarcinoma and concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in fat and urine.

The study included 26 patients with pancreatic cancer who had abdominal surgery that allowed for adipose tissue sampling (minimum 10 g). Urine was collected in the morning on an empty stomach.

A control group was formed by including 26 other patients who underwent surgery for a benign abdominal condition such as gallstones or hernia, thus allowing for the same sampling. Individuals in both groups were matched for age and body mass index, two risk factors for pancreatic cancer.
 

Banned Substances

In total, 345 substances were searched for using chromatography and mass spectrometry. Analyses revealed the presence of five banned substances in all patients, while nine substances were found in half of the samples.

“Contamination is very widespread, both in patients with pancreatic cancer and in the controls,” said Dr. Brugel. Consequently, for this study, between-group comparisons of substances present in all individuals could not be performed.

After adjustment, an association with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer was nonetheless observed with four liposoluble substances: 4,4-DDE, mirex or perchlordecone, trans-nonachlor, and cis-nonachlor. All four substances are herbicides that have been banned for at least 30 years.

The study also aimed to assess the effect of pesticide presence in the body on survival after pancreatic cancer. The results showed no significant difference for overall survival or progression-free survival.

“Pesticides are a credible candidate to explain the increase in the incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma,” said Dr. Brugel. However, “if associations between pancreatic cancer and pesticides exist, they remain poorly understood, and it is difficult to establish clear causality.”

Further large-scale studies will be needed to confirm these associations. An evaluation of the general population’s exposure to banned substances also appears justified, according to the researchers.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to pesticides is associated with an increased risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, according to two French studies presented at the Francophone Days of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Digestive Oncology. One of them, a case-control study, showed an elevated risk in individuals whose adipose tissue contained substances that are now banned.

“The association between pesticides and pancreatic cancer exists. It is of low magnitude but robust, concerning cumulative pesticides and three substances: Mancozeb, glyphosate, and sulfur in spray form,” said Mathias Brugel, MD, hospital practitioner at Basque Coast Hospital Center in Bayonne, France, during his presentation.

Regarding the four other liposoluble substances associated with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer in the second study, “their use has been banned since the 1990s, but they are still present in soils and in the air,” Dr. Brugel told this news organization.

For example, in Reims, France, the assessment of air quality by ATMO Grand Est revealed the presence of banned pesticides in the air, he added. However, Dr. Brugel stressed that a cause-effect relationship between pesticide exposure and the risk for pancreatic cancer cannot be established with these studies.
 

Incidence Rising Constantly

The incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma has been increasing steadily for more than 30 years. In France, nearly 16,000 new cases were reported in 2023, which represented an annual increase of about 2%. According to the National Cancer Institute, “pancreatic adenocarcinoma could become the second leading cause of cancer mortality by 2030.”

“This increase in incidence is particularly strong in France compared with other Western countries. The causes are still poorly understood. One might wonder whether environmental factors like pesticides are involved,” said Dr. Brugel.

Known to have a mechanism of action favoring oncogenesis, pesticides are suspected of being responsible for the rise in certain cancers, especially given their extensive use in France. In total, around 300 substances are authorized, and 65,000 tons are applied each year, making France the largest consumer of pesticides in Europe.

“Contamination is ubiquitous, meaning they are found in soil, water, air, and in individuals,” said Dr. Brugel. According to a study by the Institute for Scientific Expertise Research, pesticide residues were detected in 64% of hair samples taken from French volunteers.

The literature increasingly reported data suggesting a link between pesticide exposure and the development of certain diseases like cancer. A 2021 document by Inserm notably confirmed the strong presumption of a link between occupational pesticide exposure and pathologies such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and prostate cancer.
 

High-Incidence Zones

To explore the link between pesticide exposure and pancreatic cancer, Dr. Brugel and his colleagues conducted the EcoPESTIPAC and PESTIPAC studies, the results of which were presented at this year’s conference.

In EcoPESTIPAC, researchers conducted a national ecological regression by dividing the entire French territory into 5529 spatial units. The number of pancreatic cancer cases per spatial unit per year (disease-mapping) was determined using the National Health Data System.

Nine chemicals, including glyphosate, were included, thus covering half of pesticide purchases in France. The cumulative quantity of pesticides, regardless of molecule, was also examined. Pesticide exposure was estimated by the median ratio between pesticide purchase and agricultural area per spatial unit over an 11-year period from early 2011 to the end of 2021.

Mor than 134,000 cases of pancreatic cancer were reported during this period. The analysis revealed three high-incidence zones located around Paris, in central France, and in the Mediterranean basin, while spatial units in the western region showed the lowest incidences.

The heterogeneous distribution of the disease suggests the involvement of risk factors, said Dr. Brugel. After adjusting for confounding factors such as smoking, the study showed an increased risk for pancreatic cancer associated with the cumulative quantity of pesticides and three specific substances: Sulfur in spray form, mancozeb, and glyphosate.
 

Risk Increases

A dose-response relationship was evident. For an increase in pesticide use of 2.5 kg/hectare over 11 years, the risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma increased from 0.9% to 1.4%. “The increase is relatively small, but one must not forget that this risk applies to all of France,” said Dr. Brugel. Indeed, the risk appeared homogeneous across the entire territory.

This was the first study to explore this link at the national level. Although the association between the four identified factors and pancreatic risk was robust, the study had some limitations. It relied on the quantities of pesticides purchased to estimate the quantities used, Dr. Brugel pointed out.

The second study, PESTIPAC, was a case-control study conducted at the Reims University Hospital to explore the association between pancreatic adenocarcinoma and concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in fat and urine.

The study included 26 patients with pancreatic cancer who had abdominal surgery that allowed for adipose tissue sampling (minimum 10 g). Urine was collected in the morning on an empty stomach.

A control group was formed by including 26 other patients who underwent surgery for a benign abdominal condition such as gallstones or hernia, thus allowing for the same sampling. Individuals in both groups were matched for age and body mass index, two risk factors for pancreatic cancer.
 

Banned Substances

In total, 345 substances were searched for using chromatography and mass spectrometry. Analyses revealed the presence of five banned substances in all patients, while nine substances were found in half of the samples.

“Contamination is very widespread, both in patients with pancreatic cancer and in the controls,” said Dr. Brugel. Consequently, for this study, between-group comparisons of substances present in all individuals could not be performed.

After adjustment, an association with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer was nonetheless observed with four liposoluble substances: 4,4-DDE, mirex or perchlordecone, trans-nonachlor, and cis-nonachlor. All four substances are herbicides that have been banned for at least 30 years.

The study also aimed to assess the effect of pesticide presence in the body on survival after pancreatic cancer. The results showed no significant difference for overall survival or progression-free survival.

“Pesticides are a credible candidate to explain the increase in the incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma,” said Dr. Brugel. However, “if associations between pancreatic cancer and pesticides exist, they remain poorly understood, and it is difficult to establish clear causality.”

Further large-scale studies will be needed to confirm these associations. An evaluation of the general population’s exposure to banned substances also appears justified, according to the researchers.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to pesticides is associated with an increased risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, according to two French studies presented at the Francophone Days of Hepatology, Gastroenterology, and Digestive Oncology. One of them, a case-control study, showed an elevated risk in individuals whose adipose tissue contained substances that are now banned.

“The association between pesticides and pancreatic cancer exists. It is of low magnitude but robust, concerning cumulative pesticides and three substances: Mancozeb, glyphosate, and sulfur in spray form,” said Mathias Brugel, MD, hospital practitioner at Basque Coast Hospital Center in Bayonne, France, during his presentation.

Regarding the four other liposoluble substances associated with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer in the second study, “their use has been banned since the 1990s, but they are still present in soils and in the air,” Dr. Brugel told this news organization.

For example, in Reims, France, the assessment of air quality by ATMO Grand Est revealed the presence of banned pesticides in the air, he added. However, Dr. Brugel stressed that a cause-effect relationship between pesticide exposure and the risk for pancreatic cancer cannot be established with these studies.
 

Incidence Rising Constantly

The incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma has been increasing steadily for more than 30 years. In France, nearly 16,000 new cases were reported in 2023, which represented an annual increase of about 2%. According to the National Cancer Institute, “pancreatic adenocarcinoma could become the second leading cause of cancer mortality by 2030.”

“This increase in incidence is particularly strong in France compared with other Western countries. The causes are still poorly understood. One might wonder whether environmental factors like pesticides are involved,” said Dr. Brugel.

Known to have a mechanism of action favoring oncogenesis, pesticides are suspected of being responsible for the rise in certain cancers, especially given their extensive use in France. In total, around 300 substances are authorized, and 65,000 tons are applied each year, making France the largest consumer of pesticides in Europe.

“Contamination is ubiquitous, meaning they are found in soil, water, air, and in individuals,” said Dr. Brugel. According to a study by the Institute for Scientific Expertise Research, pesticide residues were detected in 64% of hair samples taken from French volunteers.

The literature increasingly reported data suggesting a link between pesticide exposure and the development of certain diseases like cancer. A 2021 document by Inserm notably confirmed the strong presumption of a link between occupational pesticide exposure and pathologies such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and prostate cancer.
 

High-Incidence Zones

To explore the link between pesticide exposure and pancreatic cancer, Dr. Brugel and his colleagues conducted the EcoPESTIPAC and PESTIPAC studies, the results of which were presented at this year’s conference.

In EcoPESTIPAC, researchers conducted a national ecological regression by dividing the entire French territory into 5529 spatial units. The number of pancreatic cancer cases per spatial unit per year (disease-mapping) was determined using the National Health Data System.

Nine chemicals, including glyphosate, were included, thus covering half of pesticide purchases in France. The cumulative quantity of pesticides, regardless of molecule, was also examined. Pesticide exposure was estimated by the median ratio between pesticide purchase and agricultural area per spatial unit over an 11-year period from early 2011 to the end of 2021.

Mor than 134,000 cases of pancreatic cancer were reported during this period. The analysis revealed three high-incidence zones located around Paris, in central France, and in the Mediterranean basin, while spatial units in the western region showed the lowest incidences.

The heterogeneous distribution of the disease suggests the involvement of risk factors, said Dr. Brugel. After adjusting for confounding factors such as smoking, the study showed an increased risk for pancreatic cancer associated with the cumulative quantity of pesticides and three specific substances: Sulfur in spray form, mancozeb, and glyphosate.
 

Risk Increases

A dose-response relationship was evident. For an increase in pesticide use of 2.5 kg/hectare over 11 years, the risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma increased from 0.9% to 1.4%. “The increase is relatively small, but one must not forget that this risk applies to all of France,” said Dr. Brugel. Indeed, the risk appeared homogeneous across the entire territory.

This was the first study to explore this link at the national level. Although the association between the four identified factors and pancreatic risk was robust, the study had some limitations. It relied on the quantities of pesticides purchased to estimate the quantities used, Dr. Brugel pointed out.

The second study, PESTIPAC, was a case-control study conducted at the Reims University Hospital to explore the association between pancreatic adenocarcinoma and concentrations of organochlorine pesticides in fat and urine.

The study included 26 patients with pancreatic cancer who had abdominal surgery that allowed for adipose tissue sampling (minimum 10 g). Urine was collected in the morning on an empty stomach.

A control group was formed by including 26 other patients who underwent surgery for a benign abdominal condition such as gallstones or hernia, thus allowing for the same sampling. Individuals in both groups were matched for age and body mass index, two risk factors for pancreatic cancer.
 

Banned Substances

In total, 345 substances were searched for using chromatography and mass spectrometry. Analyses revealed the presence of five banned substances in all patients, while nine substances were found in half of the samples.

“Contamination is very widespread, both in patients with pancreatic cancer and in the controls,” said Dr. Brugel. Consequently, for this study, between-group comparisons of substances present in all individuals could not be performed.

After adjustment, an association with an increased risk for pancreatic cancer was nonetheless observed with four liposoluble substances: 4,4-DDE, mirex or perchlordecone, trans-nonachlor, and cis-nonachlor. All four substances are herbicides that have been banned for at least 30 years.

The study also aimed to assess the effect of pesticide presence in the body on survival after pancreatic cancer. The results showed no significant difference for overall survival or progression-free survival.

“Pesticides are a credible candidate to explain the increase in the incidence of pancreatic adenocarcinoma,” said Dr. Brugel. However, “if associations between pancreatic cancer and pesticides exist, they remain poorly understood, and it is difficult to establish clear causality.”

Further large-scale studies will be needed to confirm these associations. An evaluation of the general population’s exposure to banned substances also appears justified, according to the researchers.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At first glance, hematologists may not seem like they’d be likely to get urgent calls from the emergency department at 3 a.m. After all, they typically work during normal business hours. However, severe medical crises in blood-cancer patients can occur, and drowsy hematologists may find themselves providing guidance to emergency physicians about how to deal with rapidly deteriorating patients.

When a patient with a blood-cancer crisis comes in, “I can recognize what’s going on, and I can initiate treatment. But if you do have a true hematologic emergency, then you need a hematologist to be able to contribute to your care,” Molly Estes, MD, an emergency physician with California’s Loma Linda University, said in an interview.

In situations such as a patient with an extraordinarily high white blood count, “you’ll be calling your hematologist for treatment recommendations and calling your nephrologist for assistance managing electrolyte disorders,” Megan Boysen-Osborn, MD, an emergency physician with the University of California at Irvine, said in an interview.

Here’s a look at three emergency hematologic conditions that lead to late-night phone calls:
 

Leukocytosis

Blood cancers can cause white blood cell counts to skyrocket, a condition known as leukocytosis, but a high count is not necessarily an emergency. The key is to figure out whether the high count is normal for the patient — perhaps due to the disease or the medical treatment — or a sign of an internal medical crisis, Dr. Estes said.

“Let’s say you stubbed your toe in the night, and I happened to get blood work on you and incidentally notice that your white blood cells are high. But they’re the same high level that they always are,” Dr. Estes said. “That’s a completely different scenario than if I’m seeing you for fever, vomiting, and stomach pain.”

Indeed, there’s no cut-off that differentiates a dangerously high white blood count from one that’s acceptable, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of hematology at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami Health System, said in an interview.

“In the past, I’ve taken care of a couple of patients who had chronic lymphocytic leukemia and white blood cell counts that were 200,000 or 300,000 [white blood cells per microliter] and worked out in the gym every day,” he said. “It didn’t negatively affect them. On the flip side, I have also taken care of patients with acute myeloid leukemia with a white blood cell count of 50,000. That landed them in the intensive care unit.”

Dr. Estes said that her first impulse in cases of high white blood cell count is to give IV fluids to dilute the blood and prevent the cells from turning blood into sludge via hyperviscosity syndrome. Dr. Sekeres said this makes sense, since the condition can lead to blockages in vessels and cause heart attacks and strokes.

There are other options, depending on the severity of the case. Hydroxyurea can be administered to lower white blood cell counts along with allopurinol to protect the kidneys, Dr. Sekeres said. In some situations, he said, “we’ll consider initiating chemotherapy immediately to reduce the level of the white blood cells. Or we will consider placing a patient on dialysis to take off some of those white blood cells.”
 

Tumor lysis syndrome

While it’s rare, tumor lysis syndrome can occur when tumors release their content into blood stream. According to Dr. Sekeres, this can happen when “cancers that grow so quickly that they can start to outgrow their own blood supply and start dying before we even treat patients. When this happens, it causes electrolyte disarray.”

It’s crucial to understand the potential for patients to quickly get worse, he said. He advises clinicians to aggressively check lab values for electrolyte abnormalities and aggressively administer IV fluids and electrolyte replacement when needed. “It’s also important to let the intensive care unit know that they may need to be activated,” he said. Fortunately, he noted, patients can often be stabilized.
 

Differentiation syndrome

According to the Cleveland Clinic, medications used to treat acute myeloid leukemia and acute promyelocytic leukemia cause cancer cells to differentiate from immature states to mature normal states. But the process can go awry when fluid leaks out of blood vessels in a condition called differentiation syndrome. This can cause multiple problems, Dr. Sekeres said.

A 2020 report noted the potential for “acute end-organ damage with peripheral edema, hypotension, acute renal failure, and interstitial pulmonary infiltrates.”

In these cases, aggressive supportive management is key, Dr. Sekeres said. If a patient is having difficulty breathing, for example, they’ll need electrolyte management and perhaps support via a respirator, he said.

“Most people with acute promyelocytic leukemia can fully recover from differentiation syndrome with prompt, effective treatment,” the Cleveland Clinic notes. It adds that the disease is “highly curable.”

In all of these emergent crises, Dr. Sekeres said, it’s important for hematologists understand that “patients can get very sick very quickly,” and it’s important to intervene early and often.

Dr. Sekeres serves on advisory boards for BMS and Curium Pharma. Dr. Estes and Dr. Boysen-Osborn have no disclosures.

At first glance, hematologists may not seem like they’d be likely to get urgent calls from the emergency department at 3 a.m. After all, they typically work during normal business hours. However, severe medical crises in blood-cancer patients can occur, and drowsy hematologists may find themselves providing guidance to emergency physicians about how to deal with rapidly deteriorating patients.

When a patient with a blood-cancer crisis comes in, “I can recognize what’s going on, and I can initiate treatment. But if you do have a true hematologic emergency, then you need a hematologist to be able to contribute to your care,” Molly Estes, MD, an emergency physician with California’s Loma Linda University, said in an interview.

In situations such as a patient with an extraordinarily high white blood count, “you’ll be calling your hematologist for treatment recommendations and calling your nephrologist for assistance managing electrolyte disorders,” Megan Boysen-Osborn, MD, an emergency physician with the University of California at Irvine, said in an interview.

Here’s a look at three emergency hematologic conditions that lead to late-night phone calls:
 

Leukocytosis

Blood cancers can cause white blood cell counts to skyrocket, a condition known as leukocytosis, but a high count is not necessarily an emergency. The key is to figure out whether the high count is normal for the patient — perhaps due to the disease or the medical treatment — or a sign of an internal medical crisis, Dr. Estes said.

“Let’s say you stubbed your toe in the night, and I happened to get blood work on you and incidentally notice that your white blood cells are high. But they’re the same high level that they always are,” Dr. Estes said. “That’s a completely different scenario than if I’m seeing you for fever, vomiting, and stomach pain.”

Indeed, there’s no cut-off that differentiates a dangerously high white blood count from one that’s acceptable, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of hematology at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami Health System, said in an interview.

“In the past, I’ve taken care of a couple of patients who had chronic lymphocytic leukemia and white blood cell counts that were 200,000 or 300,000 [white blood cells per microliter] and worked out in the gym every day,” he said. “It didn’t negatively affect them. On the flip side, I have also taken care of patients with acute myeloid leukemia with a white blood cell count of 50,000. That landed them in the intensive care unit.”

Dr. Estes said that her first impulse in cases of high white blood cell count is to give IV fluids to dilute the blood and prevent the cells from turning blood into sludge via hyperviscosity syndrome. Dr. Sekeres said this makes sense, since the condition can lead to blockages in vessels and cause heart attacks and strokes.

There are other options, depending on the severity of the case. Hydroxyurea can be administered to lower white blood cell counts along with allopurinol to protect the kidneys, Dr. Sekeres said. In some situations, he said, “we’ll consider initiating chemotherapy immediately to reduce the level of the white blood cells. Or we will consider placing a patient on dialysis to take off some of those white blood cells.”
 

Tumor lysis syndrome

While it’s rare, tumor lysis syndrome can occur when tumors release their content into blood stream. According to Dr. Sekeres, this can happen when “cancers that grow so quickly that they can start to outgrow their own blood supply and start dying before we even treat patients. When this happens, it causes electrolyte disarray.”

It’s crucial to understand the potential for patients to quickly get worse, he said. He advises clinicians to aggressively check lab values for electrolyte abnormalities and aggressively administer IV fluids and electrolyte replacement when needed. “It’s also important to let the intensive care unit know that they may need to be activated,” he said. Fortunately, he noted, patients can often be stabilized.
 

Differentiation syndrome

According to the Cleveland Clinic, medications used to treat acute myeloid leukemia and acute promyelocytic leukemia cause cancer cells to differentiate from immature states to mature normal states. But the process can go awry when fluid leaks out of blood vessels in a condition called differentiation syndrome. This can cause multiple problems, Dr. Sekeres said.

A 2020 report noted the potential for “acute end-organ damage with peripheral edema, hypotension, acute renal failure, and interstitial pulmonary infiltrates.”

In these cases, aggressive supportive management is key, Dr. Sekeres said. If a patient is having difficulty breathing, for example, they’ll need electrolyte management and perhaps support via a respirator, he said.

“Most people with acute promyelocytic leukemia can fully recover from differentiation syndrome with prompt, effective treatment,” the Cleveland Clinic notes. It adds that the disease is “highly curable.”

In all of these emergent crises, Dr. Sekeres said, it’s important for hematologists understand that “patients can get very sick very quickly,” and it’s important to intervene early and often.

Dr. Sekeres serves on advisory boards for BMS and Curium Pharma. Dr. Estes and Dr. Boysen-Osborn have no disclosures.

At first glance, hematologists may not seem like they’d be likely to get urgent calls from the emergency department at 3 a.m. After all, they typically work during normal business hours. However, severe medical crises in blood-cancer patients can occur, and drowsy hematologists may find themselves providing guidance to emergency physicians about how to deal with rapidly deteriorating patients.

When a patient with a blood-cancer crisis comes in, “I can recognize what’s going on, and I can initiate treatment. But if you do have a true hematologic emergency, then you need a hematologist to be able to contribute to your care,” Molly Estes, MD, an emergency physician with California’s Loma Linda University, said in an interview.

In situations such as a patient with an extraordinarily high white blood count, “you’ll be calling your hematologist for treatment recommendations and calling your nephrologist for assistance managing electrolyte disorders,” Megan Boysen-Osborn, MD, an emergency physician with the University of California at Irvine, said in an interview.

Here’s a look at three emergency hematologic conditions that lead to late-night phone calls:
 

Leukocytosis

Blood cancers can cause white blood cell counts to skyrocket, a condition known as leukocytosis, but a high count is not necessarily an emergency. The key is to figure out whether the high count is normal for the patient — perhaps due to the disease or the medical treatment — or a sign of an internal medical crisis, Dr. Estes said.

“Let’s say you stubbed your toe in the night, and I happened to get blood work on you and incidentally notice that your white blood cells are high. But they’re the same high level that they always are,” Dr. Estes said. “That’s a completely different scenario than if I’m seeing you for fever, vomiting, and stomach pain.”

Indeed, there’s no cut-off that differentiates a dangerously high white blood count from one that’s acceptable, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, MS, chief of hematology at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami Health System, said in an interview.

“In the past, I’ve taken care of a couple of patients who had chronic lymphocytic leukemia and white blood cell counts that were 200,000 or 300,000 [white blood cells per microliter] and worked out in the gym every day,” he said. “It didn’t negatively affect them. On the flip side, I have also taken care of patients with acute myeloid leukemia with a white blood cell count of 50,000. That landed them in the intensive care unit.”

Dr. Estes said that her first impulse in cases of high white blood cell count is to give IV fluids to dilute the blood and prevent the cells from turning blood into sludge via hyperviscosity syndrome. Dr. Sekeres said this makes sense, since the condition can lead to blockages in vessels and cause heart attacks and strokes.

There are other options, depending on the severity of the case. Hydroxyurea can be administered to lower white blood cell counts along with allopurinol to protect the kidneys, Dr. Sekeres said. In some situations, he said, “we’ll consider initiating chemotherapy immediately to reduce the level of the white blood cells. Or we will consider placing a patient on dialysis to take off some of those white blood cells.”
 

Tumor lysis syndrome

While it’s rare, tumor lysis syndrome can occur when tumors release their content into blood stream. According to Dr. Sekeres, this can happen when “cancers that grow so quickly that they can start to outgrow their own blood supply and start dying before we even treat patients. When this happens, it causes electrolyte disarray.”

It’s crucial to understand the potential for patients to quickly get worse, he said. He advises clinicians to aggressively check lab values for electrolyte abnormalities and aggressively administer IV fluids and electrolyte replacement when needed. “It’s also important to let the intensive care unit know that they may need to be activated,” he said. Fortunately, he noted, patients can often be stabilized.
 

Differentiation syndrome

According to the Cleveland Clinic, medications used to treat acute myeloid leukemia and acute promyelocytic leukemia cause cancer cells to differentiate from immature states to mature normal states. But the process can go awry when fluid leaks out of blood vessels in a condition called differentiation syndrome. This can cause multiple problems, Dr. Sekeres said.

A 2020 report noted the potential for “acute end-organ damage with peripheral edema, hypotension, acute renal failure, and interstitial pulmonary infiltrates.”

In these cases, aggressive supportive management is key, Dr. Sekeres said. If a patient is having difficulty breathing, for example, they’ll need electrolyte management and perhaps support via a respirator, he said.

“Most people with acute promyelocytic leukemia can fully recover from differentiation syndrome with prompt, effective treatment,” the Cleveland Clinic notes. It adds that the disease is “highly curable.”

In all of these emergent crises, Dr. Sekeres said, it’s important for hematologists understand that “patients can get very sick very quickly,” and it’s important to intervene early and often.

Dr. Sekeres serves on advisory boards for BMS and Curium Pharma. Dr. Estes and Dr. Boysen-Osborn have no disclosures.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m going to tell you about a chemical that might cause cancer — one I suspect you haven’t heard of before.

These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.

So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.

PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.

But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.

PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.

This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.

What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.

In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.

In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.

Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.

The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.

Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.

This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.

This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.

After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m going to tell you about a chemical that might cause cancer — one I suspect you haven’t heard of before.

These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.

So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.

PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.

But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.

PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.

This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.

What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.

In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.

In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.

Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.

The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.

Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.

This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.

This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.

After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m going to tell you about a chemical that might cause cancer — one I suspect you haven’t heard of before.

These types of stories usually end with a call for regulation — to ban said chemical or substance, or to regulate it — but in this case, that has already happened. This new carcinogen I’m telling you about is actually an old chemical. And it has not been manufactured or legally imported in the US since 2013.

So, why bother? Because in this case, the chemical — or, really, a group of chemicals called polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) — are still around: in our soil, in our food, and in our blood.

PBDEs are a group of compounds that confer flame-retardant properties to plastics, and they were used extensively in the latter part of the 20th century in electronic enclosures, business equipment, and foam cushioning in upholstery.

But there was a problem. They don’t chemically bond to plastics; they are just sort of mixed in, which means they can leach out. They are hydrophobic, meaning they don’t get washed out of soil, and, when ingested or inhaled by humans, they dissolve in our fat stores, making it difficult for our normal excretory systems to excrete them.

PBDEs biomagnify. Small animals can take them up from contaminated soil or water, and those animals are eaten by larger animals, which accumulate higher concentrations of the chemicals. This bioaccumulation increases as you move up the food web until you get to an apex predator — like you and me.

This is true of lots of chemicals, of course. The concern arises when these chemicals are toxic. To date, the toxicity data for PBDEs were pretty limited. There were some animal studies where rats were exposed to extremely high doses and they developed liver lesions — but I am always very wary of extrapolating high-dose rat toxicity studies to humans. There was also some suggestion that the chemicals could be endocrine disruptors, affecting breast and thyroid tissue.

What about cancer? In 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded there was “inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogencity of” PBDEs.

In the same report, though, they suggested PBDEs are “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on mechanistic studies.

In other words, we can’t prove they’re cancerous — but come on, they probably are.

Finally, we have some evidence that really pushes us toward the carcinogenic conclusion, in the form of this study, appearing in JAMA Network Open. It’s a nice bit of epidemiology leveraging the population-based National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Researchers measured PBDE levels in blood samples from 1100 people enrolled in NHANES in 2003 and 2004 and linked them to death records collected over the next 20 years or so.

The first thing to note is that the researchers were able to measure PBDEs in the blood samples. They were in there. They were detectable. And they were variable. Dividing the 1100 participants into low, medium, and high PBDE tertiles, you can see a nearly 10-fold difference across the population.

Importantly, not many baseline variables correlated with PBDE levels. People in the highest group were a bit younger but had a fairly similar sex distribution, race, ethnicity, education, income, physical activity, smoking status, and body mass index.

This is not a randomized trial, of course — but at least based on these data, exposure levels do seem fairly random, which is what you would expect from an environmental toxin that percolates up through the food chain. They are often somewhat indiscriminate.

This similarity in baseline characteristics between people with low or high blood levels of PBDE also allows us to make some stronger inferences about the observed outcomes. Let’s take a look at them.

After adjustment for baseline factors, individuals in the highest PBDE group had a 43% higher rate of death from any cause over the follow-up period. This was not enough to achieve statistical significance, but it was close.

Dr. Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Development of a DNA-based lung cancer vaccine in the United Kingdom received funding for 2 years of laboratory research and initial manufacture of 3000 doses, according to a press release from the University of Oxford, England.

A team of scientists from the University of Oxford, the Francis Crick Institute, and University College London (UCL) will receive funding from the Cancer Research UK and the CRIS Cancer Foundation.

The LungVax vaccine is based on technology similar to that used in the creation of the successful Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and will carry a DNA strand that trains the immune system to recognize the neoantigens that indicate abnormal lung cancer cells and then activate the immune system to kill these cells and stop the cancer, according to the statement.

Initially, scientists are working to develop a vaccine that triggers an immune response in the lab setting. If successful, the vaccine will move directly into a clinical trial. “If the subsequent early trial delivers promising results, the vaccine could then be scaled up to bigger trials for people at high risk of lung cancer,” according to the release.
 

Help for High-Risk Patients

Lung cancer is diagnosed in approximately 48,000 individuals in the United Kingdom each year, and the average 10-year survival is only 10%, Tim Elliott, MD, professor of immuno-oncology at the University of Oxford and lead researcher on the LungVax project, said in an interview. Nearly three-quarters of the 35,000 annual deaths are preventable by quitting smoking, which remains the best risk reduction strategy to date, he said. However, “an intervention such as a vaccine, given when people are healthy and are more likely to have a strong immune system, could benefit many thousands per year in the UK and 1.8 million patients worldwide,” he said.
 

Preliminary Trial Plans

The initial trial of the vaccine is a collaboration between Oxford University, UCL, and the Francis Crick Institute, Dr. Elliott said. The trial is a culmination of research into the biology and genetics of lung cancer at UCL and vaccine design research at the University of Oxford.

“We are at a very early stage of the program, which will develop over the next 6 years if all goes to plan,” said Dr. Elliott. The vaccine is designed on the basis of shared lung cancer antigens and packaged into the ChAdOx delivery system that proved successful as the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, he said.

“We intend to vaccinate individuals who have had curative surgery for their lung cancer after being diagnosed with a very early stage of the disease,” Dr. Elliott said.

Challenges to vaccine development include knowing whether there is a clinical benefit, Dr. Elliott noted. “Our clinical trial is calculated to show up to 15% reduction in risk over 3-5 years, but only long-term follow-up will really tell us whether the immune responses we see to the vaccine within the first few weeks will have a long-term effect,” he emphasized.

In clinical practice, “these people are cancer-free and healthy after surgery,” said Dr. Elliott. However, “they are at a high risk of recurrence; 30%-70% of ex-patients will develop new cancer in their lifetime and in the majority of cases that will happen within 2 years after surgery,” he said. “We think that vaccinating them against common lung cancer antigens could reduce this risk significantly and remove some of the uncertainty that they live with after their operation.”
 

Vaccine Has Potential for Immense Impact

Lung cancer remains one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers. “In the past few decades, public health measures including tobacco cessation and lung cancer screening have contributed to the reduction of lung cancer incidence and improved survival in high-income countries, but lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide,” Saadia A. Faiz, MD, a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board, said in an interview.

“Further, new cancer diagnoses continue to increase in low-income countries where there may not be widespread public health initiatives and/or access to healthcare. Thus, development of a vaccine to prevent lung cancer could be very impactful,” she said.

Challenges to vaccine development include the heterogeneous nature of the disease, which may occur in smokers and nonsmokers, said Dr. Faiz. “Targeting the various molecular markers may be challenging,” she said. However, building on the success of other vaccine initiatives, such as the human papillomavirus vaccine for cervical cancer, and COVID-19 vaccines with collaboration and clinical research will ideally overcome these challenges, she added.

“The potential implications for a lung cancer vaccine are immense,” said Dr. Faiz.

A lung cancer vaccine could prevent a deadly disease, but continued efforts in risk factor reduction and lung cancer screening will also be important, she said.

“Depending on the results of this clinical research, longitudinal data regarding efficacy, side effects, and prevention will be vital prior to application in high-risk patients in clinical practice,” she emphasized.

The development of the lung cancer vaccine is supported in part by Cancer Research UK and the CRIS Cancer Foundation. Dr. Elliott has received support from Cancer Research UK but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Faiz had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Development of a DNA-based lung cancer vaccine in the United Kingdom received funding for 2 years of laboratory research and initial manufacture of 3000 doses, according to a press release from the University of Oxford, England.

A team of scientists from the University of Oxford, the Francis Crick Institute, and University College London (UCL) will receive funding from the Cancer Research UK and the CRIS Cancer Foundation.

The LungVax vaccine is based on technology similar to that used in the creation of the successful Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and will carry a DNA strand that trains the immune system to recognize the neoantigens that indicate abnormal lung cancer cells and then activate the immune system to kill these cells and stop the cancer, according to the statement.

Initially, scientists are working to develop a vaccine that triggers an immune response in the lab setting. If successful, the vaccine will move directly into a clinical trial. “If the subsequent early trial delivers promising results, the vaccine could then be scaled up to bigger trials for people at high risk of lung cancer,” according to the release.
 

Help for High-Risk Patients

Lung cancer is diagnosed in approximately 48,000 individuals in the United Kingdom each year, and the average 10-year survival is only 10%, Tim Elliott, MD, professor of immuno-oncology at the University of Oxford and lead researcher on the LungVax project, said in an interview. Nearly three-quarters of the 35,000 annual deaths are preventable by quitting smoking, which remains the best risk reduction strategy to date, he said. However, “an intervention such as a vaccine, given when people are healthy and are more likely to have a strong immune system, could benefit many thousands per year in the UK and 1.8 million patients worldwide,” he said.
 

Preliminary Trial Plans

The initial trial of the vaccine is a collaboration between Oxford University, UCL, and the Francis Crick Institute, Dr. Elliott said. The trial is a culmination of research into the biology and genetics of lung cancer at UCL and vaccine design research at the University of Oxford.

“We are at a very early stage of the program, which will develop over the next 6 years if all goes to plan,” said Dr. Elliott. The vaccine is designed on the basis of shared lung cancer antigens and packaged into the ChAdOx delivery system that proved successful as the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, he said.

“We intend to vaccinate individuals who have had curative surgery for their lung cancer after being diagnosed with a very early stage of the disease,” Dr. Elliott said.

Challenges to vaccine development include knowing whether there is a clinical benefit, Dr. Elliott noted. “Our clinical trial is calculated to show up to 15% reduction in risk over 3-5 years, but only long-term follow-up will really tell us whether the immune responses we see to the vaccine within the first few weeks will have a long-term effect,” he emphasized.

In clinical practice, “these people are cancer-free and healthy after surgery,” said Dr. Elliott. However, “they are at a high risk of recurrence; 30%-70% of ex-patients will develop new cancer in their lifetime and in the majority of cases that will happen within 2 years after surgery,” he said. “We think that vaccinating them against common lung cancer antigens could reduce this risk significantly and remove some of the uncertainty that they live with after their operation.”
 

Vaccine Has Potential for Immense Impact

Lung cancer remains one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers. “In the past few decades, public health measures including tobacco cessation and lung cancer screening have contributed to the reduction of lung cancer incidence and improved survival in high-income countries, but lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide,” Saadia A. Faiz, MD, a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board, said in an interview.

“Further, new cancer diagnoses continue to increase in low-income countries where there may not be widespread public health initiatives and/or access to healthcare. Thus, development of a vaccine to prevent lung cancer could be very impactful,” she said.

Challenges to vaccine development include the heterogeneous nature of the disease, which may occur in smokers and nonsmokers, said Dr. Faiz. “Targeting the various molecular markers may be challenging,” she said. However, building on the success of other vaccine initiatives, such as the human papillomavirus vaccine for cervical cancer, and COVID-19 vaccines with collaboration and clinical research will ideally overcome these challenges, she added.

“The potential implications for a lung cancer vaccine are immense,” said Dr. Faiz.

A lung cancer vaccine could prevent a deadly disease, but continued efforts in risk factor reduction and lung cancer screening will also be important, she said.

“Depending on the results of this clinical research, longitudinal data regarding efficacy, side effects, and prevention will be vital prior to application in high-risk patients in clinical practice,” she emphasized.

The development of the lung cancer vaccine is supported in part by Cancer Research UK and the CRIS Cancer Foundation. Dr. Elliott has received support from Cancer Research UK but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Faiz had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Development of a DNA-based lung cancer vaccine in the United Kingdom received funding for 2 years of laboratory research and initial manufacture of 3000 doses, according to a press release from the University of Oxford, England.

A team of scientists from the University of Oxford, the Francis Crick Institute, and University College London (UCL) will receive funding from the Cancer Research UK and the CRIS Cancer Foundation.

The LungVax vaccine is based on technology similar to that used in the creation of the successful Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and will carry a DNA strand that trains the immune system to recognize the neoantigens that indicate abnormal lung cancer cells and then activate the immune system to kill these cells and stop the cancer, according to the statement.

Initially, scientists are working to develop a vaccine that triggers an immune response in the lab setting. If successful, the vaccine will move directly into a clinical trial. “If the subsequent early trial delivers promising results, the vaccine could then be scaled up to bigger trials for people at high risk of lung cancer,” according to the release.
 

Help for High-Risk Patients

Lung cancer is diagnosed in approximately 48,000 individuals in the United Kingdom each year, and the average 10-year survival is only 10%, Tim Elliott, MD, professor of immuno-oncology at the University of Oxford and lead researcher on the LungVax project, said in an interview. Nearly three-quarters of the 35,000 annual deaths are preventable by quitting smoking, which remains the best risk reduction strategy to date, he said. However, “an intervention such as a vaccine, given when people are healthy and are more likely to have a strong immune system, could benefit many thousands per year in the UK and 1.8 million patients worldwide,” he said.
 

Preliminary Trial Plans

The initial trial of the vaccine is a collaboration between Oxford University, UCL, and the Francis Crick Institute, Dr. Elliott said. The trial is a culmination of research into the biology and genetics of lung cancer at UCL and vaccine design research at the University of Oxford.

“We are at a very early stage of the program, which will develop over the next 6 years if all goes to plan,” said Dr. Elliott. The vaccine is designed on the basis of shared lung cancer antigens and packaged into the ChAdOx delivery system that proved successful as the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, he said.

“We intend to vaccinate individuals who have had curative surgery for their lung cancer after being diagnosed with a very early stage of the disease,” Dr. Elliott said.

Challenges to vaccine development include knowing whether there is a clinical benefit, Dr. Elliott noted. “Our clinical trial is calculated to show up to 15% reduction in risk over 3-5 years, but only long-term follow-up will really tell us whether the immune responses we see to the vaccine within the first few weeks will have a long-term effect,” he emphasized.

In clinical practice, “these people are cancer-free and healthy after surgery,” said Dr. Elliott. However, “they are at a high risk of recurrence; 30%-70% of ex-patients will develop new cancer in their lifetime and in the majority of cases that will happen within 2 years after surgery,” he said. “We think that vaccinating them against common lung cancer antigens could reduce this risk significantly and remove some of the uncertainty that they live with after their operation.”
 

Vaccine Has Potential for Immense Impact

Lung cancer remains one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers. “In the past few decades, public health measures including tobacco cessation and lung cancer screening have contributed to the reduction of lung cancer incidence and improved survival in high-income countries, but lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide,” Saadia A. Faiz, MD, a member of the CHEST Physician editorial board, said in an interview.

“Further, new cancer diagnoses continue to increase in low-income countries where there may not be widespread public health initiatives and/or access to healthcare. Thus, development of a vaccine to prevent lung cancer could be very impactful,” she said.

Challenges to vaccine development include the heterogeneous nature of the disease, which may occur in smokers and nonsmokers, said Dr. Faiz. “Targeting the various molecular markers may be challenging,” she said. However, building on the success of other vaccine initiatives, such as the human papillomavirus vaccine for cervical cancer, and COVID-19 vaccines with collaboration and clinical research will ideally overcome these challenges, she added.

“The potential implications for a lung cancer vaccine are immense,” said Dr. Faiz.

A lung cancer vaccine could prevent a deadly disease, but continued efforts in risk factor reduction and lung cancer screening will also be important, she said.

“Depending on the results of this clinical research, longitudinal data regarding efficacy, side effects, and prevention will be vital prior to application in high-risk patients in clinical practice,” she emphasized.

The development of the lung cancer vaccine is supported in part by Cancer Research UK and the CRIS Cancer Foundation. Dr. Elliott has received support from Cancer Research UK but had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Faiz had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.