AVAHO

TOPLINE:

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is a safe, noninvasive, and effective strategy for treating primary renal cell cancer (RCC) in patients not suited to undergo surgical resection.

METHODOLOGY:

• SABR is a promising treatment strategy for patients with inoperable kidney cancer because it is a noninvasive procedure that does not require general anesthesia and can be used to treat stages TIa and TIb, as well as larger tumors.
• The nonrandomized, phase 2, FASTRACK II trial, conducted in Australia and the Netherlands, investigated the efficacy of SABR in 70 patients with primary RCC who had a single lesion and were considered medically inoperable, were at a high risk for surgical complications, or had declined surgery. Patients also had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≤ 2 and an estimated glomerular filtration rate above 30 mL/min.
• The median age of participants was 77 years, median body mass index was 32, and the median Charlson comorbidity index was 7; 30% of the patients were women.
• Patients with tumors ≤ 4 cm (n = 23) received a single fraction of 26 Gy SABR, while those with tumors of 4-10 cm in maximum diameter (n = 47) received 42 Gy SABR in three fractions. The median tumor size was 4.6 cm.
• The primary endpoint was local control, defined as no progression of the primary RCC.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 1 year, no patients experienced local progression of their cancer, for a 100% local control rate.
• Cancer-specific survival was also 100% at 12 months from the start of SABR treatment, while the overall survival rate was 99% at 1 year and 82% at 3 years.
• Treatment-related grade 3 adverse events, such as nausea and vomiting, colonic obstruction, and diarrhea were reported by 10% of patients, with no incidences of grade 4 treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related or cancer-related deaths.

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite a larger average tumor size (4.6 cm) than in many preexisting prospective trials of surgery or SABR in primary renal cell cancer, there were no local treatment failures observed and no patients died from cancer during the study period,” the authors noted. This trial and others “support SABR as a therapeutic option for patients with inoperable or high-risk primary renal cell cancer.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shankar Siva, PhD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia, and published online in The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a small sample size and less mature data at follow-up. The absence of a control group made it impossible to assess if SABR had superior, inferior, or similar efficacy to other treatment options. The definitions of operability or technically high risk might vary between different multidisciplinary teams.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a grant from the Cancer Australia Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme. The study authors declared receiving grants, contracts, payments, honoraria, and research funding and having other ties with several sources.

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

TOPLINE:

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is a safe, noninvasive, and effective strategy for treating primary renal cell cancer (RCC) in patients not suited to undergo surgical resection.

METHODOLOGY:

• SABR is a promising treatment strategy for patients with inoperable kidney cancer because it is a noninvasive procedure that does not require general anesthesia and can be used to treat stages TIa and TIb, as well as larger tumors.
• The nonrandomized, phase 2, FASTRACK II trial, conducted in Australia and the Netherlands, investigated the efficacy of SABR in 70 patients with primary RCC who had a single lesion and were considered medically inoperable, were at a high risk for surgical complications, or had declined surgery. Patients also had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≤ 2 and an estimated glomerular filtration rate above 30 mL/min.
• The median age of participants was 77 years, median body mass index was 32, and the median Charlson comorbidity index was 7; 30% of the patients were women.
• Patients with tumors ≤ 4 cm (n = 23) received a single fraction of 26 Gy SABR, while those with tumors of 4-10 cm in maximum diameter (n = 47) received 42 Gy SABR in three fractions. The median tumor size was 4.6 cm.
• The primary endpoint was local control, defined as no progression of the primary RCC.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 1 year, no patients experienced local progression of their cancer, for a 100% local control rate.
• Cancer-specific survival was also 100% at 12 months from the start of SABR treatment, while the overall survival rate was 99% at 1 year and 82% at 3 years.
• Treatment-related grade 3 adverse events, such as nausea and vomiting, colonic obstruction, and diarrhea were reported by 10% of patients, with no incidences of grade 4 treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related or cancer-related deaths.

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite a larger average tumor size (4.6 cm) than in many preexisting prospective trials of surgery or SABR in primary renal cell cancer, there were no local treatment failures observed and no patients died from cancer during the study period,” the authors noted. This trial and others “support SABR as a therapeutic option for patients with inoperable or high-risk primary renal cell cancer.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shankar Siva, PhD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia, and published online in The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a small sample size and less mature data at follow-up. The absence of a control group made it impossible to assess if SABR had superior, inferior, or similar efficacy to other treatment options. The definitions of operability or technically high risk might vary between different multidisciplinary teams.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a grant from the Cancer Australia Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme. The study authors declared receiving grants, contracts, payments, honoraria, and research funding and having other ties with several sources.

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

TOPLINE:

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is a safe, noninvasive, and effective strategy for treating primary renal cell cancer (RCC) in patients not suited to undergo surgical resection.

METHODOLOGY:

• SABR is a promising treatment strategy for patients with inoperable kidney cancer because it is a noninvasive procedure that does not require general anesthesia and can be used to treat stages TIa and TIb, as well as larger tumors.
• The nonrandomized, phase 2, FASTRACK II trial, conducted in Australia and the Netherlands, investigated the efficacy of SABR in 70 patients with primary RCC who had a single lesion and were considered medically inoperable, were at a high risk for surgical complications, or had declined surgery. Patients also had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≤ 2 and an estimated glomerular filtration rate above 30 mL/min.
• The median age of participants was 77 years, median body mass index was 32, and the median Charlson comorbidity index was 7; 30% of the patients were women.
• Patients with tumors ≤ 4 cm (n = 23) received a single fraction of 26 Gy SABR, while those with tumors of 4-10 cm in maximum diameter (n = 47) received 42 Gy SABR in three fractions. The median tumor size was 4.6 cm.
• The primary endpoint was local control, defined as no progression of the primary RCC.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 1 year, no patients experienced local progression of their cancer, for a 100% local control rate.
• Cancer-specific survival was also 100% at 12 months from the start of SABR treatment, while the overall survival rate was 99% at 1 year and 82% at 3 years.
• Treatment-related grade 3 adverse events, such as nausea and vomiting, colonic obstruction, and diarrhea were reported by 10% of patients, with no incidences of grade 4 treatment-related adverse events or treatment-related or cancer-related deaths.

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite a larger average tumor size (4.6 cm) than in many preexisting prospective trials of surgery or SABR in primary renal cell cancer, there were no local treatment failures observed and no patients died from cancer during the study period,” the authors noted. This trial and others “support SABR as a therapeutic option for patients with inoperable or high-risk primary renal cell cancer.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Shankar Siva, PhD, Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia, and published online in The Lancet Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a small sample size and less mature data at follow-up. The absence of a control group made it impossible to assess if SABR had superior, inferior, or similar efficacy to other treatment options. The definitions of operability or technically high risk might vary between different multidisciplinary teams.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a grant from the Cancer Australia Priority-driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme. The study authors declared receiving grants, contracts, payments, honoraria, and research funding and having other ties with several sources.

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

A new grading system designed to improve the assessment of hematological toxicities following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy shows utility for a real-world population, providing much-needed standardization and guidance for management of the potentially life-threatening events.

“Hematotoxicity after CAR T is common and clinically relevant, but it also remains poorly understood [with] a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of grading its clinical management,” said first author Kai Rejeski, MD, in presenting on the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting, held in Spain and jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the European Hematology Association (EHA).

“We hope that this novel grading system helps with this by enabling harmonized reporting using the same nomenclature and allowing the comparison of the expected incidence rates of grade 3 or higher [hematological toxicities] across several disease entities and CAR T products,” said Dr. Rejeski, of the Adult BMT (Blood Marrow Transplant) and Cellular Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

ICAHT Grading System

In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Rejeski and his team found that infections are the cause of as many as 49% of non–relapse related deaths after CAR T-cell therapy, representing the most common cause of death and numbering significantly more than the more prominent causes of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), which paradoxically have been the focus of significantly more research. In addition, the authors have reported substantial inconsistency among CAR T centers in the grading and management of the post–CAR T cytopenias that can cause those infections, underscoring the need for better guidelines.

“The narrative around CAR T toxicity has long centered on CRS and ICANS as novel and prototypical side effects with distinct management protocols,” Dr. Rejeski said in an interview. “However, it is cytopenias and the associated infections that drive nonrelapse mortality after CAR T.”

To address the need, the EHA and EBMT established the grading system for Immune Effector Cell–Associated HematoToxicity (ICAHT) that is applicable across disease types, indications, and treatment settings.

The details of the grading system were published in September 2023 in the journal Blood. The new system, which specifically focuses on neutrophil count and timing, importantly addresses the biphasic nature of ICAHT by distinguishing “early” ICAHT, occurring within 30 days of the CAR T administration, and “late” ICAHT, occurring more that 30 days following the treatment.

By contrast, conventional grading scales for CAR T–related cytopenias, such as the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale, “neither reflect the unique quality of post–CAR T neutrophil recovery, nor do they reflect the inherent risk of infections due to protracted neutropenia,” the authors report in the study.

Real-World Evaluation

To assess the ICAHT grading system’s relevance in a real-world clinical setting of CAR T-cell therapy recipients, Dr. Rejeski and colleagues conducted a multicenter observational study, published in January 2024 in Blood Advances.

The study involved 549 patients at 12 international CAR T centers treated with BCMA- or CD19- directed CAR T therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies.

Of the patients, 112 were treated for multiple myeloma (MM), 334 for large B cell lymphoma (LBCL), and 103 for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Using the grading system, grade 3 (severe) or 4 (life-threatening) ICAHT (n = 125), was found to be strongly associated with key factors including a cumulative duration of severe neutropenia (P < .0001), the presence of multilineage cytopenias, such as severe thrombocytopenia (90%, compared with 46% in nonsevere ICAHT) and severe anemia (92% vs 49%; both P < .001), as well as the use of platelet and red blood cell transfusions.

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was more common in patients with MCL (28%), compared with LBCL (23%) and MM (15%).

Key factors at baseline that were independently associated with severe ICAHT after multivariate adjustment included the presence of bone marrow infiltration, increased serum LDH levels, elevated CAR-HEMATOTOX scores (all P < .001), and receipt of CD28z costimulatory domain products, including axi-cel or brexu-cel (P = .01).

Those with grade 3 or higher ICAHT scores had a significantly higher rate of severe infections, compared with lower ICAHT scores (49% vs 13%; P < .0001), as well as increased nonrelapse mortality (14% vs 4.5%; P < .0001), primarily attributable to fatal infections.

Survival outcomes were also worse with grade 3 or higher ICAHT, including significantly lower rates of 1-year progression-free survival (35% vs 51%) and 1-year overall survival (52% vs 73%; both P < .0001).

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was also significantly associated with prolonged hospital stays (median 21 vs 16 days; P < .0001).

However, contrary to findings from some previous studies, the current study showed no association between ICAHT severity and the prior administration of autologous stem cell transplant.

The number of prior treatment lines was not associated with grade 3 or higher ICAHT. However, grade 3 or higher CRS was more common as a cotoxicity (15% vs 5% without severe ICAHT), as was severe ICANS (26% vs 13%; both P < .001).

Notably, ICAHT grading showed superiority in the prediction of severe infections, compared with CTCAE grading (c-index 0.73 vs 0.55, P < .0001 vs nonsignificant).

While mild to moderate toxicity after CAR T-cell therapy has been associated with more favorable outcomes, the poor survival rates associated with severe ICAHT “underscore that high-grade toxicity and inferior treatment outcomes often go hand-in-hand,” the authors write.

Conversely, “the patients with grade 1 or 2 ICAHT exhibited excellent treatment outcomes in our study,” they point out.

Recommendations in Clinical Practice

For clinical guidance, the ICAHT grading system provides best practice recommendations based on severity for diagnostic work-up and management, such as measures including use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), anti-infective prophylaxis and stem cell boosts.

The authors add that preinfusion scoring systems, including the CAR-HEMATOTOX prognostic score, may be optimized by ICAHT grading in terms of modeling for severe or life-threatening ICAHT as an important endpoint.

“We have had an absence of the standardized severity-based guidelines that we know very well for CRS and ICANS, both in terms of the diagnostic work-up and the grading but also the management,” Dr. Rejeski said at the meeting.

“We hope that the new ICAHT grading focuses future research efforts to not only understand this important side effect better, but also develop specific management strategies that mitigate the risk of infections in high-risk patients,” Dr. Rejeski added.

“The multiply validated CAR-HEMATOTOX score, assessed at time of lymphodepletion, may be helpful in this regard,” he added.

An accompanying editorial published with the guidelines underscored that “this is the first such guideline by a major organization and is a much-needed development for the management of this important CAR T-cell–associated toxicity.”

The improved standardized reporting of ICAHT “could also inform hematotoxicity management protocols,” said the editorial authors, David Qualls, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, Massachusetts.

“While providing comprehensive recommendations for ICAHT, the EHA/EBMT guidelines also highlight important gaps in our current knowledge of ICAHT, which are significant,” the editorial authors add.

Further commenting, Ulrich Jaeger, MD, a professor of hematology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, agreed that the research fills an important need in post–CAR T-cell therapy management.

“Dr. Rejeski´s work is really seminal in the field and confirmed by validation cohorts in other centers,” he said in an interview. “I think the story is absolutely clear. It will be of increasing importance, with more patients surviving. [The system] will have to be adapted to novel indications as well.”

Dr. Rejeski disclosed ties with Kite/Gilead, Novartis, GMS/Celgene, and Pierre-Fabre. Jaeger reports relationships with Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Roche, Miltenyi Biotec, and Innovative Medicines Initiative.

A new grading system designed to improve the assessment of hematological toxicities following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy shows utility for a real-world population, providing much-needed standardization and guidance for management of the potentially life-threatening events.

“Hematotoxicity after CAR T is common and clinically relevant, but it also remains poorly understood [with] a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of grading its clinical management,” said first author Kai Rejeski, MD, in presenting on the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting, held in Spain and jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the European Hematology Association (EHA).

“We hope that this novel grading system helps with this by enabling harmonized reporting using the same nomenclature and allowing the comparison of the expected incidence rates of grade 3 or higher [hematological toxicities] across several disease entities and CAR T products,” said Dr. Rejeski, of the Adult BMT (Blood Marrow Transplant) and Cellular Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

ICAHT Grading System

In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Rejeski and his team found that infections are the cause of as many as 49% of non–relapse related deaths after CAR T-cell therapy, representing the most common cause of death and numbering significantly more than the more prominent causes of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), which paradoxically have been the focus of significantly more research. In addition, the authors have reported substantial inconsistency among CAR T centers in the grading and management of the post–CAR T cytopenias that can cause those infections, underscoring the need for better guidelines.

“The narrative around CAR T toxicity has long centered on CRS and ICANS as novel and prototypical side effects with distinct management protocols,” Dr. Rejeski said in an interview. “However, it is cytopenias and the associated infections that drive nonrelapse mortality after CAR T.”

To address the need, the EHA and EBMT established the grading system for Immune Effector Cell–Associated HematoToxicity (ICAHT) that is applicable across disease types, indications, and treatment settings.

The details of the grading system were published in September 2023 in the journal Blood. The new system, which specifically focuses on neutrophil count and timing, importantly addresses the biphasic nature of ICAHT by distinguishing “early” ICAHT, occurring within 30 days of the CAR T administration, and “late” ICAHT, occurring more that 30 days following the treatment.

By contrast, conventional grading scales for CAR T–related cytopenias, such as the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale, “neither reflect the unique quality of post–CAR T neutrophil recovery, nor do they reflect the inherent risk of infections due to protracted neutropenia,” the authors report in the study.

Real-World Evaluation

To assess the ICAHT grading system’s relevance in a real-world clinical setting of CAR T-cell therapy recipients, Dr. Rejeski and colleagues conducted a multicenter observational study, published in January 2024 in Blood Advances.

The study involved 549 patients at 12 international CAR T centers treated with BCMA- or CD19- directed CAR T therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies.

Of the patients, 112 were treated for multiple myeloma (MM), 334 for large B cell lymphoma (LBCL), and 103 for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Using the grading system, grade 3 (severe) or 4 (life-threatening) ICAHT (n = 125), was found to be strongly associated with key factors including a cumulative duration of severe neutropenia (P < .0001), the presence of multilineage cytopenias, such as severe thrombocytopenia (90%, compared with 46% in nonsevere ICAHT) and severe anemia (92% vs 49%; both P < .001), as well as the use of platelet and red blood cell transfusions.

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was more common in patients with MCL (28%), compared with LBCL (23%) and MM (15%).

Key factors at baseline that were independently associated with severe ICAHT after multivariate adjustment included the presence of bone marrow infiltration, increased serum LDH levels, elevated CAR-HEMATOTOX scores (all P < .001), and receipt of CD28z costimulatory domain products, including axi-cel or brexu-cel (P = .01).

Those with grade 3 or higher ICAHT scores had a significantly higher rate of severe infections, compared with lower ICAHT scores (49% vs 13%; P < .0001), as well as increased nonrelapse mortality (14% vs 4.5%; P < .0001), primarily attributable to fatal infections.

Survival outcomes were also worse with grade 3 or higher ICAHT, including significantly lower rates of 1-year progression-free survival (35% vs 51%) and 1-year overall survival (52% vs 73%; both P < .0001).

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was also significantly associated with prolonged hospital stays (median 21 vs 16 days; P < .0001).

However, contrary to findings from some previous studies, the current study showed no association between ICAHT severity and the prior administration of autologous stem cell transplant.

The number of prior treatment lines was not associated with grade 3 or higher ICAHT. However, grade 3 or higher CRS was more common as a cotoxicity (15% vs 5% without severe ICAHT), as was severe ICANS (26% vs 13%; both P < .001).

Notably, ICAHT grading showed superiority in the prediction of severe infections, compared with CTCAE grading (c-index 0.73 vs 0.55, P < .0001 vs nonsignificant).

While mild to moderate toxicity after CAR T-cell therapy has been associated with more favorable outcomes, the poor survival rates associated with severe ICAHT “underscore that high-grade toxicity and inferior treatment outcomes often go hand-in-hand,” the authors write.

Conversely, “the patients with grade 1 or 2 ICAHT exhibited excellent treatment outcomes in our study,” they point out.

Recommendations in Clinical Practice

For clinical guidance, the ICAHT grading system provides best practice recommendations based on severity for diagnostic work-up and management, such as measures including use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), anti-infective prophylaxis and stem cell boosts.

The authors add that preinfusion scoring systems, including the CAR-HEMATOTOX prognostic score, may be optimized by ICAHT grading in terms of modeling for severe or life-threatening ICAHT as an important endpoint.

“We have had an absence of the standardized severity-based guidelines that we know very well for CRS and ICANS, both in terms of the diagnostic work-up and the grading but also the management,” Dr. Rejeski said at the meeting.

“We hope that the new ICAHT grading focuses future research efforts to not only understand this important side effect better, but also develop specific management strategies that mitigate the risk of infections in high-risk patients,” Dr. Rejeski added.

“The multiply validated CAR-HEMATOTOX score, assessed at time of lymphodepletion, may be helpful in this regard,” he added.

An accompanying editorial published with the guidelines underscored that “this is the first such guideline by a major organization and is a much-needed development for the management of this important CAR T-cell–associated toxicity.”

The improved standardized reporting of ICAHT “could also inform hematotoxicity management protocols,” said the editorial authors, David Qualls, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, Massachusetts.

“While providing comprehensive recommendations for ICAHT, the EHA/EBMT guidelines also highlight important gaps in our current knowledge of ICAHT, which are significant,” the editorial authors add.

Further commenting, Ulrich Jaeger, MD, a professor of hematology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, agreed that the research fills an important need in post–CAR T-cell therapy management.

“Dr. Rejeski´s work is really seminal in the field and confirmed by validation cohorts in other centers,” he said in an interview. “I think the story is absolutely clear. It will be of increasing importance, with more patients surviving. [The system] will have to be adapted to novel indications as well.”

Dr. Rejeski disclosed ties with Kite/Gilead, Novartis, GMS/Celgene, and Pierre-Fabre. Jaeger reports relationships with Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Roche, Miltenyi Biotec, and Innovative Medicines Initiative.

A new grading system designed to improve the assessment of hematological toxicities following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy shows utility for a real-world population, providing much-needed standardization and guidance for management of the potentially life-threatening events.

“Hematotoxicity after CAR T is common and clinically relevant, but it also remains poorly understood [with] a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of grading its clinical management,” said first author Kai Rejeski, MD, in presenting on the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting, held in Spain and jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the European Hematology Association (EHA).

“We hope that this novel grading system helps with this by enabling harmonized reporting using the same nomenclature and allowing the comparison of the expected incidence rates of grade 3 or higher [hematological toxicities] across several disease entities and CAR T products,” said Dr. Rejeski, of the Adult BMT (Blood Marrow Transplant) and Cellular Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

ICAHT Grading System

In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Rejeski and his team found that infections are the cause of as many as 49% of non–relapse related deaths after CAR T-cell therapy, representing the most common cause of death and numbering significantly more than the more prominent causes of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), which paradoxically have been the focus of significantly more research. In addition, the authors have reported substantial inconsistency among CAR T centers in the grading and management of the post–CAR T cytopenias that can cause those infections, underscoring the need for better guidelines.

“The narrative around CAR T toxicity has long centered on CRS and ICANS as novel and prototypical side effects with distinct management protocols,” Dr. Rejeski said in an interview. “However, it is cytopenias and the associated infections that drive nonrelapse mortality after CAR T.”

To address the need, the EHA and EBMT established the grading system for Immune Effector Cell–Associated HematoToxicity (ICAHT) that is applicable across disease types, indications, and treatment settings.

The details of the grading system were published in September 2023 in the journal Blood. The new system, which specifically focuses on neutrophil count and timing, importantly addresses the biphasic nature of ICAHT by distinguishing “early” ICAHT, occurring within 30 days of the CAR T administration, and “late” ICAHT, occurring more that 30 days following the treatment.

By contrast, conventional grading scales for CAR T–related cytopenias, such as the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale, “neither reflect the unique quality of post–CAR T neutrophil recovery, nor do they reflect the inherent risk of infections due to protracted neutropenia,” the authors report in the study.

Real-World Evaluation

To assess the ICAHT grading system’s relevance in a real-world clinical setting of CAR T-cell therapy recipients, Dr. Rejeski and colleagues conducted a multicenter observational study, published in January 2024 in Blood Advances.

The study involved 549 patients at 12 international CAR T centers treated with BCMA- or CD19- directed CAR T therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies.

Of the patients, 112 were treated for multiple myeloma (MM), 334 for large B cell lymphoma (LBCL), and 103 for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Using the grading system, grade 3 (severe) or 4 (life-threatening) ICAHT (n = 125), was found to be strongly associated with key factors including a cumulative duration of severe neutropenia (P < .0001), the presence of multilineage cytopenias, such as severe thrombocytopenia (90%, compared with 46% in nonsevere ICAHT) and severe anemia (92% vs 49%; both P < .001), as well as the use of platelet and red blood cell transfusions.

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was more common in patients with MCL (28%), compared with LBCL (23%) and MM (15%).

Key factors at baseline that were independently associated with severe ICAHT after multivariate adjustment included the presence of bone marrow infiltration, increased serum LDH levels, elevated CAR-HEMATOTOX scores (all P < .001), and receipt of CD28z costimulatory domain products, including axi-cel or brexu-cel (P = .01).

Those with grade 3 or higher ICAHT scores had a significantly higher rate of severe infections, compared with lower ICAHT scores (49% vs 13%; P < .0001), as well as increased nonrelapse mortality (14% vs 4.5%; P < .0001), primarily attributable to fatal infections.

Survival outcomes were also worse with grade 3 or higher ICAHT, including significantly lower rates of 1-year progression-free survival (35% vs 51%) and 1-year overall survival (52% vs 73%; both P < .0001).

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was also significantly associated with prolonged hospital stays (median 21 vs 16 days; P < .0001).

However, contrary to findings from some previous studies, the current study showed no association between ICAHT severity and the prior administration of autologous stem cell transplant.

The number of prior treatment lines was not associated with grade 3 or higher ICAHT. However, grade 3 or higher CRS was more common as a cotoxicity (15% vs 5% without severe ICAHT), as was severe ICANS (26% vs 13%; both P < .001).

Notably, ICAHT grading showed superiority in the prediction of severe infections, compared with CTCAE grading (c-index 0.73 vs 0.55, P < .0001 vs nonsignificant).

While mild to moderate toxicity after CAR T-cell therapy has been associated with more favorable outcomes, the poor survival rates associated with severe ICAHT “underscore that high-grade toxicity and inferior treatment outcomes often go hand-in-hand,” the authors write.

Conversely, “the patients with grade 1 or 2 ICAHT exhibited excellent treatment outcomes in our study,” they point out.

Recommendations in Clinical Practice

For clinical guidance, the ICAHT grading system provides best practice recommendations based on severity for diagnostic work-up and management, such as measures including use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), anti-infective prophylaxis and stem cell boosts.

The authors add that preinfusion scoring systems, including the CAR-HEMATOTOX prognostic score, may be optimized by ICAHT grading in terms of modeling for severe or life-threatening ICAHT as an important endpoint.

“We have had an absence of the standardized severity-based guidelines that we know very well for CRS and ICANS, both in terms of the diagnostic work-up and the grading but also the management,” Dr. Rejeski said at the meeting.

“We hope that the new ICAHT grading focuses future research efforts to not only understand this important side effect better, but also develop specific management strategies that mitigate the risk of infections in high-risk patients,” Dr. Rejeski added.

“The multiply validated CAR-HEMATOTOX score, assessed at time of lymphodepletion, may be helpful in this regard,” he added.

An accompanying editorial published with the guidelines underscored that “this is the first such guideline by a major organization and is a much-needed development for the management of this important CAR T-cell–associated toxicity.”

The improved standardized reporting of ICAHT “could also inform hematotoxicity management protocols,” said the editorial authors, David Qualls, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, Massachusetts.

“While providing comprehensive recommendations for ICAHT, the EHA/EBMT guidelines also highlight important gaps in our current knowledge of ICAHT, which are significant,” the editorial authors add.

Further commenting, Ulrich Jaeger, MD, a professor of hematology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, agreed that the research fills an important need in post–CAR T-cell therapy management.

“Dr. Rejeski´s work is really seminal in the field and confirmed by validation cohorts in other centers,” he said in an interview. “I think the story is absolutely clear. It will be of increasing importance, with more patients surviving. [The system] will have to be adapted to novel indications as well.”

Dr. Rejeski disclosed ties with Kite/Gilead, Novartis, GMS/Celgene, and Pierre-Fabre. Jaeger reports relationships with Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Roche, Miltenyi Biotec, and Innovative Medicines Initiative.

Adults with persistent metabolic syndrome that worsens over time are at increased risk for any type of cancer, according to a new study of more than 44,000 individuals.

The conditions that comprise metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high blood sugar, increased abdominal adiposity, and high cholesterol and triglycerides) have been associated with an increased risk of diseases, including heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes, wrote Li Deng, PhD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, China, and colleagues.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in Diabetes Care in 2012 showed an association between the presence of metabolic syndrome and an increased risk of various cancers including liver, bladder, pancreatic, breast, and colorectal.

More recently, a 2019 study published in Diabetes showed evidence of increased risk for certain cancers (pancreatic, kidney, uterine, cervical) but no increased risk for cancer overall.

However, the reasons for this association between metabolic syndrome and cancer remain unclear, and the effect of the fluctuating nature of metabolic syndrome over time on long-term cancer risk has not been explored, the researchers wrote.
 

What Does New Study Add to Other Research on Metabolic Syndrome and Cancer Risk?

In the new study, published in Cancer on March 11 (doi: 10.1002/cncr.35235), 44,115 adults in China were separated into four trajectories based on metabolic syndrome scores for the period from 2006 to 2010. The scores were based on clinical evidence of metabolic syndrome, defined using the International Diabetes Federation criteria of central obesity and the presence of at least two other factors including increased triglycerides, decreased HDL cholesterol, high blood pressure (or treatment for previously diagnosed hypertension), and increased fasting plasma glucose (or previous diagnosis of type 2 diabetes).

The average age of the participants was 49 years. The four trajectories of metabolic syndrome were low-stable (10.56% of participants), moderate-low (40.84%), moderate-high (41.46%), and elevated-increasing (7.14%), based on trends from the individuals’ initial physical exams on entering the study.

Over a median follow-up period of 9.4 years (from 2010 to 2021), 2,271 cancer diagnoses were reported in the study population. Those with an elevated-increasing metabolic syndrome trajectory had 1.3 times the risk of any cancer compared with those in the low-stable group. Risk for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, and liver cancer in the highest trajectory group were 2.1, 3.3, 4.5, 2.5, and 1.6 times higher, respectively, compared to the lowest group. The increased risk in the elevated-trajectory group for all cancer types persisted when the low-stable, moderate-low, and moderate-high trajectory pattern groups were combined.

The researchers also examined the impact of chronic inflammation and found that individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risks of breast, endometrial, colon, and liver cancer. However, individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and no concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risk of kidney cancer.
 

 What Are the Limitations of This Research?

The researchers of the current study acknowledged the lack of information on other causes of cancer, including dietary habits, hepatitis C infection, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Other limitations include the focus only on individuals from a single community of mainly middle-aged men in China that may not generalize to other populations.

Also, the metabolic syndrome trajectories did not change much over time, which may be related to the short 4-year study period.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinical Practice?

The results suggest that monitoring and managing metabolic syndrome could help reduce cancer risk, the researchers concluded. 

“This research suggests that proactive and continuous management of metabolic syndrome may serve as an essential strategy in preventing cancer,” senior author Han-Ping Shi, MD, PhD, of Capital Medical University in Beijing, said in a press release accompanying the study.

More research is needed to assess the impact of these interventions on cancer risk, he noted. However, the data from the current study can guide future research that may lead to more targeted treatments and more effective preventive strategies, he said in a statement.

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with persistent metabolic syndrome that worsens over time are at increased risk for any type of cancer, according to a new study of more than 44,000 individuals.

The conditions that comprise metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high blood sugar, increased abdominal adiposity, and high cholesterol and triglycerides) have been associated with an increased risk of diseases, including heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes, wrote Li Deng, PhD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, China, and colleagues.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in Diabetes Care in 2012 showed an association between the presence of metabolic syndrome and an increased risk of various cancers including liver, bladder, pancreatic, breast, and colorectal.

More recently, a 2019 study published in Diabetes showed evidence of increased risk for certain cancers (pancreatic, kidney, uterine, cervical) but no increased risk for cancer overall.

However, the reasons for this association between metabolic syndrome and cancer remain unclear, and the effect of the fluctuating nature of metabolic syndrome over time on long-term cancer risk has not been explored, the researchers wrote.
 

What Does New Study Add to Other Research on Metabolic Syndrome and Cancer Risk?

In the new study, published in Cancer on March 11 (doi: 10.1002/cncr.35235), 44,115 adults in China were separated into four trajectories based on metabolic syndrome scores for the period from 2006 to 2010. The scores were based on clinical evidence of metabolic syndrome, defined using the International Diabetes Federation criteria of central obesity and the presence of at least two other factors including increased triglycerides, decreased HDL cholesterol, high blood pressure (or treatment for previously diagnosed hypertension), and increased fasting plasma glucose (or previous diagnosis of type 2 diabetes).

The average age of the participants was 49 years. The four trajectories of metabolic syndrome were low-stable (10.56% of participants), moderate-low (40.84%), moderate-high (41.46%), and elevated-increasing (7.14%), based on trends from the individuals’ initial physical exams on entering the study.

Over a median follow-up period of 9.4 years (from 2010 to 2021), 2,271 cancer diagnoses were reported in the study population. Those with an elevated-increasing metabolic syndrome trajectory had 1.3 times the risk of any cancer compared with those in the low-stable group. Risk for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, and liver cancer in the highest trajectory group were 2.1, 3.3, 4.5, 2.5, and 1.6 times higher, respectively, compared to the lowest group. The increased risk in the elevated-trajectory group for all cancer types persisted when the low-stable, moderate-low, and moderate-high trajectory pattern groups were combined.

The researchers also examined the impact of chronic inflammation and found that individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risks of breast, endometrial, colon, and liver cancer. However, individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and no concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risk of kidney cancer.
 

 What Are the Limitations of This Research?

The researchers of the current study acknowledged the lack of information on other causes of cancer, including dietary habits, hepatitis C infection, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Other limitations include the focus only on individuals from a single community of mainly middle-aged men in China that may not generalize to other populations.

Also, the metabolic syndrome trajectories did not change much over time, which may be related to the short 4-year study period.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinical Practice?

The results suggest that monitoring and managing metabolic syndrome could help reduce cancer risk, the researchers concluded. 

“This research suggests that proactive and continuous management of metabolic syndrome may serve as an essential strategy in preventing cancer,” senior author Han-Ping Shi, MD, PhD, of Capital Medical University in Beijing, said in a press release accompanying the study.

More research is needed to assess the impact of these interventions on cancer risk, he noted. However, the data from the current study can guide future research that may lead to more targeted treatments and more effective preventive strategies, he said in a statement.

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with persistent metabolic syndrome that worsens over time are at increased risk for any type of cancer, according to a new study of more than 44,000 individuals.

The conditions that comprise metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, high blood sugar, increased abdominal adiposity, and high cholesterol and triglycerides) have been associated with an increased risk of diseases, including heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes, wrote Li Deng, PhD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, China, and colleagues.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in Diabetes Care in 2012 showed an association between the presence of metabolic syndrome and an increased risk of various cancers including liver, bladder, pancreatic, breast, and colorectal.

More recently, a 2019 study published in Diabetes showed evidence of increased risk for certain cancers (pancreatic, kidney, uterine, cervical) but no increased risk for cancer overall.

However, the reasons for this association between metabolic syndrome and cancer remain unclear, and the effect of the fluctuating nature of metabolic syndrome over time on long-term cancer risk has not been explored, the researchers wrote.
 

What Does New Study Add to Other Research on Metabolic Syndrome and Cancer Risk?

In the new study, published in Cancer on March 11 (doi: 10.1002/cncr.35235), 44,115 adults in China were separated into four trajectories based on metabolic syndrome scores for the period from 2006 to 2010. The scores were based on clinical evidence of metabolic syndrome, defined using the International Diabetes Federation criteria of central obesity and the presence of at least two other factors including increased triglycerides, decreased HDL cholesterol, high blood pressure (or treatment for previously diagnosed hypertension), and increased fasting plasma glucose (or previous diagnosis of type 2 diabetes).

The average age of the participants was 49 years. The four trajectories of metabolic syndrome were low-stable (10.56% of participants), moderate-low (40.84%), moderate-high (41.46%), and elevated-increasing (7.14%), based on trends from the individuals’ initial physical exams on entering the study.

Over a median follow-up period of 9.4 years (from 2010 to 2021), 2,271 cancer diagnoses were reported in the study population. Those with an elevated-increasing metabolic syndrome trajectory had 1.3 times the risk of any cancer compared with those in the low-stable group. Risk for breast cancer, endometrial cancer, kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, and liver cancer in the highest trajectory group were 2.1, 3.3, 4.5, 2.5, and 1.6 times higher, respectively, compared to the lowest group. The increased risk in the elevated-trajectory group for all cancer types persisted when the low-stable, moderate-low, and moderate-high trajectory pattern groups were combined.

The researchers also examined the impact of chronic inflammation and found that individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risks of breast, endometrial, colon, and liver cancer. However, individuals with persistently high metabolic syndrome scores and no concurrent chronic inflammation had the highest risk of kidney cancer.
 

 What Are the Limitations of This Research?

The researchers of the current study acknowledged the lack of information on other causes of cancer, including dietary habits, hepatitis C infection, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Other limitations include the focus only on individuals from a single community of mainly middle-aged men in China that may not generalize to other populations.

Also, the metabolic syndrome trajectories did not change much over time, which may be related to the short 4-year study period.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinical Practice?

The results suggest that monitoring and managing metabolic syndrome could help reduce cancer risk, the researchers concluded. 

“This research suggests that proactive and continuous management of metabolic syndrome may serve as an essential strategy in preventing cancer,” senior author Han-Ping Shi, MD, PhD, of Capital Medical University in Beijing, said in a press release accompanying the study.

More research is needed to assess the impact of these interventions on cancer risk, he noted. However, the data from the current study can guide future research that may lead to more targeted treatments and more effective preventive strategies, he said in a statement.

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

More Black men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) counts are diagnosed with prostate cancer than their White counterparts, but incidence of advanced prostate cancer is similar for Black and White men within 1 year of the PSA test, a new study finds.

There was a substantial difference in prostate cancer diagnosis across ethnic groups: 25% of Black men with a raised PSA were diagnosed with prostate cancer within 1 year of being tested, compared with 20% of White men and 13% of Asian men, in the analysis of a large primary care cohort in the United Kingdom.

Incidence of advanced prostate cancer for Asian men with a raised PSA result was 4.5%, compared with 7.5% for White men and 7.0% for Black men.

Men included in the study were aged 40 and older and had no prior cancer diagnosis. Their ethnicity and PSA test result were logged in a national dataset between 2010 and 2017.

The study of more than 730,000 men, published in BMC Medicine, didn’t explore reasons for the differences, but experts offer their thoughts on what led to the findings and what these results imply.

Why the Higher Diagnosis Rates but Not More Advanced Disease in Black Men?

Lead author Liz Down, a graduate research assistant at the University of Exeter, Exeter, England, suggests the higher diagnosis rates but not more advanced disease in Black men may be linked to genetic variations.

Her team’s studies have shown that Black men in the United Kingdom and United States have higher levels of PSA. The PSA value is used to identify patients who might benefit from specialist investigation, and current guidelines in the UK and US don’t distinguish between ethnic groups.

As most men have slow-growing prostate cancer, this may lead to a disproportionately higher number of Black men being diagnosed with prostate cancer, she said.

“One possible interpretation,” Ms. Down notes, “is that prostate cancer follows a similar trajectory in Black and White men. What is different, however, is that Black men have higher PSA levels.”

As to why the advanced-cancer incidence is similar in Black and White patients in the study, Daniel George, MD, director of genitourinary oncology at Duke Cancer Institute in Durham, North Carolina, says it’s important to understand that the Black men in this study “are not necessarily representative of the Black population at large.”

In this study, “they’re a little bit more healthcare inclined,” Dr. George notes. The study population is actively seeking the PSA test. Their socioeconomic profile might be closer to their White counterparts’, and that may make results more similar, he said.

“It’s possible that because this is a screening and not just men coming in for symptoms or cause, that we’re not seeing as much advanced disease,” he continued.

Amar Kishan, MD, chief of the genitourinary oncology service at University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Health, says the genomic factors and environmental stressors that lead to elevated PSA counts don’t necessarily translate into aggressiveness of disease.

Why do Different Races have Different Prostate Cancer Risk?

Dr. George points out that the study also highlights that Asian men were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer within 1 year of the test.

The reasons for differences in prostate risk by race are complex, he notes. There are some clues that biologic factors may be at work. For instance, early puberty has a link to prostate cancer as it does to breast cancer, and height is also associated with a greater risk of prostate cancer, Dr. George said.

It’s not necessarily a racial association but there are some biological factors associated with prostate cancer later in life, he explained. “These may be enriched in certain populations, including northern Europeans and patients with African ancestries.”

The study also notes that Black men are more likely to die from prostate cancer than are White men, and Asian men are less likely than White or Black men to die from it.

Ms. Down said the difference in prostate cancer mortality between Black vs White men, in particular, may be related to a number of factors, and age, and lifetime risk of prostate cancer may play a major role, at least in the UK.

Should There Be Different ‘Normal’ PSA Levels for Different Races?

Dr. George says there is likely a need to change the system because a PSA level in one race may not signal the same risk it does in another. So medicine probably needs to standardize what a “normal” PSA is by race, he says, adding that he is a coauthor of an upcoming paper regarding that issue.

The lowest instances of prostate cancer were in Asian patients so this isn’t just a Black and White issue, Dr. George notes. “Being able to establish benchmarks by race and ethnicity is something that is probably needed in the field,” he says.

Dr. Kishan, on the other hand, says data from this study are not enough to support differentiating PSA levels based on race. He noted a limitation of the study is that it was not able to calculate the false-negative rate of PSA tests.

What are the Implications for Treating and Screening for Prostate Cancer

Dr. Kishan says there may be a role for increased intensity of screening, whether at an earlier age or with different intervals, but prostate cancer treatment should not differ by race.

“Our prior study, as well as others,” he says, “have shown that when you balance Black and White patients for every factor that might impact prognosis other than race — such as age, disease aggressiveness, etc. — Black men actually tend to have better  outcomes than White men. Thus, it would mean potentially overtreating (i.e., causing unnecessary side effects) to increase treatment intensity purely based on race with the available data.”

According to the paper, prostate cancer incidence in men with higher PSA levels increases with increasing age, even when using age-adjusted thresholds.

Dr. George says we know from this study and other studies as well that Black men are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate at a younger age. “Therefore, we probably need to be thinking about screening Black men starting at a younger age. These are the men who are most likely to benefit from an intervention — patients who have life expectancies of 20 years or more.”

What are the Downsides to Overdiagnosing Prostate Cancer in Men?

“It’s one of the biggest concerns that men have in proactively seeking healthcare,” Dr. George says. “They’re more likely to undergo treatment for this disease if they’re getting screened because (clinicians are) more likely to find it.”

Some of those men, he says, are going to undergo treatment for disease that won’t ultimately kill them, but may cause complications the men shouldn’t have had at all or otherwise may have had later.

“Overtreatment is a real concern. That’s why active surveillance is so important to minimize overtreatment of patients by finding out which cancers are low risk for progression and which are becoming more aggressive,” Dr. George says.

Authors of the study write that “the potential for overdiagnosis and the subsequent psychological and physical impact of diagnosis and treatment is an important consideration.”

All authors of the new paper received financial support from Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), and the Higgins family for the submitted work.

Dr. George reports no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Kishan reports consulting fees and speaking honoraria from Varian Medical Systems, Janssen, and Boston Scientific; research funding from PointBioPharma, Lantheus, and Janssen; and serving on advisory boards for Lantheus, Janssen and Boston Scientific.

More Black men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) counts are diagnosed with prostate cancer than their White counterparts, but incidence of advanced prostate cancer is similar for Black and White men within 1 year of the PSA test, a new study finds.

There was a substantial difference in prostate cancer diagnosis across ethnic groups: 25% of Black men with a raised PSA were diagnosed with prostate cancer within 1 year of being tested, compared with 20% of White men and 13% of Asian men, in the analysis of a large primary care cohort in the United Kingdom.

Incidence of advanced prostate cancer for Asian men with a raised PSA result was 4.5%, compared with 7.5% for White men and 7.0% for Black men.

Men included in the study were aged 40 and older and had no prior cancer diagnosis. Their ethnicity and PSA test result were logged in a national dataset between 2010 and 2017.

The study of more than 730,000 men, published in BMC Medicine, didn’t explore reasons for the differences, but experts offer their thoughts on what led to the findings and what these results imply.

Why the Higher Diagnosis Rates but Not More Advanced Disease in Black Men?

Lead author Liz Down, a graduate research assistant at the University of Exeter, Exeter, England, suggests the higher diagnosis rates but not more advanced disease in Black men may be linked to genetic variations.

Her team’s studies have shown that Black men in the United Kingdom and United States have higher levels of PSA. The PSA value is used to identify patients who might benefit from specialist investigation, and current guidelines in the UK and US don’t distinguish between ethnic groups.

As most men have slow-growing prostate cancer, this may lead to a disproportionately higher number of Black men being diagnosed with prostate cancer, she said.

“One possible interpretation,” Ms. Down notes, “is that prostate cancer follows a similar trajectory in Black and White men. What is different, however, is that Black men have higher PSA levels.”

As to why the advanced-cancer incidence is similar in Black and White patients in the study, Daniel George, MD, director of genitourinary oncology at Duke Cancer Institute in Durham, North Carolina, says it’s important to understand that the Black men in this study “are not necessarily representative of the Black population at large.”

In this study, “they’re a little bit more healthcare inclined,” Dr. George notes. The study population is actively seeking the PSA test. Their socioeconomic profile might be closer to their White counterparts’, and that may make results more similar, he said.

“It’s possible that because this is a screening and not just men coming in for symptoms or cause, that we’re not seeing as much advanced disease,” he continued.

Amar Kishan, MD, chief of the genitourinary oncology service at University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Health, says the genomic factors and environmental stressors that lead to elevated PSA counts don’t necessarily translate into aggressiveness of disease.

Why do Different Races have Different Prostate Cancer Risk?

Dr. George points out that the study also highlights that Asian men were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer within 1 year of the test.

The reasons for differences in prostate risk by race are complex, he notes. There are some clues that biologic factors may be at work. For instance, early puberty has a link to prostate cancer as it does to breast cancer, and height is also associated with a greater risk of prostate cancer, Dr. George said.

It’s not necessarily a racial association but there are some biological factors associated with prostate cancer later in life, he explained. “These may be enriched in certain populations, including northern Europeans and patients with African ancestries.”

The study also notes that Black men are more likely to die from prostate cancer than are White men, and Asian men are less likely than White or Black men to die from it.

Ms. Down said the difference in prostate cancer mortality between Black vs White men, in particular, may be related to a number of factors, and age, and lifetime risk of prostate cancer may play a major role, at least in the UK.

Should There Be Different ‘Normal’ PSA Levels for Different Races?

Dr. George says there is likely a need to change the system because a PSA level in one race may not signal the same risk it does in another. So medicine probably needs to standardize what a “normal” PSA is by race, he says, adding that he is a coauthor of an upcoming paper regarding that issue.

The lowest instances of prostate cancer were in Asian patients so this isn’t just a Black and White issue, Dr. George notes. “Being able to establish benchmarks by race and ethnicity is something that is probably needed in the field,” he says.

Dr. Kishan, on the other hand, says data from this study are not enough to support differentiating PSA levels based on race. He noted a limitation of the study is that it was not able to calculate the false-negative rate of PSA tests.

What are the Implications for Treating and Screening for Prostate Cancer

Dr. Kishan says there may be a role for increased intensity of screening, whether at an earlier age or with different intervals, but prostate cancer treatment should not differ by race.

“Our prior study, as well as others,” he says, “have shown that when you balance Black and White patients for every factor that might impact prognosis other than race — such as age, disease aggressiveness, etc. — Black men actually tend to have better  outcomes than White men. Thus, it would mean potentially overtreating (i.e., causing unnecessary side effects) to increase treatment intensity purely based on race with the available data.”

According to the paper, prostate cancer incidence in men with higher PSA levels increases with increasing age, even when using age-adjusted thresholds.

Dr. George says we know from this study and other studies as well that Black men are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate at a younger age. “Therefore, we probably need to be thinking about screening Black men starting at a younger age. These are the men who are most likely to benefit from an intervention — patients who have life expectancies of 20 years or more.”

What are the Downsides to Overdiagnosing Prostate Cancer in Men?

“It’s one of the biggest concerns that men have in proactively seeking healthcare,” Dr. George says. “They’re more likely to undergo treatment for this disease if they’re getting screened because (clinicians are) more likely to find it.”

Some of those men, he says, are going to undergo treatment for disease that won’t ultimately kill them, but may cause complications the men shouldn’t have had at all or otherwise may have had later.

“Overtreatment is a real concern. That’s why active surveillance is so important to minimize overtreatment of patients by finding out which cancers are low risk for progression and which are becoming more aggressive,” Dr. George says.

Authors of the study write that “the potential for overdiagnosis and the subsequent psychological and physical impact of diagnosis and treatment is an important consideration.”

All authors of the new paper received financial support from Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), and the Higgins family for the submitted work.

Dr. George reports no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Kishan reports consulting fees and speaking honoraria from Varian Medical Systems, Janssen, and Boston Scientific; research funding from PointBioPharma, Lantheus, and Janssen; and serving on advisory boards for Lantheus, Janssen and Boston Scientific.

More Black men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) counts are diagnosed with prostate cancer than their White counterparts, but incidence of advanced prostate cancer is similar for Black and White men within 1 year of the PSA test, a new study finds.

There was a substantial difference in prostate cancer diagnosis across ethnic groups: 25% of Black men with a raised PSA were diagnosed with prostate cancer within 1 year of being tested, compared with 20% of White men and 13% of Asian men, in the analysis of a large primary care cohort in the United Kingdom.

Incidence of advanced prostate cancer for Asian men with a raised PSA result was 4.5%, compared with 7.5% for White men and 7.0% for Black men.

Men included in the study were aged 40 and older and had no prior cancer diagnosis. Their ethnicity and PSA test result were logged in a national dataset between 2010 and 2017.

The study of more than 730,000 men, published in BMC Medicine, didn’t explore reasons for the differences, but experts offer their thoughts on what led to the findings and what these results imply.

Why the Higher Diagnosis Rates but Not More Advanced Disease in Black Men?

Lead author Liz Down, a graduate research assistant at the University of Exeter, Exeter, England, suggests the higher diagnosis rates but not more advanced disease in Black men may be linked to genetic variations.

Her team’s studies have shown that Black men in the United Kingdom and United States have higher levels of PSA. The PSA value is used to identify patients who might benefit from specialist investigation, and current guidelines in the UK and US don’t distinguish between ethnic groups.

As most men have slow-growing prostate cancer, this may lead to a disproportionately higher number of Black men being diagnosed with prostate cancer, she said.

“One possible interpretation,” Ms. Down notes, “is that prostate cancer follows a similar trajectory in Black and White men. What is different, however, is that Black men have higher PSA levels.”

As to why the advanced-cancer incidence is similar in Black and White patients in the study, Daniel George, MD, director of genitourinary oncology at Duke Cancer Institute in Durham, North Carolina, says it’s important to understand that the Black men in this study “are not necessarily representative of the Black population at large.”

In this study, “they’re a little bit more healthcare inclined,” Dr. George notes. The study population is actively seeking the PSA test. Their socioeconomic profile might be closer to their White counterparts’, and that may make results more similar, he said.

“It’s possible that because this is a screening and not just men coming in for symptoms or cause, that we’re not seeing as much advanced disease,” he continued.

Amar Kishan, MD, chief of the genitourinary oncology service at University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Health, says the genomic factors and environmental stressors that lead to elevated PSA counts don’t necessarily translate into aggressiveness of disease.

Why do Different Races have Different Prostate Cancer Risk?

Dr. George points out that the study also highlights that Asian men were significantly less likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer within 1 year of the test.

The reasons for differences in prostate risk by race are complex, he notes. There are some clues that biologic factors may be at work. For instance, early puberty has a link to prostate cancer as it does to breast cancer, and height is also associated with a greater risk of prostate cancer, Dr. George said.

It’s not necessarily a racial association but there are some biological factors associated with prostate cancer later in life, he explained. “These may be enriched in certain populations, including northern Europeans and patients with African ancestries.”

The study also notes that Black men are more likely to die from prostate cancer than are White men, and Asian men are less likely than White or Black men to die from it.

Ms. Down said the difference in prostate cancer mortality between Black vs White men, in particular, may be related to a number of factors, and age, and lifetime risk of prostate cancer may play a major role, at least in the UK.

Should There Be Different ‘Normal’ PSA Levels for Different Races?

Dr. George says there is likely a need to change the system because a PSA level in one race may not signal the same risk it does in another. So medicine probably needs to standardize what a “normal” PSA is by race, he says, adding that he is a coauthor of an upcoming paper regarding that issue.

The lowest instances of prostate cancer were in Asian patients so this isn’t just a Black and White issue, Dr. George notes. “Being able to establish benchmarks by race and ethnicity is something that is probably needed in the field,” he says.

Dr. Kishan, on the other hand, says data from this study are not enough to support differentiating PSA levels based on race. He noted a limitation of the study is that it was not able to calculate the false-negative rate of PSA tests.

What are the Implications for Treating and Screening for Prostate Cancer

Dr. Kishan says there may be a role for increased intensity of screening, whether at an earlier age or with different intervals, but prostate cancer treatment should not differ by race.

“Our prior study, as well as others,” he says, “have shown that when you balance Black and White patients for every factor that might impact prognosis other than race — such as age, disease aggressiveness, etc. — Black men actually tend to have better  outcomes than White men. Thus, it would mean potentially overtreating (i.e., causing unnecessary side effects) to increase treatment intensity purely based on race with the available data.”

According to the paper, prostate cancer incidence in men with higher PSA levels increases with increasing age, even when using age-adjusted thresholds.

Dr. George says we know from this study and other studies as well that Black men are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate at a younger age. “Therefore, we probably need to be thinking about screening Black men starting at a younger age. These are the men who are most likely to benefit from an intervention — patients who have life expectancies of 20 years or more.”

What are the Downsides to Overdiagnosing Prostate Cancer in Men?

“It’s one of the biggest concerns that men have in proactively seeking healthcare,” Dr. George says. “They’re more likely to undergo treatment for this disease if they’re getting screened because (clinicians are) more likely to find it.”

Some of those men, he says, are going to undergo treatment for disease that won’t ultimately kill them, but may cause complications the men shouldn’t have had at all or otherwise may have had later.

“Overtreatment is a real concern. That’s why active surveillance is so important to minimize overtreatment of patients by finding out which cancers are low risk for progression and which are becoming more aggressive,” Dr. George says.

Authors of the study write that “the potential for overdiagnosis and the subsequent psychological and physical impact of diagnosis and treatment is an important consideration.”

All authors of the new paper received financial support from Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), and the Higgins family for the submitted work.

Dr. George reports no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Kishan reports consulting fees and speaking honoraria from Varian Medical Systems, Janssen, and Boston Scientific; research funding from PointBioPharma, Lantheus, and Janssen; and serving on advisory boards for Lantheus, Janssen and Boston Scientific.

SAN DIEGO — New guidelines for cutaneous melanoma have been issued by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), creating some new standards of practice that extend a slow divergence from the last set of detailed recommendations released by the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) in 2019.

Based on the constantly evolving science that drives guidelines, the new set of NCCN recommendations reflects the latest iteration of a consensus effort to define best practice, according to Susan M. Swetter, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University in California.

Dr. Swetter chaired the committee that developed the most recent NCCN guidelines, released February 12. She also chaired the work group that developed the AAD recommendations, released in 2019. Differences between the two primarily reflect evolving evidence and expert opinion over time. 
 

Next AAD Guidelines More Than 1 Year Away

The AAD guidelines are developed infrequently and in a process that can take years. The next AAD cutaneous melanoma guidelines are not likely to be released until the end of 2025 or in 2026, Dr. Swetter said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology on March 8. In contrast, the NCCN guidelines for cutaneous melanoma are revisited frequently. The last iteration was published only 1 year ago. 

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

More Than 50% Consensus Generally Required

The NCCN committee that issues periodic guidelines on cutaneous melanoma is formed by a rotating group of interdisciplinary melanoma specialists. More than 30 academic institutions nationwide are generally represented, and the group includes patient advocates. Typically, no comment or recommendation is provided if the committee cannot generate at least a majority endorsement (≥ 50%) on a given topic.

Overall, the majority of guidelines, including those issued by the NCCN and the AAD, are aligned, except to the degree of the time lag that provides different sets of evidence to consider. The rationale for keeping abreast of the NCCN recommendations is that updates are more frequent, according to Dr. Swetter, who noted that these are available for free once a user has registered on the NCCN website. 

Importantly, guidelines not only identify what further steps can be taken to improve diagnostic accuracy or outcomes but what practices can be abandoned to improve the benefit-to-risk ratio. As an example, surgical margins for primary melanomas have been becoming progressively smaller on the basis of evidence that larger margins increase morbidity without improving outcomes.

Although Dr. Swetter acknowledged that “we still haven’t identified the narrowest, most efficacious margins for cutaneous melanoma,” she cited studies now suggesting that margins of 2 cm appear to be sufficient even for advanced T3 and T4 tumors. Prior to the 1970s, margins of 5 cm or greater were common.

There are still many unanswered questions about optimal margins, but the 2023 NCCN guidelines already called for surgical margins of at least 1 cm and no more than 2 cm for large invasive melanomas when clinically measured around the primary tumor. Dr. Swetter said that even smaller margins can be considered “to accommodate function and/or the anatomic location.”
 

Best Margins for MIS Undefined

So far, there are no randomized trials yet to guide surgical margins or depth for many melanoma subtypes, including melanoma in situ (MIS). These are the types of data, when they become available, that change guidelines.

The list of procedures often performed, but for which there is no specific guidance from NCCN or other organizations, is long. Numerous examples were provided during the AAD symposium on guidelines, during which Dr. Swetter spoke. The bedside diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma with noninvasive testing was one.

Describing the 2-gene molecular assay for the evaluation of a suspected melanoma, Caroline C. Kim, MD, director of the Melanoma and Pigmented Lesion Program at Tufts University in Boston, explained that this tool, which is based on the presence of the LINC00158 gene and the preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME), has limited utility as a tool for establishing a diagnosis of melanoma. But, she said, it has reasonably good reliability for ruling out melanoma, thereby providing a basis to avoid or delay further diagnostic steps, such as biopsy.

Skin biopsy, as established in the guidelines, “is still the gold standard,” but there are numerous studies indicating that patients negative for both LINC00158 and PRAME have a low risk for melanoma, she said.

“A double negative result is not 100% effective, but it is high,” said Dr. Kim, who provided several examples whereby she employed the test to follow the patient rather than do invasive testing.

This test is gaining popularity, according to Dr. Kim, who cited several surveys suggesting growing use among clinicians, but she characterized it as an adjunctive approach that should be considered in the context of guidelines. It is an example of an approach that is not yet standard practice but can be helpful if used appropriately, she noted.

Dr. Swetter and Dr. Kim report no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — New guidelines for cutaneous melanoma have been issued by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), creating some new standards of practice that extend a slow divergence from the last set of detailed recommendations released by the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) in 2019.

Based on the constantly evolving science that drives guidelines, the new set of NCCN recommendations reflects the latest iteration of a consensus effort to define best practice, according to Susan M. Swetter, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University in California.

Dr. Swetter chaired the committee that developed the most recent NCCN guidelines, released February 12. She also chaired the work group that developed the AAD recommendations, released in 2019. Differences between the two primarily reflect evolving evidence and expert opinion over time. 
 

Next AAD Guidelines More Than 1 Year Away

The AAD guidelines are developed infrequently and in a process that can take years. The next AAD cutaneous melanoma guidelines are not likely to be released until the end of 2025 or in 2026, Dr. Swetter said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology on March 8. In contrast, the NCCN guidelines for cutaneous melanoma are revisited frequently. The last iteration was published only 1 year ago. 

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

More Than 50% Consensus Generally Required

The NCCN committee that issues periodic guidelines on cutaneous melanoma is formed by a rotating group of interdisciplinary melanoma specialists. More than 30 academic institutions nationwide are generally represented, and the group includes patient advocates. Typically, no comment or recommendation is provided if the committee cannot generate at least a majority endorsement (≥ 50%) on a given topic.

Overall, the majority of guidelines, including those issued by the NCCN and the AAD, are aligned, except to the degree of the time lag that provides different sets of evidence to consider. The rationale for keeping abreast of the NCCN recommendations is that updates are more frequent, according to Dr. Swetter, who noted that these are available for free once a user has registered on the NCCN website. 

Importantly, guidelines not only identify what further steps can be taken to improve diagnostic accuracy or outcomes but what practices can be abandoned to improve the benefit-to-risk ratio. As an example, surgical margins for primary melanomas have been becoming progressively smaller on the basis of evidence that larger margins increase morbidity without improving outcomes.

Although Dr. Swetter acknowledged that “we still haven’t identified the narrowest, most efficacious margins for cutaneous melanoma,” she cited studies now suggesting that margins of 2 cm appear to be sufficient even for advanced T3 and T4 tumors. Prior to the 1970s, margins of 5 cm or greater were common.

There are still many unanswered questions about optimal margins, but the 2023 NCCN guidelines already called for surgical margins of at least 1 cm and no more than 2 cm for large invasive melanomas when clinically measured around the primary tumor. Dr. Swetter said that even smaller margins can be considered “to accommodate function and/or the anatomic location.”
 

Best Margins for MIS Undefined

So far, there are no randomized trials yet to guide surgical margins or depth for many melanoma subtypes, including melanoma in situ (MIS). These are the types of data, when they become available, that change guidelines.

The list of procedures often performed, but for which there is no specific guidance from NCCN or other organizations, is long. Numerous examples were provided during the AAD symposium on guidelines, during which Dr. Swetter spoke. The bedside diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma with noninvasive testing was one.

Describing the 2-gene molecular assay for the evaluation of a suspected melanoma, Caroline C. Kim, MD, director of the Melanoma and Pigmented Lesion Program at Tufts University in Boston, explained that this tool, which is based on the presence of the LINC00158 gene and the preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME), has limited utility as a tool for establishing a diagnosis of melanoma. But, she said, it has reasonably good reliability for ruling out melanoma, thereby providing a basis to avoid or delay further diagnostic steps, such as biopsy.

Skin biopsy, as established in the guidelines, “is still the gold standard,” but there are numerous studies indicating that patients negative for both LINC00158 and PRAME have a low risk for melanoma, she said.

“A double negative result is not 100% effective, but it is high,” said Dr. Kim, who provided several examples whereby she employed the test to follow the patient rather than do invasive testing.

This test is gaining popularity, according to Dr. Kim, who cited several surveys suggesting growing use among clinicians, but she characterized it as an adjunctive approach that should be considered in the context of guidelines. It is an example of an approach that is not yet standard practice but can be helpful if used appropriately, she noted.

Dr. Swetter and Dr. Kim report no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — New guidelines for cutaneous melanoma have been issued by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), creating some new standards of practice that extend a slow divergence from the last set of detailed recommendations released by the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) in 2019.

Based on the constantly evolving science that drives guidelines, the new set of NCCN recommendations reflects the latest iteration of a consensus effort to define best practice, according to Susan M. Swetter, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University in California.

Dr. Swetter chaired the committee that developed the most recent NCCN guidelines, released February 12. She also chaired the work group that developed the AAD recommendations, released in 2019. Differences between the two primarily reflect evolving evidence and expert opinion over time. 
 

Next AAD Guidelines More Than 1 Year Away

The AAD guidelines are developed infrequently and in a process that can take years. The next AAD cutaneous melanoma guidelines are not likely to be released until the end of 2025 or in 2026, Dr. Swetter said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology on March 8. In contrast, the NCCN guidelines for cutaneous melanoma are revisited frequently. The last iteration was published only 1 year ago. 

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

More Than 50% Consensus Generally Required

The NCCN committee that issues periodic guidelines on cutaneous melanoma is formed by a rotating group of interdisciplinary melanoma specialists. More than 30 academic institutions nationwide are generally represented, and the group includes patient advocates. Typically, no comment or recommendation is provided if the committee cannot generate at least a majority endorsement (≥ 50%) on a given topic.

Overall, the majority of guidelines, including those issued by the NCCN and the AAD, are aligned, except to the degree of the time lag that provides different sets of evidence to consider. The rationale for keeping abreast of the NCCN recommendations is that updates are more frequent, according to Dr. Swetter, who noted that these are available for free once a user has registered on the NCCN website. 

Importantly, guidelines not only identify what further steps can be taken to improve diagnostic accuracy or outcomes but what practices can be abandoned to improve the benefit-to-risk ratio. As an example, surgical margins for primary melanomas have been becoming progressively smaller on the basis of evidence that larger margins increase morbidity without improving outcomes.

Although Dr. Swetter acknowledged that “we still haven’t identified the narrowest, most efficacious margins for cutaneous melanoma,” she cited studies now suggesting that margins of 2 cm appear to be sufficient even for advanced T3 and T4 tumors. Prior to the 1970s, margins of 5 cm or greater were common.

There are still many unanswered questions about optimal margins, but the 2023 NCCN guidelines already called for surgical margins of at least 1 cm and no more than 2 cm for large invasive melanomas when clinically measured around the primary tumor. Dr. Swetter said that even smaller margins can be considered “to accommodate function and/or the anatomic location.”
 

Best Margins for MIS Undefined

So far, there are no randomized trials yet to guide surgical margins or depth for many melanoma subtypes, including melanoma in situ (MIS). These are the types of data, when they become available, that change guidelines.

The list of procedures often performed, but for which there is no specific guidance from NCCN or other organizations, is long. Numerous examples were provided during the AAD symposium on guidelines, during which Dr. Swetter spoke. The bedside diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma with noninvasive testing was one.

Describing the 2-gene molecular assay for the evaluation of a suspected melanoma, Caroline C. Kim, MD, director of the Melanoma and Pigmented Lesion Program at Tufts University in Boston, explained that this tool, which is based on the presence of the LINC00158 gene and the preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME), has limited utility as a tool for establishing a diagnosis of melanoma. But, she said, it has reasonably good reliability for ruling out melanoma, thereby providing a basis to avoid or delay further diagnostic steps, such as biopsy.

Skin biopsy, as established in the guidelines, “is still the gold standard,” but there are numerous studies indicating that patients negative for both LINC00158 and PRAME have a low risk for melanoma, she said.

“A double negative result is not 100% effective, but it is high,” said Dr. Kim, who provided several examples whereby she employed the test to follow the patient rather than do invasive testing.

This test is gaining popularity, according to Dr. Kim, who cited several surveys suggesting growing use among clinicians, but she characterized it as an adjunctive approach that should be considered in the context of guidelines. It is an example of an approach that is not yet standard practice but can be helpful if used appropriately, she noted.

Dr. Swetter and Dr. Kim report no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new drug-device combo aimed at detecting residual cancer in real time during lumpectomy is one step closer to gaining federal approval, but some physicians aren’t convinced the technology is safe — or effective enough — to start using on patients.

A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.

LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.

Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.

“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.

However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.

In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.

“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”

The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.

On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.

“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”

Is the Technology Safe?

Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.

After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.

If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.

In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.

Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.

Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.

“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”

During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.

Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.

David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.

“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.

Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.

She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.

MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.

Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.

“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”

During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.

“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
 

Committee Expresses Support

During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.

Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.

Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.

“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.

“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”

Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.

The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.

If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.

Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.

The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.

A new drug-device combo aimed at detecting residual cancer in real time during lumpectomy is one step closer to gaining federal approval, but some physicians aren’t convinced the technology is safe — or effective enough — to start using on patients.

A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.

LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.

Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.

“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.

However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.

In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.

“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”

The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.

On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.

“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”

Is the Technology Safe?

Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.

After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.

If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.

In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.

Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.

Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.

“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”

During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.

Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.

David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.

“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.

Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.

She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.

MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.

Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.

“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”

During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.

“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
 

Committee Expresses Support

During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.

Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.

Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.

“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.

“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”

Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.

The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.

If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.

Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.

The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.

A new drug-device combo aimed at detecting residual cancer in real time during lumpectomy is one step closer to gaining federal approval, but some physicians aren’t convinced the technology is safe — or effective enough — to start using on patients.

A majority of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Medical Imaging Drugs Advisory Committee (MIDAC) on March 5 voted in support of LUMISIGHT’s (pegulicianine) benefit-risk profile.

LUMISIGHT is an optical imaging agent used in combination with Lumicell Direct Visualization System (DVS), a fluorescence-guided imaging system. The technology, developed by Lumicell Inc., helps surgeons identify cancer that may remain in the breast after they’ve completed the main resection of tissue.

Following MIDAC’s positive vote, the FDA will move on to reviewing Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS.

“We are proud of the efforts and look forward to the next steps as we work with the FDA to finalize the approval process so that women with breast cancer can access the therapy,” Jorge Ferrer, PhD, Lumicell’s chief scientific officer, said in an interview.

However, Freya Schnabel, MD, professor of surgery and director of breast surgery at NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center, said there are some “real concerns” with the technology. She expressed surprise at MIDAC’s overall favorable vote.

In a recently published study, she noted that the use of pegulicianine fluorescence-guided surgery (pFGS) did not meet the prespecified threshold for sensitivity.

“It did meet thresholds for removal of residual tumor and specificity — but this is still basically a negative study, and a low sensitivity raises concerns regarding false negative readings,” she said in an interview. “I’m surprised [the committee] is supportive in light of this result. Also, the technique is logistically challenging, as patients need to be injected 2 to 6 hours before their surgeries, very challenging timing for patients having ambulatory procedures.”

The study, published in the April 2023 NEJM Evidence, analyzed 357 patients who received 1.0 mg/kg intravenous pegulicianine followed by lumpectomy. Tumor left behind after standard lumpectomy was removed in 27 of 357 patients through use of pFGS. Of the 27, 22 patients had cavity orientations deemed “negative” on standard margin evaluation, according to the study. A margin is described as negative or clean when there are no further cancer cells at the edge of the tissue, suggesting that all of the cancer has been removed. Second surgeries were avoided by pFGS in 9 of 62 patients with positive margins, the analysis found.

On per-margin analysis, pFGS specificity was 85.2%, and sensitivity was 49.3%. While the sensitivity endpoint missed the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval, the LUM system exceeded the specificity endpoint of 60% with a point estimate of 86%, and an accuracy of 84% for imaging residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, coinvestigator E. Shelley Hwang, MD, MPH, said during the MIDAC meeting.

“The pivotal study was an adequate and well-controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of the LUM system to detect residual cancer in the lumpectomy cavity, following the standard of care procedure,” she said. “These results also demonstrate clinical benefit that improves the current standard of care. This is the first and only imaging system that provides results in the lumpectomy cavity in real time, allowing surgeons to use this information at the time of the initial procedure.”

Is the Technology Safe?

Pegulicianine is an imaging agent that contains a fluorescent dye. The agent is given to patients as a 3-minute intravenous infusion 2 to 6 hours before surgery.

After removal of the main tumor specimen, the surgeon inserts a handheld probe into the breast cavity and in combination with the detection software, searches for residual cancer that may have been left behind, Dr. Ferrer explained during the MIDAC meeting.

If the software identifies areas suspicious for residual cancer, those areas display in red on an overhead screen. The surgeon then takes a targeted shave to resect the suspicious tissue. Once the tissue has been removed, the surgeon can rescan the cavity with the probe to ensure a more complete resection has been performed. Use of the LUM system typically takes surgeons less than 7 minutes to use, Dr. Ferrer said.

In the study, a total of 406 patients received the intravenous pegulicianine, but 14 patients were withdrawn before randomization. After a standard lumpectomy procedure, 357 patients were assigned to the pFGS group and 35 patients to the control group.

Of the 406 patients, pegulicianine administration was stopped for adverse events in 6 patients (1.5%). Two patients had grade 3 serious adverse events related to pegulicianine; one had hypersensitivity, and one had an anaphylactic reaction. The other four pegulicianine-related adverse events included allergic reaction, milder hypersensitivity, nausea, and pegulicianine extravasation.

Dr. Schnabel said these reactions are worrisome. While any effort to reduce the need for patients to have more than one surgery to complete a breast conserving approach would be a “real advance,” Dr. Schnabel said she would not feel comfortable using pFGS in her own practice if approved by the FDA as is.

“This is clearly a major issue in terms of incorporating this technique into practice,” she said. “I could go on, but in light of the above, I’m surprised that [the committee] is supportive. I would hope for some refinement of the technique to reduce the risks to patients and improve the results before I’d consider utilizing this approach.”

During the MIDAC meeting, Dr. Ferrer said the company takes the safety events seriously and has developed mitigation strategies to further reduce the risk of patient hypersensitivity. These strategies include: clear labeling that informs users of anaphylaxis risk, incorporating a new section into the device training program to address warnings and precautions, an enhanced pharmacovigilance program to closely track and report hypersensitivity events, and a postmarket study to access the incidence rate and risk of such events in a broader population.

Several MIDAC members raised questions about the adverse reactions observed and about the safety of the technology.

David B. Hackney, MD, a neuroradiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, questioned the recommendation that patients only be monitored for 15 minutes after the injection.

“Since you don’t have enough data to know how long after injection reactions could occur, why not keep them under monitoring until after the surgery is over?” he said.

Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, lead investigator of the study, explained that per the protocol, there would be frequent monitoring, with a nurse at bedside, and patients would be monitored after injection, on their way to the procedure, and afterward.

She suggested, during the meeting, that more intense monitoring early in the process would be beneficial as that is when investigators observed side effects believed to be attributed to LUMISIGHT.

MIDAC member Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, a retired radiology professor, asked about the learning curve for surgeons and how long it generally takes for physicians to become familiar with the system.

Coinvestigator Kelly Hunt, MD, explained that all surgeons who participated in the trial completed a training program.

“Certainly, there’s a learning curve anytime we introduce new technology in the operating room,” she said. “Surgeons said it usually takes about three procedures before they’re comfortable with the system, including the camera and the software.”

During a presentation period by FDA officials, Anil Rajpal, MD, MPH, FDA, Deputy Division Director for Safety, said it’s important that prescribing information for LUMISIGHT communicate the risk of anaphylaxis and other hypersensitivity reactions, the need to monitor patients, and the need for the appropriate available personnel, medications, and equipment.

“This would be done by warnings and precautions and a boxed warning,” he said. “Note, that [such warnings] would only communicate the risks, it would not further characterize the risk.”
 

Committee Expresses Support

During a subsequent vote among committee members, most expressed support for the technology and its benefits. Sixteen members voted in support, one abstained, and two voted against the benefit-risk profile.

Andrea Richardson, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, said she voted yes because the incremental benefits of avoiding additional surgeries outweigh the small risk of anaphylaxis.

Henry Royal, MD, MIDAC chair and professor of radiology at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, agreed.

“Even though the benefit of this is on average, quite small, the benefit to the woman who has positive margins that’s converted to negative margins because of use of [LUMISIGHT] is really quite great,” he said. “The risk from this procedure is certainly very manageable.”

Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, voted against the benefit-risk profile. He said the technology merits more research and that he does not believe it was proven the technology reduces the risk of reoperation.

“I think it’s a great technology,” he said. “I would like to see a well-conducted, randomized, phase III study with the endpoint of reoperation,” he said. “That would really prove the usefulness and benefit of the intervention in my mind.”

Chengjie Xiong, PhD, professor of biostatistics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, chose to abstain from voting because he said there was not enough data.

The FDA will now complete its review of Lumicell’s new drug application for LUMISIGHT and review of its premarket approval application for Lumicell DVS. The FDA review team has 6-10 months to make a decision. As part of the process, the FDA will evaluate clinical data, travel to clinical study sites to conduct inspections, and assemble a final action package for a senior FDA official to make a final decision.

If deemed safe and effective, the FDA will then work with Lumicell on developing and refining prescribing information.

Dr. Ferrer said his team expects to receive FDA approval in the coming weeks and will continue to work collaboratively with the FDA to expedite approval where possible.

The purpose of the MIDAC is to review and evaluate data about the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures using radioactive pharmaceuticals and make appropriate recommendations to the FDA Commissioner.

“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.

Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.

Despite confidently worded recommendations, the relationship between exercise and cancer risk is much less certain than the guidelines would suggest. The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.

What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?

Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.

Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag

When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.

For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.

The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.

The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”

Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations. 

“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.

That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.

“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”

And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.

The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.

Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.

In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.

The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.

Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).

What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.

Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).

The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.

But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.

How Big Is the Effect?

Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.

But how much of a difference can exercise make?

Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.

These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.

“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.

The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.

Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.

For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).

But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.

Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.

The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.

Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.

Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk

Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.

Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.

The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.

“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.

That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.

A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.

Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.

Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’

Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.

The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.

Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.

Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.

“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.

Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.

There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.

“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.

“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.

Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.

Despite confidently worded recommendations, the relationship between exercise and cancer risk is much less certain than the guidelines would suggest. The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.

What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?

Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.

Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag

When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.

For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.

The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.

The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”

Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations. 

“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.

That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.

“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”

And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.

The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.

Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.

In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.

The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.

Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).

What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.

Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).

The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.

But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.

How Big Is the Effect?

Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.

But how much of a difference can exercise make?

Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.

These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.

“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.

The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.

Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.

For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).

But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.

Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.

The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.

Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.

Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk

Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.

Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.

The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.

“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.

That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.

A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.

Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.

Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’

Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.

The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.

Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.

Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.

“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.

Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.

There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.

“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.

“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.

Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.

Despite confidently worded recommendations, the relationship between exercise and cancer risk is much less certain than the guidelines would suggest. The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.

What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?

Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.

Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag

When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.

For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.

The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.

The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”

Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations. 

“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.

That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.

“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”

And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.

The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.

Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.

In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.

The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.

Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).

What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.

Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).

The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.

But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.

How Big Is the Effect?

Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.

But how much of a difference can exercise make?

Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.

These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.

“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.

“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.

The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.

Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.

For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).

But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.

Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.

The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.

Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.

Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk

Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.

Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.

The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.

“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.

That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.

A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.

Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.

Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’

Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.

The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.

But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.

Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.

Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.

“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.

Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.

There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.

“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.

Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.

“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Resecting the primary colon tumor before chemotherapy does not improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic colon cancer not amenable to curative therapy, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Chemotherapy is the primary treatment in patients with stage IV  (CRC) and unresectable metastases. It’s unclear whether primary tumor resection before chemotherapy prolongs survival.
• Among 393 patients with stage IV colon cancer and unresectable metastases enrolled in the  and  trials, 187 were randomly allocated to undergo primary tumor resection and 206 to upfront chemotherapy.
• The chemotherapy regimen was left up to the treating physician. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Median follow-up time was 36.7 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median overall survival was 16.7 months with primary tumor resection and 18.6 months with upfront chemotherapy (P = .191).
• Comparable overall survival between the study groups was further confirmed on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.944; P = .65) and across all subgroups.
• Serious adverse events were more common with upfront chemo than surgery (18% vs 10%; P = .027), due mainly to a significantly higher incidence of GI-related events (11% vs 5%; P = .031).
• Overall, 24% of the primary tumor resection group did not receive any chemotherapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of our study provide compelling data that upfront primary tumor resection in treatment-naive stage IV CRC not amenable for curative treatment does not prolong [overall survival]. A relatively low incidence of serious adverse events in patients with an intact primary tumor together with a considerable number of patients who did not receive any chemotherapy in the primary tumor resection group provides further arguments against resection of the primary tumor in this group of patients,” the authors of the combined analysis concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Neither study completed their planned patient accrual. Although both trials are nearly identical, differences in the individual study cohorts and trial implementation could have introduced bias. Tumor molecular profiling was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Resecting the primary colon tumor before chemotherapy does not improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic colon cancer not amenable to curative therapy, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Chemotherapy is the primary treatment in patients with stage IV  (CRC) and unresectable metastases. It’s unclear whether primary tumor resection before chemotherapy prolongs survival.
• Among 393 patients with stage IV colon cancer and unresectable metastases enrolled in the  and  trials, 187 were randomly allocated to undergo primary tumor resection and 206 to upfront chemotherapy.
• The chemotherapy regimen was left up to the treating physician. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Median follow-up time was 36.7 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median overall survival was 16.7 months with primary tumor resection and 18.6 months with upfront chemotherapy (P = .191).
• Comparable overall survival between the study groups was further confirmed on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.944; P = .65) and across all subgroups.
• Serious adverse events were more common with upfront chemo than surgery (18% vs 10%; P = .027), due mainly to a significantly higher incidence of GI-related events (11% vs 5%; P = .031).
• Overall, 24% of the primary tumor resection group did not receive any chemotherapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of our study provide compelling data that upfront primary tumor resection in treatment-naive stage IV CRC not amenable for curative treatment does not prolong [overall survival]. A relatively low incidence of serious adverse events in patients with an intact primary tumor together with a considerable number of patients who did not receive any chemotherapy in the primary tumor resection group provides further arguments against resection of the primary tumor in this group of patients,” the authors of the combined analysis concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Neither study completed their planned patient accrual. Although both trials are nearly identical, differences in the individual study cohorts and trial implementation could have introduced bias. Tumor molecular profiling was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Resecting the primary colon tumor before chemotherapy does not improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic colon cancer not amenable to curative therapy, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Chemotherapy is the primary treatment in patients with stage IV  (CRC) and unresectable metastases. It’s unclear whether primary tumor resection before chemotherapy prolongs survival.
• Among 393 patients with stage IV colon cancer and unresectable metastases enrolled in the  and  trials, 187 were randomly allocated to undergo primary tumor resection and 206 to upfront chemotherapy.
• The chemotherapy regimen was left up to the treating physician. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Median follow-up time was 36.7 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Median overall survival was 16.7 months with primary tumor resection and 18.6 months with upfront chemotherapy (P = .191).
• Comparable overall survival between the study groups was further confirmed on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 0.944; P = .65) and across all subgroups.
• Serious adverse events were more common with upfront chemo than surgery (18% vs 10%; P = .027), due mainly to a significantly higher incidence of GI-related events (11% vs 5%; P = .031).
• Overall, 24% of the primary tumor resection group did not receive any chemotherapy.

IN PRACTICE:

“The results of our study provide compelling data that upfront primary tumor resection in treatment-naive stage IV CRC not amenable for curative treatment does not prolong [overall survival]. A relatively low incidence of serious adverse events in patients with an intact primary tumor together with a considerable number of patients who did not receive any chemotherapy in the primary tumor resection group provides further arguments against resection of the primary tumor in this group of patients,” the authors of the combined analysis concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Nuh N. Rahbari, MD, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany, was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Neither study completed their planned patient accrual. Although both trials are nearly identical, differences in the individual study cohorts and trial implementation could have introduced bias. Tumor molecular profiling was not performed.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. Disclosures for authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Treatment modifications, such as dose reductions, schedule changes, or use of less toxic regimens, can improve how well older patients with advanced cancer and aging-related conditions tolerate chemotherapy regimens.

METHODOLOGY:

• Older patients are underrepresented in clinical trials, which means the reported risks associated with standard-of-care regimens typically reflect outcomes in younger, healthier patients. This underrepresentation in clinical trials has also led to uncertainties about the safety of standard chemotherapy regimens in older patients who often have other health conditions to manage, alongside cancer.
• In this secondary analysis, researchers evaluated the association between primary treatment modifications to standard-of-care chemotherapy regimens and treatment tolerability.
• The trial included 609 patients aged ≥ 70 years who had advanced cancer alongside at least one age-related condition, such as impaired cognition, and planned to start a new palliative chemotherapy regimen in the community oncology setting. The most common cancer types were gastrointestinal cancer (37.4%) and lung cancer (28.6%).
• The primary outcome was grade 3-5 adverse events within 3 months of chemotherapy initiation.
• Secondary outcomes included patient-reported functional decline and combined adverse outcomes, which incorporated clinician-rated toxic effects, patient-reported functional decline, and 6-month overall survival.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Overall, 281 patients (46.1%) received a primary treatment modification, most often a dose reduction (71.9%) or a scheduling change (11.7%).
• Patients who received primary treatment modifications had a 15% lower risk for grades 3-5 adverse effects (relative risk [RR], 0.85) and a 20% lower risk for patient-reported functional decline (RR, 0.80) than those who received standard treatment.
• Patients receiving treatment modifications had 32% lower risk for a worse combined adverse outcome (odds ratio, 0.68).
• Cancer type may matter as well. When looking at outcomes by cancer type, patients with gastrointestinal cancers who received a primary treatment modification had a lower risk for toxic effects (RR, 0.82), whereas patients with lung cancer did not (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.20).

IN PRACTICE:

These findings “can help oncologists to choose the optimal drug regimen, select a safe and effective initial dose, and undertake appropriate monitoring strategies to manage the clinical care of older people with advanced cancer,” the authors said. 

SOURCE:

This study, led by Mostafa R. Mohamed from University of Rochester, New York, was published February 15 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

Residual confounding may be present. Extremely healthy older patients may have been excluded due to study criteria, limiting generalizability. There may be variation in toxicities due to inclusion of patients with multiple heterogeneous cancer.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the University of Rochester, New York. The authors disclosed financial relationships outside this work.

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

TOPLINE:

Treatment modifications, such as dose reductions, schedule changes, or use of less toxic regimens, can improve how well older patients with advanced cancer and aging-related conditions tolerate chemotherapy regimens.

METHODOLOGY:

• Older patients are underrepresented in clinical trials, which means the reported risks associated with standard-of-care regimens typically reflect outcomes in younger, healthier patients. This underrepresentation in clinical trials has also led to uncertainties about the safety of standard chemotherapy regimens in older patients who often have other health conditions to manage, alongside cancer.
• In this secondary analysis, researchers evaluated the association between primary treatment modifications to standard-of-care chemotherapy regimens and treatment tolerability.
• The trial included 609 patients aged ≥ 70 years who had advanced cancer alongside at least one age-related condition, such as impaired cognition, and planned to start a new palliative chemotherapy regimen in the community oncology setting. The most common cancer types were gastrointestinal cancer (37.4%) and lung cancer (28.6%).
• The primary outcome was grade 3-5 adverse events within 3 months of chemotherapy initiation.
• Secondary outcomes included patient-reported functional decline and combined adverse outcomes, which incorporated clinician-rated toxic effects, patient-reported functional decline, and 6-month overall survival.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Overall, 281 patients (46.1%) received a primary treatment modification, most often a dose reduction (71.9%) or a scheduling change (11.7%).
• Patients who received primary treatment modifications had a 15% lower risk for grades 3-5 adverse effects (relative risk [RR], 0.85) and a 20% lower risk for patient-reported functional decline (RR, 0.80) than those who received standard treatment.
• Patients receiving treatment modifications had 32% lower risk for a worse combined adverse outcome (odds ratio, 0.68).
• Cancer type may matter as well. When looking at outcomes by cancer type, patients with gastrointestinal cancers who received a primary treatment modification had a lower risk for toxic effects (RR, 0.82), whereas patients with lung cancer did not (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.20).

IN PRACTICE:

These findings “can help oncologists to choose the optimal drug regimen, select a safe and effective initial dose, and undertake appropriate monitoring strategies to manage the clinical care of older people with advanced cancer,” the authors said. 

SOURCE:

This study, led by Mostafa R. Mohamed from University of Rochester, New York, was published February 15 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

Residual confounding may be present. Extremely healthy older patients may have been excluded due to study criteria, limiting generalizability. There may be variation in toxicities due to inclusion of patients with multiple heterogeneous cancer.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the University of Rochester, New York. The authors disclosed financial relationships outside this work.

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

TOPLINE:

Treatment modifications, such as dose reductions, schedule changes, or use of less toxic regimens, can improve how well older patients with advanced cancer and aging-related conditions tolerate chemotherapy regimens.

METHODOLOGY:

• Older patients are underrepresented in clinical trials, which means the reported risks associated with standard-of-care regimens typically reflect outcomes in younger, healthier patients. This underrepresentation in clinical trials has also led to uncertainties about the safety of standard chemotherapy regimens in older patients who often have other health conditions to manage, alongside cancer.
• In this secondary analysis, researchers evaluated the association between primary treatment modifications to standard-of-care chemotherapy regimens and treatment tolerability.
• The trial included 609 patients aged ≥ 70 years who had advanced cancer alongside at least one age-related condition, such as impaired cognition, and planned to start a new palliative chemotherapy regimen in the community oncology setting. The most common cancer types were gastrointestinal cancer (37.4%) and lung cancer (28.6%).
• The primary outcome was grade 3-5 adverse events within 3 months of chemotherapy initiation.
• Secondary outcomes included patient-reported functional decline and combined adverse outcomes, which incorporated clinician-rated toxic effects, patient-reported functional decline, and 6-month overall survival.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Overall, 281 patients (46.1%) received a primary treatment modification, most often a dose reduction (71.9%) or a scheduling change (11.7%).
• Patients who received primary treatment modifications had a 15% lower risk for grades 3-5 adverse effects (relative risk [RR], 0.85) and a 20% lower risk for patient-reported functional decline (RR, 0.80) than those who received standard treatment.
• Patients receiving treatment modifications had 32% lower risk for a worse combined adverse outcome (odds ratio, 0.68).
• Cancer type may matter as well. When looking at outcomes by cancer type, patients with gastrointestinal cancers who received a primary treatment modification had a lower risk for toxic effects (RR, 0.82), whereas patients with lung cancer did not (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.20).

IN PRACTICE:

These findings “can help oncologists to choose the optimal drug regimen, select a safe and effective initial dose, and undertake appropriate monitoring strategies to manage the clinical care of older people with advanced cancer,” the authors said. 

SOURCE:

This study, led by Mostafa R. Mohamed from University of Rochester, New York, was published February 15 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: 

Residual confounding may be present. Extremely healthy older patients may have been excluded due to study criteria, limiting generalizability. There may be variation in toxicities due to inclusion of patients with multiple heterogeneous cancer.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the University of Rochester, New York. The authors disclosed financial relationships outside this work.

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