AVAHO

Bone-modifying agents — most notably denosumab — are often prescribed to prevent skeletal-related complications in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, but the drugs are not recommended for this indication and can lead to severe toxicities.

How much does Medicare spend each year on non-recommended bone therapy?

The answer, according to a new analysis in JCO Oncology Practice, is more than $44 million, with about $43 million coming from denosumab alone.

Overall, this study found that “the Medicare program pays tens of millions of dollars each year” for bone-modifying agents in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, “which is not effective and may cause side effects,” lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and colleagues concluded.

“These findings suggest reducing bone agent overuse could be a rare healthcare ‘win-win.’ Lower costs AND improved patient outcomes,” tweeted Dr. Mitchell. “If I were a payer, I’d be paying attention!”
 

In Prostate Cancer, Bone-Modifying Drug Indications Vary

Bone-modifying drugs are indicated for some patients with prostate cancer.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has endorsed guidelines that recommend the use of denosumab in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer at high risk for fracture while taking androgen deprivation therapy.

Among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, guidelines also recommend zoledronic acid or denosumab for preventing or delaying skeletal-related events, such as pathologic fractures and spinal cord compression.

For patients with metastatic castration-sensitive disease, however, the bone-modifying agents show no benefit in preventing skeletal-related events and are not recommended for that indication.

In this population, “treatment with bone agents results only in avoidable toxicity and financial cost,” Dr. Mitchell tweeted. In its higher-dose formulation, denosumab comes with a price tag of approximately $40,000 per year in the United States.

An earlier study from Dr. Mitchell and colleagues revealed that the use of bone-modifying drugs to prevent skeletal events in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer is common.

To better understand the costs associated with this inappropriate use, the researchers reviewed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Medicare data from 2011 to 2015. The team identified the frequency and number of doses of zoledronic acid and denosumab prescribed against recommendations in the metastatic castration-sensitive setting, making sure to distinguish between the use of denosumab to prevent osteoporotic fractures (appropriate use) and to prevent skeletal-related events (non-recommended use).

The team found that, among 2627 patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, 42% received at least one dose of denosumab and 18% received at least one dose of zoledronic acid.

The authors also found that unnecessary use of these drugs increased over time — with a little over 17% of patients receiving zoledronic acid between 2007 and 2009 and just over 28% receiving either denosumab (20.3%) or zoledronic acid (8.4%) from 2012 to 2015.

The annual costs to Medicare from non-recommended prescribing came to $44,105,041 for both agents, with the costs associated with denosumab representing the lion’s share at $43,303,078.

Non-recommended use of these agents also came with adverse events, such as femur fracture and hypocalcemia, which cost an estimated $758,450 to treat annually — $682,865 for denosumab and $75,585 for zoledronic acid.

The study focused on the Medicare-age population, which means the estimates are conservative. “Denosumab overuse for younger patients with castration-sensitive prostate cancer would add substantially to this total,” the authors wrote.

“This study contributes new evidence of overuse in the metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer setting, which I must admit reflects my clinical experience in seeing patients for second opinions who are treated in the community,” said Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, of the Division of Hematology and Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, who wasn’t involved in the research. “While there are some circumstances in which one would consider using a bone-modifying agent in the metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer setting, most [of these] men don’t need them upfront.”
 

Why Is the Overuse Happening?

One reason for the inappropriate use of bone-modifying drugs could be confusion surrounding the recommendations because the drugs are recommended for some patients with prostate cancer.

Michael R. Laurent, MD, PhD, of Imelda Hospital, Bonheiden, Belgium, explained that the use of bone-modifying drugs is, paradoxically, often overlooked in settings where they are recommended — when patients have an elevated risk for osteoporosis or fracture.

“Guidelines are quite unequivocal in their recommendations to prevent osteoporosis in mostly older men who receive androgen deprivation therapy,” but “I think there is significant undertreatment” in these patients, Dr. Laurent told this news organization.

However, the recommendation for patients at risk for osteoporosis or bone fracture calls for less intense regimens, which may include lower-dose denosumab, administered once every 6 months, zoledronic acid, given yearly, or another lower potency agent, such as oral alendronate weekly, explained Philip J. Saylor, MD, an attending physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Meanwhile, “monthly high-intensity therapy to prevent skeletal events should be reserved specifically for bone metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer for more than just cost reasons,” Dr. Saylor said.

When it comes to the higher dose, monthly therapy in castration-sensitive prostate cancer, “we have no evidence that it is beneficial,” he said, adding that “when the prostate cancer itself is well controlled by hormonal therapy, there just aren’t very many pathologic fractures or other bone complications.”

Alongside possible confusion over the recommendations, many physicians also likely don’t know how much denosumab costs.

“In our recent physician interview study, we did find that most physicians were very much unaware of the cost of this drug, or the cost difference between denosumab and zoledronic acid, so I do think that lack of cost awareness is a factor,” Dr. Mitchell said.

Part of the reason may be how Medicare covers these agents. Typically, Medicare would not cover non-recommended indications, but “in this case, Medicare coverage is broader and includes both the guideline-recommended and non-recommended uses,” Dr. Mitchell explained.

However, the authors also identified a more cynical reason for non-recommended prescribing — promotional payments from drug makers to physicians.

In another recent paper, Dr. Mitchell said he found about “30% of doctors treating prostate cancer had received payments from Amgen for Xgeva [denosumab] promotion during the last year.”

These payments appeared to influence non-recommended prescribing: Among patients whose doctor had not received payments, 31.4% received non-recommended denosumab, which increased to nearly 50% of patients among doctors who had received payments.

Dr. Mitchell suggested a few ways to help curb inappropriate prescribing.

Medicare could, for instance, change its coverage policy to include only the recommended uses of these agents, Dr. Mitchell said.

More physician education would be another solution. “I think that physician education would be one ‘bottom-up’ approach that could work,” Dr. Mitchell added.

Dr. Mitchell, Dr. Takvorian, and Dr. Saylor had no disclosures to report. Dr. Laurent has received lecture and consultancy fees from Alexion, AM Pharma, Amgen, Galapagos, Kyowa Kirin, Menarini, Orifarm, Pharmanovia, Takeda, UCB, and Will Pharma.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bone-modifying agents — most notably denosumab — are often prescribed to prevent skeletal-related complications in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, but the drugs are not recommended for this indication and can lead to severe toxicities.

How much does Medicare spend each year on non-recommended bone therapy?

The answer, according to a new analysis in JCO Oncology Practice, is more than $44 million, with about $43 million coming from denosumab alone.

Overall, this study found that “the Medicare program pays tens of millions of dollars each year” for bone-modifying agents in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, “which is not effective and may cause side effects,” lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and colleagues concluded.

“These findings suggest reducing bone agent overuse could be a rare healthcare ‘win-win.’ Lower costs AND improved patient outcomes,” tweeted Dr. Mitchell. “If I were a payer, I’d be paying attention!”
 

In Prostate Cancer, Bone-Modifying Drug Indications Vary

Bone-modifying drugs are indicated for some patients with prostate cancer.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has endorsed guidelines that recommend the use of denosumab in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer at high risk for fracture while taking androgen deprivation therapy.

Among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, guidelines also recommend zoledronic acid or denosumab for preventing or delaying skeletal-related events, such as pathologic fractures and spinal cord compression.

For patients with metastatic castration-sensitive disease, however, the bone-modifying agents show no benefit in preventing skeletal-related events and are not recommended for that indication.

In this population, “treatment with bone agents results only in avoidable toxicity and financial cost,” Dr. Mitchell tweeted. In its higher-dose formulation, denosumab comes with a price tag of approximately $40,000 per year in the United States.

An earlier study from Dr. Mitchell and colleagues revealed that the use of bone-modifying drugs to prevent skeletal events in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer is common.

To better understand the costs associated with this inappropriate use, the researchers reviewed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Medicare data from 2011 to 2015. The team identified the frequency and number of doses of zoledronic acid and denosumab prescribed against recommendations in the metastatic castration-sensitive setting, making sure to distinguish between the use of denosumab to prevent osteoporotic fractures (appropriate use) and to prevent skeletal-related events (non-recommended use).

The team found that, among 2627 patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, 42% received at least one dose of denosumab and 18% received at least one dose of zoledronic acid.

The authors also found that unnecessary use of these drugs increased over time — with a little over 17% of patients receiving zoledronic acid between 2007 and 2009 and just over 28% receiving either denosumab (20.3%) or zoledronic acid (8.4%) from 2012 to 2015.

The annual costs to Medicare from non-recommended prescribing came to $44,105,041 for both agents, with the costs associated with denosumab representing the lion’s share at $43,303,078.

Non-recommended use of these agents also came with adverse events, such as femur fracture and hypocalcemia, which cost an estimated $758,450 to treat annually — $682,865 for denosumab and $75,585 for zoledronic acid.

The study focused on the Medicare-age population, which means the estimates are conservative. “Denosumab overuse for younger patients with castration-sensitive prostate cancer would add substantially to this total,” the authors wrote.

“This study contributes new evidence of overuse in the metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer setting, which I must admit reflects my clinical experience in seeing patients for second opinions who are treated in the community,” said Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, of the Division of Hematology and Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, who wasn’t involved in the research. “While there are some circumstances in which one would consider using a bone-modifying agent in the metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer setting, most [of these] men don’t need them upfront.”
 

Why Is the Overuse Happening?

One reason for the inappropriate use of bone-modifying drugs could be confusion surrounding the recommendations because the drugs are recommended for some patients with prostate cancer.

Michael R. Laurent, MD, PhD, of Imelda Hospital, Bonheiden, Belgium, explained that the use of bone-modifying drugs is, paradoxically, often overlooked in settings where they are recommended — when patients have an elevated risk for osteoporosis or fracture.

“Guidelines are quite unequivocal in their recommendations to prevent osteoporosis in mostly older men who receive androgen deprivation therapy,” but “I think there is significant undertreatment” in these patients, Dr. Laurent told this news organization.

However, the recommendation for patients at risk for osteoporosis or bone fracture calls for less intense regimens, which may include lower-dose denosumab, administered once every 6 months, zoledronic acid, given yearly, or another lower potency agent, such as oral alendronate weekly, explained Philip J. Saylor, MD, an attending physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Meanwhile, “monthly high-intensity therapy to prevent skeletal events should be reserved specifically for bone metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer for more than just cost reasons,” Dr. Saylor said.

When it comes to the higher dose, monthly therapy in castration-sensitive prostate cancer, “we have no evidence that it is beneficial,” he said, adding that “when the prostate cancer itself is well controlled by hormonal therapy, there just aren’t very many pathologic fractures or other bone complications.”

Alongside possible confusion over the recommendations, many physicians also likely don’t know how much denosumab costs.

“In our recent physician interview study, we did find that most physicians were very much unaware of the cost of this drug, or the cost difference between denosumab and zoledronic acid, so I do think that lack of cost awareness is a factor,” Dr. Mitchell said.

Part of the reason may be how Medicare covers these agents. Typically, Medicare would not cover non-recommended indications, but “in this case, Medicare coverage is broader and includes both the guideline-recommended and non-recommended uses,” Dr. Mitchell explained.

However, the authors also identified a more cynical reason for non-recommended prescribing — promotional payments from drug makers to physicians.

In another recent paper, Dr. Mitchell said he found about “30% of doctors treating prostate cancer had received payments from Amgen for Xgeva [denosumab] promotion during the last year.”

These payments appeared to influence non-recommended prescribing: Among patients whose doctor had not received payments, 31.4% received non-recommended denosumab, which increased to nearly 50% of patients among doctors who had received payments.

Dr. Mitchell suggested a few ways to help curb inappropriate prescribing.

Medicare could, for instance, change its coverage policy to include only the recommended uses of these agents, Dr. Mitchell said.

More physician education would be another solution. “I think that physician education would be one ‘bottom-up’ approach that could work,” Dr. Mitchell added.

Dr. Mitchell, Dr. Takvorian, and Dr. Saylor had no disclosures to report. Dr. Laurent has received lecture and consultancy fees from Alexion, AM Pharma, Amgen, Galapagos, Kyowa Kirin, Menarini, Orifarm, Pharmanovia, Takeda, UCB, and Will Pharma.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bone-modifying agents — most notably denosumab — are often prescribed to prevent skeletal-related complications in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, but the drugs are not recommended for this indication and can lead to severe toxicities.

How much does Medicare spend each year on non-recommended bone therapy?

The answer, according to a new analysis in JCO Oncology Practice, is more than $44 million, with about $43 million coming from denosumab alone.

Overall, this study found that “the Medicare program pays tens of millions of dollars each year” for bone-modifying agents in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, “which is not effective and may cause side effects,” lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, and colleagues concluded.

“These findings suggest reducing bone agent overuse could be a rare healthcare ‘win-win.’ Lower costs AND improved patient outcomes,” tweeted Dr. Mitchell. “If I were a payer, I’d be paying attention!”
 

In Prostate Cancer, Bone-Modifying Drug Indications Vary

Bone-modifying drugs are indicated for some patients with prostate cancer.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology has endorsed guidelines that recommend the use of denosumab in men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer at high risk for fracture while taking androgen deprivation therapy.

Among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, guidelines also recommend zoledronic acid or denosumab for preventing or delaying skeletal-related events, such as pathologic fractures and spinal cord compression.

For patients with metastatic castration-sensitive disease, however, the bone-modifying agents show no benefit in preventing skeletal-related events and are not recommended for that indication.

In this population, “treatment with bone agents results only in avoidable toxicity and financial cost,” Dr. Mitchell tweeted. In its higher-dose formulation, denosumab comes with a price tag of approximately $40,000 per year in the United States.

An earlier study from Dr. Mitchell and colleagues revealed that the use of bone-modifying drugs to prevent skeletal events in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer is common.

To better understand the costs associated with this inappropriate use, the researchers reviewed Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Medicare data from 2011 to 2015. The team identified the frequency and number of doses of zoledronic acid and denosumab prescribed against recommendations in the metastatic castration-sensitive setting, making sure to distinguish between the use of denosumab to prevent osteoporotic fractures (appropriate use) and to prevent skeletal-related events (non-recommended use).

The team found that, among 2627 patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, 42% received at least one dose of denosumab and 18% received at least one dose of zoledronic acid.

The authors also found that unnecessary use of these drugs increased over time — with a little over 17% of patients receiving zoledronic acid between 2007 and 2009 and just over 28% receiving either denosumab (20.3%) or zoledronic acid (8.4%) from 2012 to 2015.

The annual costs to Medicare from non-recommended prescribing came to $44,105,041 for both agents, with the costs associated with denosumab representing the lion’s share at $43,303,078.

Non-recommended use of these agents also came with adverse events, such as femur fracture and hypocalcemia, which cost an estimated $758,450 to treat annually — $682,865 for denosumab and $75,585 for zoledronic acid.

The study focused on the Medicare-age population, which means the estimates are conservative. “Denosumab overuse for younger patients with castration-sensitive prostate cancer would add substantially to this total,” the authors wrote.

“This study contributes new evidence of overuse in the metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer setting, which I must admit reflects my clinical experience in seeing patients for second opinions who are treated in the community,” said Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, of the Division of Hematology and Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, who wasn’t involved in the research. “While there are some circumstances in which one would consider using a bone-modifying agent in the metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer setting, most [of these] men don’t need them upfront.”
 

Why Is the Overuse Happening?

One reason for the inappropriate use of bone-modifying drugs could be confusion surrounding the recommendations because the drugs are recommended for some patients with prostate cancer.

Michael R. Laurent, MD, PhD, of Imelda Hospital, Bonheiden, Belgium, explained that the use of bone-modifying drugs is, paradoxically, often overlooked in settings where they are recommended — when patients have an elevated risk for osteoporosis or fracture.

“Guidelines are quite unequivocal in their recommendations to prevent osteoporosis in mostly older men who receive androgen deprivation therapy,” but “I think there is significant undertreatment” in these patients, Dr. Laurent told this news organization.

However, the recommendation for patients at risk for osteoporosis or bone fracture calls for less intense regimens, which may include lower-dose denosumab, administered once every 6 months, zoledronic acid, given yearly, or another lower potency agent, such as oral alendronate weekly, explained Philip J. Saylor, MD, an attending physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Meanwhile, “monthly high-intensity therapy to prevent skeletal events should be reserved specifically for bone metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer for more than just cost reasons,” Dr. Saylor said.

When it comes to the higher dose, monthly therapy in castration-sensitive prostate cancer, “we have no evidence that it is beneficial,” he said, adding that “when the prostate cancer itself is well controlled by hormonal therapy, there just aren’t very many pathologic fractures or other bone complications.”

Alongside possible confusion over the recommendations, many physicians also likely don’t know how much denosumab costs.

“In our recent physician interview study, we did find that most physicians were very much unaware of the cost of this drug, or the cost difference between denosumab and zoledronic acid, so I do think that lack of cost awareness is a factor,” Dr. Mitchell said.

Part of the reason may be how Medicare covers these agents. Typically, Medicare would not cover non-recommended indications, but “in this case, Medicare coverage is broader and includes both the guideline-recommended and non-recommended uses,” Dr. Mitchell explained.

However, the authors also identified a more cynical reason for non-recommended prescribing — promotional payments from drug makers to physicians.

In another recent paper, Dr. Mitchell said he found about “30% of doctors treating prostate cancer had received payments from Amgen for Xgeva [denosumab] promotion during the last year.”

These payments appeared to influence non-recommended prescribing: Among patients whose doctor had not received payments, 31.4% received non-recommended denosumab, which increased to nearly 50% of patients among doctors who had received payments.

Dr. Mitchell suggested a few ways to help curb inappropriate prescribing.

Medicare could, for instance, change its coverage policy to include only the recommended uses of these agents, Dr. Mitchell said.

More physician education would be another solution. “I think that physician education would be one ‘bottom-up’ approach that could work,” Dr. Mitchell added.

Dr. Mitchell, Dr. Takvorian, and Dr. Saylor had no disclosures to report. Dr. Laurent has received lecture and consultancy fees from Alexion, AM Pharma, Amgen, Galapagos, Kyowa Kirin, Menarini, Orifarm, Pharmanovia, Takeda, UCB, and Will Pharma.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted new approvals for the use of amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant, Janssen Biotech Inc.) in certain patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 

Specifically, the FDA approved the first-line use of the agent in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test. 

The FDA also granted traditional approval for use in these patients after their cancer has progressed on or following platinum-based chemotherapy. The original accelerated approval for this indication occurred in 2021. At that time, the FDA also approved Guardant360^® CDx (Guardant Health, Inc.) as a companion diagnostic test for amivantamab-vmjw. 

The first-line approval, which followed priority review, was based on the randomized, open-label PAPILLON trial, which revealed a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among the 153 patients who received amivantamab-vmjw plus carboplatin and pemetrexed vs the 155 who received the chemotherapy combination alone. Median PFS was 11.4 months in the amivantamab-vmjw arm vs 6.7 months in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.40).

Data for overall survival, a key secondary endpoint of the study, were immature at the time of the latest analysis, but “no trend toward a detriment was observed,” according to an FDA approval announcement.

Common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients in the study, were rash, nail toxicity, stomatitis, infusion-related reaction, fatigue, edema, constipation, decreased appetite, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. Weight-based dosing guidance can be found in the full prescribing information.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted new approvals for the use of amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant, Janssen Biotech Inc.) in certain patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 

Specifically, the FDA approved the first-line use of the agent in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test. 

The FDA also granted traditional approval for use in these patients after their cancer has progressed on or following platinum-based chemotherapy. The original accelerated approval for this indication occurred in 2021. At that time, the FDA also approved Guardant360^® CDx (Guardant Health, Inc.) as a companion diagnostic test for amivantamab-vmjw. 

The first-line approval, which followed priority review, was based on the randomized, open-label PAPILLON trial, which revealed a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among the 153 patients who received amivantamab-vmjw plus carboplatin and pemetrexed vs the 155 who received the chemotherapy combination alone. Median PFS was 11.4 months in the amivantamab-vmjw arm vs 6.7 months in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.40).

Data for overall survival, a key secondary endpoint of the study, were immature at the time of the latest analysis, but “no trend toward a detriment was observed,” according to an FDA approval announcement.

Common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients in the study, were rash, nail toxicity, stomatitis, infusion-related reaction, fatigue, edema, constipation, decreased appetite, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. Weight-based dosing guidance can be found in the full prescribing information.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted new approvals for the use of amivantamab-vmjw (Rybrevant, Janssen Biotech Inc.) in certain patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). 

Specifically, the FDA approved the first-line use of the agent in combination with carboplatin and pemetrexed in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion mutations, as detected by an FDA-approved test. 

The FDA also granted traditional approval for use in these patients after their cancer has progressed on or following platinum-based chemotherapy. The original accelerated approval for this indication occurred in 2021. At that time, the FDA also approved Guardant360^® CDx (Guardant Health, Inc.) as a companion diagnostic test for amivantamab-vmjw. 

The first-line approval, which followed priority review, was based on the randomized, open-label PAPILLON trial, which revealed a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) among the 153 patients who received amivantamab-vmjw plus carboplatin and pemetrexed vs the 155 who received the chemotherapy combination alone. Median PFS was 11.4 months in the amivantamab-vmjw arm vs 6.7 months in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.40).

Data for overall survival, a key secondary endpoint of the study, were immature at the time of the latest analysis, but “no trend toward a detriment was observed,” according to an FDA approval announcement.

Common adverse reactions, occurring in at least 20% of patients in the study, were rash, nail toxicity, stomatitis, infusion-related reaction, fatigue, edema, constipation, decreased appetite, nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting. Weight-based dosing guidance can be found in the full prescribing information.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In January 2023, Mark Lewis, MD, stood with the door slammed in his face. His partner in the practice had had enough. She accused him of sugarcoating prognoses and leaving her to tell patients the whole truth.

The reality was he just didn’t know how to grieve.

Dr. Lewis was well acquainted with cancer grief long before he became an oncologist. Dr. Lewis’ father died of a rare, hereditary cancer syndrome when he was only 14. The condition, which causes tumors to grow in the endocrine glands, can be hard to identify and, if found late, deadly.

In some ways, Dr. Lewis’ career caring for patients with advanced cancers was born out of that first loss. He centered his practice around helping patients diagnosed at late stages, like his father.

But that comes at a cost. Many patients will die.

Dr. Lewis’ encounter with his colleague led him to inventory his practice. He found that well over half of his patients died within 2 years following their advanced cancer diagnosis.

To stave off the grief of so many losses, Dr. Lewis became an eternal optimist in the clinic, in search of the Hail Mary chemotherapy, any way to eke out a few more months only to be ambushed by grief when a patient did finally pass.

At funerals — which he made every effort to attend — Dr. Lewis couldn’t help but think, “If I had done my job better, none of us with be here.” His grief started to mingle with this sense of guilt.

It became a cycle: Denial shrouded in optimism, grief, then a toxic guilt. The pattern became untenable for his colleagues. And his partner finally called him out.

Few medical specialties draw physicians as close to their patients as oncology. The long courses of treatment-spanning years can foster an intimacy that is comforting for patients and fulfilling for physicians. But that closeness can also set doctors up for an acute grief when the end of life comes.

Experts agree that no amount of training in medical school prepares an oncologist to navigate the grief that comes with losing patients. Five oncologists spoke with this news organization about the boundaries they rely on to sustain their careers.
 

Don’t Go to Funerals

Don Dizon, MD, who specializes in women’s cancers, established an essential boundary 20 years ago: Never go to funerals. In his early days at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the death of each patient dealt him a crushing blow. He’d go to the funerals in search of closure, but that only added to the weight of his grief.

“When I started in oncology, I just remember the most tragic cases were the ones I was taking care of,” recalled Dr. Dizon, now director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute in Lincoln, Rhode Island.

Dr. Dizon recalled one young mother who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She responded to treatment, but it was short-lived, and her cancer progressed, he said. Multiple treatments followed, but none were effective. Eventually, Dr. Dizon had to tell her that “there’s nothing left to try.”

At her funeral, watching her grieving husband with their daughter who had just started to walk, Dr. Dizon was overwhelmed with despair.

“When you have to do this multiple times a year,” the grief becomes untenable, he said. Sensing the difficulty I was having as a new attending, “my boss stopped sending me patients because he knew I was in trouble emotionally.”

That’s when Dr. Dizon started looking for other ways to get closure.

Today, he tries to say his goodbyes before a patient dies. After the final treatment or before hospice, Dr. Dizon has a parting conversation with his patients to express the privilege of caring for them and all he learned from them. These talks help him and his patient connect in their last moments together.
 

The Price of Wildly Happy Days

Molly Taylor, MD, MS, a pediatric oncologist in Seattle, sees the deeply sad days as the price an oncologist pays to be witness to the “wildly happy ones.”

Dr. Taylor has gone to patients’ funerals, has even been asked to speak at them, but she has also attended patients’ weddings.

To some degree, doctors get good at compartmentalizing, and they become accustomed to tragedy, she said. But there are some patients who stick with you, “and that is a whole other level of grief,” Dr. Taylor said.

Several years into her practice, one of Dr. Taylor’s patients, someone who reminded her of her own child, died. The death came as a surprise, and the finality of it took her breath away, she said. The sadness only deepened as days went by. “I felt that mother’s grief and still do,” she said.

The patient’s funeral was one of the most difficult moments in her career as an oncologist. Even weeks later, she caught herself picturing the family huddled together that day.

Taking long walks, commiserating with colleagues who get it, and watching the occasional cat video can help take the immediate sting away. But the pain of losing a patient can be long lasting and processing that grief can be a lonely endeavor.

“We need space to recognize grief for all providers, all the people that touch these patients’ lives — the nurses, the translators, the cleaning staff,” Dr. Taylor said. Otherwise, you start to believe you’re the only one feeling the weight of the loss.

While it doesn’t make the losses any less poignant, Dr. Taylor finds solace in the good moments: Patient graduations and weddings, survivors who now volunteer at the hospital, and a patient who had a baby of her own this past year. If facing grief daily has taught Dr. Taylor anything, it is to not let the good moments pass unnoticed.
 

Towing the Line

Ten years ago, Tina Rizack, MD, walked into the ICU to see a young mother holding her 6-year-old daughter. The mother had necrotizing fasciitis that had gone undiagnosed.

As Dr. Rizack stood in the doorway watching the embrace, she saw a grim future: A child without her mother. This realization hit too close to home, she said. “I still think about that case.”

In her training, Dr. Rizack, now medical director of hematology/oncology at St. Anne’s in Fall River, Massachusetts, worked with a social worker who taught her how to deal with these tough cases — most importantly, how to not take them home with her.

Over the years, Dr. Rizack learned how to build and sustain a firm barrier between work and outside work.

She doesn’t go to funerals or give out her cell phone number. If charts need to be done, she prefers to stay late at the clinic instead of bringing them home.

And she invests in the simple moments that help her detach from the day-to-day in the clinic — rooting for her kids at their games, carving out time for family meals most days, and having relaxed movie nights on the couch.

“It’s hard sometimes,” she said. But “I really do need the line.” Because without it, she can’t show up for her patients the way she wants and needs to.

Establishing the work-life boundary means that when at work, Dr. Rizack can be all in for her patients. Even after her patients’ treatment ends, she makes sure to check on them at home or in hospice. For her, sticking with patients over the long term offers some closure.

“I want to love work, and if I’m there all the time, I’m not going to love it,” she said.
 

Trading Funerals for the Bedside

Like many other oncologists, Charles Blanke, MD, finds that going to patients’ funerals makes the loss seem more profound. Being at the bedside when they die is not as painful, he said. In fact, being there when his patients die offers him some comfort. He rarely misses a patient’s death because now Dr. Blanke’s patients can schedule their departure.

An oncologist at the Knight Cancer Institute in Portland, Oregon, Dr. Blanke specializes in end-of-life care with an emphasis on death with dignity, also known as medical aid in dying. He admits it’s not a role every physician is comfortable with.

“If you’re paralyzed by grief, you can’t do this for a living,” he said. But he’s able to do the work because he genuinely feels he’s helping patients get “the relief they so strongly desire” in their last moments.

When cancer care can’t give them the life they wanted, he can give them control over when and how they die. And the ability to honor their last wishes offers him some closure as well.

“You know what kind of end they have. You know it was peaceful. You see them achieve the thing that was the most important to them,” he said.

Despite this process, he still encounters some circumstances utterly heart-wrenching — the very young patients who have advanced disease. Some of these patients choose to die because they can’t afford to continue treatment. Others don’t have a support system. In these instances, Dr. Blanke is often the only one in the room.

Believe it or not, he said, the paperwork — and there’s a lot of it in his line of work — helps remind Dr. Blanke that patients’ last wishes are being honored.
 

Making Changes

After Dr. Lewis was confronted by his partner, he began to face the shortcomings of his own coping strategies. His practice hired a social worker to help staff process difficult experiences. After the loss of every patient, the practice comes together to share and process the loss.

For him, funerals remain helpful, providing a sort of solace, so he continues to go when he can. But how to grieve is something each doctor has to figure out, he said.

Deaths still hit hard, especially the ones he doesn’t see coming. The patients who remind him of his dad can also be hard. They restart a cycle of grief from his teenage years.

The difference now is he has space to voice those concerns and someone objective to help his process.

“It’s a privilege to prepare [patients for death] and help them build their legacy,” he said. But it’s also an unrelenting challenge to navigate that grief, he said.

Still, the grief lets Dr. Lewis know he’s still engaged.

“The day I don’t feel something is probably the day I need to take a break or walk away.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In January 2023, Mark Lewis, MD, stood with the door slammed in his face. His partner in the practice had had enough. She accused him of sugarcoating prognoses and leaving her to tell patients the whole truth.

The reality was he just didn’t know how to grieve.

Dr. Lewis was well acquainted with cancer grief long before he became an oncologist. Dr. Lewis’ father died of a rare, hereditary cancer syndrome when he was only 14. The condition, which causes tumors to grow in the endocrine glands, can be hard to identify and, if found late, deadly.

In some ways, Dr. Lewis’ career caring for patients with advanced cancers was born out of that first loss. He centered his practice around helping patients diagnosed at late stages, like his father.

But that comes at a cost. Many patients will die.

Dr. Lewis’ encounter with his colleague led him to inventory his practice. He found that well over half of his patients died within 2 years following their advanced cancer diagnosis.

To stave off the grief of so many losses, Dr. Lewis became an eternal optimist in the clinic, in search of the Hail Mary chemotherapy, any way to eke out a few more months only to be ambushed by grief when a patient did finally pass.

At funerals — which he made every effort to attend — Dr. Lewis couldn’t help but think, “If I had done my job better, none of us with be here.” His grief started to mingle with this sense of guilt.

It became a cycle: Denial shrouded in optimism, grief, then a toxic guilt. The pattern became untenable for his colleagues. And his partner finally called him out.

Few medical specialties draw physicians as close to their patients as oncology. The long courses of treatment-spanning years can foster an intimacy that is comforting for patients and fulfilling for physicians. But that closeness can also set doctors up for an acute grief when the end of life comes.

Experts agree that no amount of training in medical school prepares an oncologist to navigate the grief that comes with losing patients. Five oncologists spoke with this news organization about the boundaries they rely on to sustain their careers.
 

Don’t Go to Funerals

Don Dizon, MD, who specializes in women’s cancers, established an essential boundary 20 years ago: Never go to funerals. In his early days at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the death of each patient dealt him a crushing blow. He’d go to the funerals in search of closure, but that only added to the weight of his grief.

“When I started in oncology, I just remember the most tragic cases were the ones I was taking care of,” recalled Dr. Dizon, now director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute in Lincoln, Rhode Island.

Dr. Dizon recalled one young mother who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She responded to treatment, but it was short-lived, and her cancer progressed, he said. Multiple treatments followed, but none were effective. Eventually, Dr. Dizon had to tell her that “there’s nothing left to try.”

At her funeral, watching her grieving husband with their daughter who had just started to walk, Dr. Dizon was overwhelmed with despair.

“When you have to do this multiple times a year,” the grief becomes untenable, he said. Sensing the difficulty I was having as a new attending, “my boss stopped sending me patients because he knew I was in trouble emotionally.”

That’s when Dr. Dizon started looking for other ways to get closure.

Today, he tries to say his goodbyes before a patient dies. After the final treatment or before hospice, Dr. Dizon has a parting conversation with his patients to express the privilege of caring for them and all he learned from them. These talks help him and his patient connect in their last moments together.
 

The Price of Wildly Happy Days

Molly Taylor, MD, MS, a pediatric oncologist in Seattle, sees the deeply sad days as the price an oncologist pays to be witness to the “wildly happy ones.”

Dr. Taylor has gone to patients’ funerals, has even been asked to speak at them, but she has also attended patients’ weddings.

To some degree, doctors get good at compartmentalizing, and they become accustomed to tragedy, she said. But there are some patients who stick with you, “and that is a whole other level of grief,” Dr. Taylor said.

Several years into her practice, one of Dr. Taylor’s patients, someone who reminded her of her own child, died. The death came as a surprise, and the finality of it took her breath away, she said. The sadness only deepened as days went by. “I felt that mother’s grief and still do,” she said.

The patient’s funeral was one of the most difficult moments in her career as an oncologist. Even weeks later, she caught herself picturing the family huddled together that day.

Taking long walks, commiserating with colleagues who get it, and watching the occasional cat video can help take the immediate sting away. But the pain of losing a patient can be long lasting and processing that grief can be a lonely endeavor.

“We need space to recognize grief for all providers, all the people that touch these patients’ lives — the nurses, the translators, the cleaning staff,” Dr. Taylor said. Otherwise, you start to believe you’re the only one feeling the weight of the loss.

While it doesn’t make the losses any less poignant, Dr. Taylor finds solace in the good moments: Patient graduations and weddings, survivors who now volunteer at the hospital, and a patient who had a baby of her own this past year. If facing grief daily has taught Dr. Taylor anything, it is to not let the good moments pass unnoticed.
 

Towing the Line

Ten years ago, Tina Rizack, MD, walked into the ICU to see a young mother holding her 6-year-old daughter. The mother had necrotizing fasciitis that had gone undiagnosed.

As Dr. Rizack stood in the doorway watching the embrace, she saw a grim future: A child without her mother. This realization hit too close to home, she said. “I still think about that case.”

In her training, Dr. Rizack, now medical director of hematology/oncology at St. Anne’s in Fall River, Massachusetts, worked with a social worker who taught her how to deal with these tough cases — most importantly, how to not take them home with her.

Over the years, Dr. Rizack learned how to build and sustain a firm barrier between work and outside work.

She doesn’t go to funerals or give out her cell phone number. If charts need to be done, she prefers to stay late at the clinic instead of bringing them home.

And she invests in the simple moments that help her detach from the day-to-day in the clinic — rooting for her kids at their games, carving out time for family meals most days, and having relaxed movie nights on the couch.

“It’s hard sometimes,” she said. But “I really do need the line.” Because without it, she can’t show up for her patients the way she wants and needs to.

Establishing the work-life boundary means that when at work, Dr. Rizack can be all in for her patients. Even after her patients’ treatment ends, she makes sure to check on them at home or in hospice. For her, sticking with patients over the long term offers some closure.

“I want to love work, and if I’m there all the time, I’m not going to love it,” she said.
 

Trading Funerals for the Bedside

Like many other oncologists, Charles Blanke, MD, finds that going to patients’ funerals makes the loss seem more profound. Being at the bedside when they die is not as painful, he said. In fact, being there when his patients die offers him some comfort. He rarely misses a patient’s death because now Dr. Blanke’s patients can schedule their departure.

An oncologist at the Knight Cancer Institute in Portland, Oregon, Dr. Blanke specializes in end-of-life care with an emphasis on death with dignity, also known as medical aid in dying. He admits it’s not a role every physician is comfortable with.

“If you’re paralyzed by grief, you can’t do this for a living,” he said. But he’s able to do the work because he genuinely feels he’s helping patients get “the relief they so strongly desire” in their last moments.

When cancer care can’t give them the life they wanted, he can give them control over when and how they die. And the ability to honor their last wishes offers him some closure as well.

“You know what kind of end they have. You know it was peaceful. You see them achieve the thing that was the most important to them,” he said.

Despite this process, he still encounters some circumstances utterly heart-wrenching — the very young patients who have advanced disease. Some of these patients choose to die because they can’t afford to continue treatment. Others don’t have a support system. In these instances, Dr. Blanke is often the only one in the room.

Believe it or not, he said, the paperwork — and there’s a lot of it in his line of work — helps remind Dr. Blanke that patients’ last wishes are being honored.
 

Making Changes

After Dr. Lewis was confronted by his partner, he began to face the shortcomings of his own coping strategies. His practice hired a social worker to help staff process difficult experiences. After the loss of every patient, the practice comes together to share and process the loss.

For him, funerals remain helpful, providing a sort of solace, so he continues to go when he can. But how to grieve is something each doctor has to figure out, he said.

Deaths still hit hard, especially the ones he doesn’t see coming. The patients who remind him of his dad can also be hard. They restart a cycle of grief from his teenage years.

The difference now is he has space to voice those concerns and someone objective to help his process.

“It’s a privilege to prepare [patients for death] and help them build their legacy,” he said. But it’s also an unrelenting challenge to navigate that grief, he said.

Still, the grief lets Dr. Lewis know he’s still engaged.

“The day I don’t feel something is probably the day I need to take a break or walk away.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In January 2023, Mark Lewis, MD, stood with the door slammed in his face. His partner in the practice had had enough. She accused him of sugarcoating prognoses and leaving her to tell patients the whole truth.

The reality was he just didn’t know how to grieve.

Dr. Lewis was well acquainted with cancer grief long before he became an oncologist. Dr. Lewis’ father died of a rare, hereditary cancer syndrome when he was only 14. The condition, which causes tumors to grow in the endocrine glands, can be hard to identify and, if found late, deadly.

In some ways, Dr. Lewis’ career caring for patients with advanced cancers was born out of that first loss. He centered his practice around helping patients diagnosed at late stages, like his father.

But that comes at a cost. Many patients will die.

Dr. Lewis’ encounter with his colleague led him to inventory his practice. He found that well over half of his patients died within 2 years following their advanced cancer diagnosis.

To stave off the grief of so many losses, Dr. Lewis became an eternal optimist in the clinic, in search of the Hail Mary chemotherapy, any way to eke out a few more months only to be ambushed by grief when a patient did finally pass.

At funerals — which he made every effort to attend — Dr. Lewis couldn’t help but think, “If I had done my job better, none of us with be here.” His grief started to mingle with this sense of guilt.

It became a cycle: Denial shrouded in optimism, grief, then a toxic guilt. The pattern became untenable for his colleagues. And his partner finally called him out.

Few medical specialties draw physicians as close to their patients as oncology. The long courses of treatment-spanning years can foster an intimacy that is comforting for patients and fulfilling for physicians. But that closeness can also set doctors up for an acute grief when the end of life comes.

Experts agree that no amount of training in medical school prepares an oncologist to navigate the grief that comes with losing patients. Five oncologists spoke with this news organization about the boundaries they rely on to sustain their careers.
 

Don’t Go to Funerals

Don Dizon, MD, who specializes in women’s cancers, established an essential boundary 20 years ago: Never go to funerals. In his early days at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the death of each patient dealt him a crushing blow. He’d go to the funerals in search of closure, but that only added to the weight of his grief.

“When I started in oncology, I just remember the most tragic cases were the ones I was taking care of,” recalled Dr. Dizon, now director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute in Lincoln, Rhode Island.

Dr. Dizon recalled one young mother who was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She responded to treatment, but it was short-lived, and her cancer progressed, he said. Multiple treatments followed, but none were effective. Eventually, Dr. Dizon had to tell her that “there’s nothing left to try.”

At her funeral, watching her grieving husband with their daughter who had just started to walk, Dr. Dizon was overwhelmed with despair.

“When you have to do this multiple times a year,” the grief becomes untenable, he said. Sensing the difficulty I was having as a new attending, “my boss stopped sending me patients because he knew I was in trouble emotionally.”

That’s when Dr. Dizon started looking for other ways to get closure.

Today, he tries to say his goodbyes before a patient dies. After the final treatment or before hospice, Dr. Dizon has a parting conversation with his patients to express the privilege of caring for them and all he learned from them. These talks help him and his patient connect in their last moments together.
 

The Price of Wildly Happy Days

Molly Taylor, MD, MS, a pediatric oncologist in Seattle, sees the deeply sad days as the price an oncologist pays to be witness to the “wildly happy ones.”

Dr. Taylor has gone to patients’ funerals, has even been asked to speak at them, but she has also attended patients’ weddings.

To some degree, doctors get good at compartmentalizing, and they become accustomed to tragedy, she said. But there are some patients who stick with you, “and that is a whole other level of grief,” Dr. Taylor said.

Several years into her practice, one of Dr. Taylor’s patients, someone who reminded her of her own child, died. The death came as a surprise, and the finality of it took her breath away, she said. The sadness only deepened as days went by. “I felt that mother’s grief and still do,” she said.

The patient’s funeral was one of the most difficult moments in her career as an oncologist. Even weeks later, she caught herself picturing the family huddled together that day.

Taking long walks, commiserating with colleagues who get it, and watching the occasional cat video can help take the immediate sting away. But the pain of losing a patient can be long lasting and processing that grief can be a lonely endeavor.

“We need space to recognize grief for all providers, all the people that touch these patients’ lives — the nurses, the translators, the cleaning staff,” Dr. Taylor said. Otherwise, you start to believe you’re the only one feeling the weight of the loss.

While it doesn’t make the losses any less poignant, Dr. Taylor finds solace in the good moments: Patient graduations and weddings, survivors who now volunteer at the hospital, and a patient who had a baby of her own this past year. If facing grief daily has taught Dr. Taylor anything, it is to not let the good moments pass unnoticed.
 

Towing the Line

Ten years ago, Tina Rizack, MD, walked into the ICU to see a young mother holding her 6-year-old daughter. The mother had necrotizing fasciitis that had gone undiagnosed.

As Dr. Rizack stood in the doorway watching the embrace, she saw a grim future: A child without her mother. This realization hit too close to home, she said. “I still think about that case.”

In her training, Dr. Rizack, now medical director of hematology/oncology at St. Anne’s in Fall River, Massachusetts, worked with a social worker who taught her how to deal with these tough cases — most importantly, how to not take them home with her.

Over the years, Dr. Rizack learned how to build and sustain a firm barrier between work and outside work.

She doesn’t go to funerals or give out her cell phone number. If charts need to be done, she prefers to stay late at the clinic instead of bringing them home.

And she invests in the simple moments that help her detach from the day-to-day in the clinic — rooting for her kids at their games, carving out time for family meals most days, and having relaxed movie nights on the couch.

“It’s hard sometimes,” she said. But “I really do need the line.” Because without it, she can’t show up for her patients the way she wants and needs to.

Establishing the work-life boundary means that when at work, Dr. Rizack can be all in for her patients. Even after her patients’ treatment ends, she makes sure to check on them at home or in hospice. For her, sticking with patients over the long term offers some closure.

“I want to love work, and if I’m there all the time, I’m not going to love it,” she said.
 

Trading Funerals for the Bedside

Like many other oncologists, Charles Blanke, MD, finds that going to patients’ funerals makes the loss seem more profound. Being at the bedside when they die is not as painful, he said. In fact, being there when his patients die offers him some comfort. He rarely misses a patient’s death because now Dr. Blanke’s patients can schedule their departure.

An oncologist at the Knight Cancer Institute in Portland, Oregon, Dr. Blanke specializes in end-of-life care with an emphasis on death with dignity, also known as medical aid in dying. He admits it’s not a role every physician is comfortable with.

“If you’re paralyzed by grief, you can’t do this for a living,” he said. But he’s able to do the work because he genuinely feels he’s helping patients get “the relief they so strongly desire” in their last moments.

When cancer care can’t give them the life they wanted, he can give them control over when and how they die. And the ability to honor their last wishes offers him some closure as well.

“You know what kind of end they have. You know it was peaceful. You see them achieve the thing that was the most important to them,” he said.

Despite this process, he still encounters some circumstances utterly heart-wrenching — the very young patients who have advanced disease. Some of these patients choose to die because they can’t afford to continue treatment. Others don’t have a support system. In these instances, Dr. Blanke is often the only one in the room.

Believe it or not, he said, the paperwork — and there’s a lot of it in his line of work — helps remind Dr. Blanke that patients’ last wishes are being honored.
 

Making Changes

After Dr. Lewis was confronted by his partner, he began to face the shortcomings of his own coping strategies. His practice hired a social worker to help staff process difficult experiences. After the loss of every patient, the practice comes together to share and process the loss.

For him, funerals remain helpful, providing a sort of solace, so he continues to go when he can. But how to grieve is something each doctor has to figure out, he said.

Deaths still hit hard, especially the ones he doesn’t see coming. The patients who remind him of his dad can also be hard. They restart a cycle of grief from his teenage years.

The difference now is he has space to voice those concerns and someone objective to help his process.

“It’s a privilege to prepare [patients for death] and help them build their legacy,” he said. But it’s also an unrelenting challenge to navigate that grief, he said.

Still, the grief lets Dr. Lewis know he’s still engaged.

“The day I don’t feel something is probably the day I need to take a break or walk away.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Low-dose aspirin use is associated with a reduced risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), confirms a large-scale cohort study, which also suggests that the risk reduction is greatest for metastatic disease and in individuals who take the drug for at least 5 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used several population-based registries to identify individuals aged ≥ 50 years living in Norway between 2014 and 2018, excluding those with a prior history of invasive cancer or who had lived in Norway for less than 6 months before study commencement.
• Sociodemographic information was obtained, as well as low-dose aspirin prescription data to determine the prescription date, number of dispensed packages, and defined daily dose.
• Follow-up began 6 months after entering the cohort and continued until CRC diagnosis, another cancer diagnosis, death, emigration, or the end of follow-up on December 31, 2018.
• CRC cases were categorized by site as well as by clinical stage.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 2,186,390 individuals included, 38,577 (1.8%) were diagnosed with CRC after a median follow-up of 10.9 years. Low-dose aspirin was used at least once by 579,196 (26.5%) individuals.
• Low-dose aspirin use was more common among males, older individuals, those with a lower education or lower income, those of Norwegian origin, and individuals using other medications, including those targeting cardiovascular conditions.
• Compared with never-use, current aspirin use was associated with a lower CRC risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87), an association that was more pronounced for metastatic CRC (HR, 0.79) than for regionally advanced (HR, 0.89) and localized disease (HR, 0.93).
• Duration of current aspirin use was also associated with the degree of CRC risk, at HRs of 0.91 for < 3 years, 0.85 for ≥ 3 and < 5 years, and 0.84 for ≥ 5 years.
• It was estimated that aspirin use averted 1073 cases of CRC over the study period.

IN PRACTICE:

“We believe that new randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to confirm the potential protective effect of aspirin against CRC and to identify subgroups in the population who might benefit the most from the use of aspirin,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The research, led by Edoardo Botteri, PhD, Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, National Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study is limited by its observational nature. Users and nonusers are also “incomparable,” as aspirin is used for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Moreover, information was lacking in the registries about “several known risk factors for CRC,” and so the link between aspirin and CRC risk could have been over- or underestimated. Finally, the defined daily dose may not necessarily reflect the dose actually taken by the individual or how often it was taken.

DISCLOSURES:

No relevant financial relationships were declared. The study was funded by the Norwegian Research Council.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Low-dose aspirin use is associated with a reduced risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), confirms a large-scale cohort study, which also suggests that the risk reduction is greatest for metastatic disease and in individuals who take the drug for at least 5 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used several population-based registries to identify individuals aged ≥ 50 years living in Norway between 2014 and 2018, excluding those with a prior history of invasive cancer or who had lived in Norway for less than 6 months before study commencement.
• Sociodemographic information was obtained, as well as low-dose aspirin prescription data to determine the prescription date, number of dispensed packages, and defined daily dose.
• Follow-up began 6 months after entering the cohort and continued until CRC diagnosis, another cancer diagnosis, death, emigration, or the end of follow-up on December 31, 2018.
• CRC cases were categorized by site as well as by clinical stage.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 2,186,390 individuals included, 38,577 (1.8%) were diagnosed with CRC after a median follow-up of 10.9 years. Low-dose aspirin was used at least once by 579,196 (26.5%) individuals.
• Low-dose aspirin use was more common among males, older individuals, those with a lower education or lower income, those of Norwegian origin, and individuals using other medications, including those targeting cardiovascular conditions.
• Compared with never-use, current aspirin use was associated with a lower CRC risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87), an association that was more pronounced for metastatic CRC (HR, 0.79) than for regionally advanced (HR, 0.89) and localized disease (HR, 0.93).
• Duration of current aspirin use was also associated with the degree of CRC risk, at HRs of 0.91 for < 3 years, 0.85 for ≥ 3 and < 5 years, and 0.84 for ≥ 5 years.
• It was estimated that aspirin use averted 1073 cases of CRC over the study period.

IN PRACTICE:

“We believe that new randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to confirm the potential protective effect of aspirin against CRC and to identify subgroups in the population who might benefit the most from the use of aspirin,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The research, led by Edoardo Botteri, PhD, Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, National Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study is limited by its observational nature. Users and nonusers are also “incomparable,” as aspirin is used for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Moreover, information was lacking in the registries about “several known risk factors for CRC,” and so the link between aspirin and CRC risk could have been over- or underestimated. Finally, the defined daily dose may not necessarily reflect the dose actually taken by the individual or how often it was taken.

DISCLOSURES:

No relevant financial relationships were declared. The study was funded by the Norwegian Research Council.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Low-dose aspirin use is associated with a reduced risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), confirms a large-scale cohort study, which also suggests that the risk reduction is greatest for metastatic disease and in individuals who take the drug for at least 5 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used several population-based registries to identify individuals aged ≥ 50 years living in Norway between 2014 and 2018, excluding those with a prior history of invasive cancer or who had lived in Norway for less than 6 months before study commencement.
• Sociodemographic information was obtained, as well as low-dose aspirin prescription data to determine the prescription date, number of dispensed packages, and defined daily dose.
• Follow-up began 6 months after entering the cohort and continued until CRC diagnosis, another cancer diagnosis, death, emigration, or the end of follow-up on December 31, 2018.
• CRC cases were categorized by site as well as by clinical stage.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 2,186,390 individuals included, 38,577 (1.8%) were diagnosed with CRC after a median follow-up of 10.9 years. Low-dose aspirin was used at least once by 579,196 (26.5%) individuals.
• Low-dose aspirin use was more common among males, older individuals, those with a lower education or lower income, those of Norwegian origin, and individuals using other medications, including those targeting cardiovascular conditions.
• Compared with never-use, current aspirin use was associated with a lower CRC risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.87), an association that was more pronounced for metastatic CRC (HR, 0.79) than for regionally advanced (HR, 0.89) and localized disease (HR, 0.93).
• Duration of current aspirin use was also associated with the degree of CRC risk, at HRs of 0.91 for < 3 years, 0.85 for ≥ 3 and < 5 years, and 0.84 for ≥ 5 years.
• It was estimated that aspirin use averted 1073 cases of CRC over the study period.

IN PRACTICE:

“We believe that new randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to confirm the potential protective effect of aspirin against CRC and to identify subgroups in the population who might benefit the most from the use of aspirin,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The research, led by Edoardo Botteri, PhD, Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, National Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study is limited by its observational nature. Users and nonusers are also “incomparable,” as aspirin is used for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Moreover, information was lacking in the registries about “several known risk factors for CRC,” and so the link between aspirin and CRC risk could have been over- or underestimated. Finally, the defined daily dose may not necessarily reflect the dose actually taken by the individual or how often it was taken.

DISCLOSURES:

No relevant financial relationships were declared. The study was funded by the Norwegian Research Council.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery appears to decrease the risk for some cancers, but it may increase the risk for others, particularly colorectal cancer (CRC), according to a synthesis of current evidence.

“There has been a recent burst of studies examining the association between bariatric surgery and the longitudinal risks of developing cancer,” corresponding author Zhi Ven Fong, MD, MPH, DrPH, surgical oncologist, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, said in an interview. “However, there has not been a rigorous and critical analysis of the data published to date.”

In evaluating research showing an association between bariatric surgery and longitudinal cancer risk, the investigators found that the quality of the studies and their findings are “heterogeneous and might be susceptible to bias,” Dr. Fong said.

Bariatric surgery appears to have the strongest and most consistent association with the reduction of breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer risk, first author Pei-Wen Lim, MD, MS, bariatric surgeon at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization. “However, there have been concerning signals from preclinical and epidemiological studies that bariatric surgery may be associated with a higher risk of developing colorectal cancers,” she added.

The authors cautioned against certain changes in clinical management.

“First, cancer surveillance frequency should not be altered after bariatric surgery because of any assumed reduction in longitudinal cancer risk, and surveillance strategy should mirror that of an average-risk individual,” they wrote. “Secondly, the indications for bariatric surgery should not be expanded for the purpose of cancer-risk mitigation.”

The review was published online in JAMA Surgery.
 

Protection Against Hormone-Related Cancers

The authors pointed to several studies that appear to support the association between bariatric surgery and decreased risk for hormone-related cancers.

Among them is an observational study of 6781 patients in Canada that showed a significant reduction in breast cancer risk at a median follow-up of 5 years in those who had bariatric surgery vs those who did not (P = .01).

The largest study to date on risk for hormone-related cancer after bariatric surgery was conducted using New York State data for 302,883 women.

It showed a lower rate of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers after bariatric surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P < .001), with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass conferring the greatest benefit compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (HR, 0.66; P = .006) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (HR, 0.83; P = .006).

Beyond the shared mechanisms explaining obesity and cancer risk, a proposed explanation for the strong, consistent association between bariatric surgery and hormone-sensitive cancers is the role obesity-related changes in estrogen stimulation play in development of such cancers, the authors noted.
 

Association With GI Cancers

The association between bariatric surgery and development of esophageal, gastric, liver, and pancreas cancers is less clear. The data are heterogeneous, with studies showing either no association or decreased longitudinal incidence, the authors reported.

The data are also mixed when it comes to CRC. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated decreased longitudinal incidence of colon and rectal cancer after bariatric surgery; however, two studies have suggested an increased CRC risk after bariatric surgery, the authors noted.

A 15-year study from England that matched 8794 patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery with 8794 patients with obesity who did not have the surgery showed that gastric bypass (but not gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy) was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing colon and rectal cancer (odds ratio, 2.63).

These findings were corroborated in a Swedish cohort study with more than 10 years of follow-up data.

One potential explanation for the heterogeneous findings is that “present studies do not discriminate the sub-types of colon and rectal cancer, with bariatric surgery possibly increasing the incidence of colitis-associated cancers but not hereditary cancers,” the authors wrote.

“The mechanism by which gastric bypass may increase the risk of colorectal cancer is through changes in the gut’s microbiome. These changes in gut flora may triumph the protective effect of weight loss on the development of colorectal cancers,” Dr. Fong said.

Prospective studies are necessary to better delineate CRC risk after bariatric surgery, the authors wrote.
 

Benefits Outweigh Risk

“Ultimately, it has been proven that bariatric surgery saves lives by improving the metabolic profile of patients with obesity through reduction in cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Lim said.

“If patients qualify for bariatric surgery on the basis of their BMI or comorbidities, they should pursue it for its metabolic benefits, but perhaps consider timely or closer-interval screening colonoscopies to monitor for potential colorectal cancer development,” Dr. Lim added.

When asked to comment on the review, Marina Kurian, MD, president, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, also pointed to the advantages of bariatric surgery in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events and improving hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes.

Bariatric surgery reduces many types of cancers, although the data specific to CRC risk with bariatric surgery are mixed, she added.

“The jury is still out,” said Dr. Kurian, clinical professor of surgery at NYU Langone Health in New York, who was not involved in the review. “There are papers and meta-analyses that show benefit even in colorectal cancer, but then there are a couple of papers out there that suggest a risk that seems to be specific to men.

“It could just be a numbers game, where we may not have enough data. We need more granular data that will help address these nuances and really determine what is the actual risk,” Dr. Kurian said. “But overall, for cancer, bariatric surgery is a win.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Fong and Dr. Lim had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kurian disclosed relationships with Allergan, Allurion, CineMed, CSATS, Ezisurg Medical, Hernon, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Novo, Stryker, and Vivus.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery appears to decrease the risk for some cancers, but it may increase the risk for others, particularly colorectal cancer (CRC), according to a synthesis of current evidence.

“There has been a recent burst of studies examining the association between bariatric surgery and the longitudinal risks of developing cancer,” corresponding author Zhi Ven Fong, MD, MPH, DrPH, surgical oncologist, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, said in an interview. “However, there has not been a rigorous and critical analysis of the data published to date.”

In evaluating research showing an association between bariatric surgery and longitudinal cancer risk, the investigators found that the quality of the studies and their findings are “heterogeneous and might be susceptible to bias,” Dr. Fong said.

Bariatric surgery appears to have the strongest and most consistent association with the reduction of breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer risk, first author Pei-Wen Lim, MD, MS, bariatric surgeon at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization. “However, there have been concerning signals from preclinical and epidemiological studies that bariatric surgery may be associated with a higher risk of developing colorectal cancers,” she added.

The authors cautioned against certain changes in clinical management.

“First, cancer surveillance frequency should not be altered after bariatric surgery because of any assumed reduction in longitudinal cancer risk, and surveillance strategy should mirror that of an average-risk individual,” they wrote. “Secondly, the indications for bariatric surgery should not be expanded for the purpose of cancer-risk mitigation.”

The review was published online in JAMA Surgery.
 

Protection Against Hormone-Related Cancers

The authors pointed to several studies that appear to support the association between bariatric surgery and decreased risk for hormone-related cancers.

Among them is an observational study of 6781 patients in Canada that showed a significant reduction in breast cancer risk at a median follow-up of 5 years in those who had bariatric surgery vs those who did not (P = .01).

The largest study to date on risk for hormone-related cancer after bariatric surgery was conducted using New York State data for 302,883 women.

It showed a lower rate of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers after bariatric surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P < .001), with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass conferring the greatest benefit compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (HR, 0.66; P = .006) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (HR, 0.83; P = .006).

Beyond the shared mechanisms explaining obesity and cancer risk, a proposed explanation for the strong, consistent association between bariatric surgery and hormone-sensitive cancers is the role obesity-related changes in estrogen stimulation play in development of such cancers, the authors noted.
 

Association With GI Cancers

The association between bariatric surgery and development of esophageal, gastric, liver, and pancreas cancers is less clear. The data are heterogeneous, with studies showing either no association or decreased longitudinal incidence, the authors reported.

The data are also mixed when it comes to CRC. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated decreased longitudinal incidence of colon and rectal cancer after bariatric surgery; however, two studies have suggested an increased CRC risk after bariatric surgery, the authors noted.

A 15-year study from England that matched 8794 patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery with 8794 patients with obesity who did not have the surgery showed that gastric bypass (but not gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy) was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing colon and rectal cancer (odds ratio, 2.63).

These findings were corroborated in a Swedish cohort study with more than 10 years of follow-up data.

One potential explanation for the heterogeneous findings is that “present studies do not discriminate the sub-types of colon and rectal cancer, with bariatric surgery possibly increasing the incidence of colitis-associated cancers but not hereditary cancers,” the authors wrote.

“The mechanism by which gastric bypass may increase the risk of colorectal cancer is through changes in the gut’s microbiome. These changes in gut flora may triumph the protective effect of weight loss on the development of colorectal cancers,” Dr. Fong said.

Prospective studies are necessary to better delineate CRC risk after bariatric surgery, the authors wrote.
 

Benefits Outweigh Risk

“Ultimately, it has been proven that bariatric surgery saves lives by improving the metabolic profile of patients with obesity through reduction in cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Lim said.

“If patients qualify for bariatric surgery on the basis of their BMI or comorbidities, they should pursue it for its metabolic benefits, but perhaps consider timely or closer-interval screening colonoscopies to monitor for potential colorectal cancer development,” Dr. Lim added.

When asked to comment on the review, Marina Kurian, MD, president, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, also pointed to the advantages of bariatric surgery in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events and improving hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes.

Bariatric surgery reduces many types of cancers, although the data specific to CRC risk with bariatric surgery are mixed, she added.

“The jury is still out,” said Dr. Kurian, clinical professor of surgery at NYU Langone Health in New York, who was not involved in the review. “There are papers and meta-analyses that show benefit even in colorectal cancer, but then there are a couple of papers out there that suggest a risk that seems to be specific to men.

“It could just be a numbers game, where we may not have enough data. We need more granular data that will help address these nuances and really determine what is the actual risk,” Dr. Kurian said. “But overall, for cancer, bariatric surgery is a win.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Fong and Dr. Lim had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kurian disclosed relationships with Allergan, Allurion, CineMed, CSATS, Ezisurg Medical, Hernon, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Novo, Stryker, and Vivus.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bariatric surgery appears to decrease the risk for some cancers, but it may increase the risk for others, particularly colorectal cancer (CRC), according to a synthesis of current evidence.

“There has been a recent burst of studies examining the association between bariatric surgery and the longitudinal risks of developing cancer,” corresponding author Zhi Ven Fong, MD, MPH, DrPH, surgical oncologist, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, said in an interview. “However, there has not been a rigorous and critical analysis of the data published to date.”

In evaluating research showing an association between bariatric surgery and longitudinal cancer risk, the investigators found that the quality of the studies and their findings are “heterogeneous and might be susceptible to bias,” Dr. Fong said.

Bariatric surgery appears to have the strongest and most consistent association with the reduction of breast, ovarian, and endometrial cancer risk, first author Pei-Wen Lim, MD, MS, bariatric surgeon at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, told this news organization. “However, there have been concerning signals from preclinical and epidemiological studies that bariatric surgery may be associated with a higher risk of developing colorectal cancers,” she added.

The authors cautioned against certain changes in clinical management.

“First, cancer surveillance frequency should not be altered after bariatric surgery because of any assumed reduction in longitudinal cancer risk, and surveillance strategy should mirror that of an average-risk individual,” they wrote. “Secondly, the indications for bariatric surgery should not be expanded for the purpose of cancer-risk mitigation.”

The review was published online in JAMA Surgery.
 

Protection Against Hormone-Related Cancers

The authors pointed to several studies that appear to support the association between bariatric surgery and decreased risk for hormone-related cancers.

Among them is an observational study of 6781 patients in Canada that showed a significant reduction in breast cancer risk at a median follow-up of 5 years in those who had bariatric surgery vs those who did not (P = .01).

The largest study to date on risk for hormone-related cancer after bariatric surgery was conducted using New York State data for 302,883 women.

It showed a lower rate of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers after bariatric surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; P < .001), with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass conferring the greatest benefit compared with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (HR, 0.66; P = .006) and laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (HR, 0.83; P = .006).

Beyond the shared mechanisms explaining obesity and cancer risk, a proposed explanation for the strong, consistent association between bariatric surgery and hormone-sensitive cancers is the role obesity-related changes in estrogen stimulation play in development of such cancers, the authors noted.
 

Association With GI Cancers

The association between bariatric surgery and development of esophageal, gastric, liver, and pancreas cancers is less clear. The data are heterogeneous, with studies showing either no association or decreased longitudinal incidence, the authors reported.

The data are also mixed when it comes to CRC. Epidemiological studies have demonstrated decreased longitudinal incidence of colon and rectal cancer after bariatric surgery; however, two studies have suggested an increased CRC risk after bariatric surgery, the authors noted.

A 15-year study from England that matched 8794 patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery with 8794 patients with obesity who did not have the surgery showed that gastric bypass (but not gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy) was associated with a greater than twofold increased risk of developing colon and rectal cancer (odds ratio, 2.63).

These findings were corroborated in a Swedish cohort study with more than 10 years of follow-up data.

One potential explanation for the heterogeneous findings is that “present studies do not discriminate the sub-types of colon and rectal cancer, with bariatric surgery possibly increasing the incidence of colitis-associated cancers but not hereditary cancers,” the authors wrote.

“The mechanism by which gastric bypass may increase the risk of colorectal cancer is through changes in the gut’s microbiome. These changes in gut flora may triumph the protective effect of weight loss on the development of colorectal cancers,” Dr. Fong said.

Prospective studies are necessary to better delineate CRC risk after bariatric surgery, the authors wrote.
 

Benefits Outweigh Risk

“Ultimately, it has been proven that bariatric surgery saves lives by improving the metabolic profile of patients with obesity through reduction in cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,” Dr. Lim said.

“If patients qualify for bariatric surgery on the basis of their BMI or comorbidities, they should pursue it for its metabolic benefits, but perhaps consider timely or closer-interval screening colonoscopies to monitor for potential colorectal cancer development,” Dr. Lim added.

When asked to comment on the review, Marina Kurian, MD, president, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, also pointed to the advantages of bariatric surgery in reducing major adverse cardiovascular events and improving hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes.

Bariatric surgery reduces many types of cancers, although the data specific to CRC risk with bariatric surgery are mixed, she added.

“The jury is still out,” said Dr. Kurian, clinical professor of surgery at NYU Langone Health in New York, who was not involved in the review. “There are papers and meta-analyses that show benefit even in colorectal cancer, but then there are a couple of papers out there that suggest a risk that seems to be specific to men.

“It could just be a numbers game, where we may not have enough data. We need more granular data that will help address these nuances and really determine what is the actual risk,” Dr. Kurian said. “But overall, for cancer, bariatric surgery is a win.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Fong and Dr. Lim had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kurian disclosed relationships with Allergan, Allurion, CineMed, CSATS, Ezisurg Medical, Hernon, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Novo, Stryker, and Vivus.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

One of my abiding interests, part of my daily routine as a cancer physician, is considering whether we should or should not recommend adjuvant therapy for patients who have just had potentially curative resection of their colorectal cancer.

Our group, the QUASAR Group, made a very significant contribution in terms of trials and knowledge in this field. One of the things that we still need to discuss and think about in our wider community is the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients.

Colorectal cancer is a disease of the elderly, with the median age of presentation around 72. We know that, at presentation, more than 50% of patients are aged 65 or over and one third of patients are 75 or over. It’s a disease predominantly of the elderly. Are we justified in giving combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin to high-risk resected colorectal cancer patients?

There’s a very nice report of a meta-analysis by Dottorini and colleagues that came out recently in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. It’s an excellent group. They did their meta-analytical work according to a strict, rational protocol. Their statistical analyses were on point, and they collected data from all the relevant trials.

According to the results of their study, it could be concluded that the addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant therapy for resected high-risk colorectal cancer in older patients — patients older than 70 — doesn’t result in any statistically significant gain in terms of preventing recurrences or saving lives.

When we did our QUASAR trials, initially we were looking at control vs fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. Although there was an overall impact on survival of the whole trial group (the 5000 patients in our study), when we looked by decile, there was a significant diminution of benefit even to fluoropyrimidine therapy in our trial in patients aged 70 or above. I think this careful meta-analysis must make us question the use of oxaliplatin in elderly patients.

What could the explanation be? Why could the well-known and described benefits of oxaliplatin, particularly for stage III disease, attenuate in older people? It may be to do with reduction in dose intensity. Older people have more side effects; therefore, the chemotherapy isn’t completed as planned. Although, increasingly these days, we tend only to be giving 3 months of treatment.

Is there something biologically in terms of the biology or the somatic mutational landscape of the tumor in older people? I don’t think so. Certainly, in terms of their capacity, in terms of stem cell reserve to be as resistant to the side effects of chemotherapy as younger people, we know that does attenuate with age.

Food for thought: The majority of patients I see in the clinic for the adjuvant treatment are elderly. The majority are coming these days with high-risk stage II or stage III disease. There is a real question mark about whether we should be using oxaliplatin at all.

Clearly, one would say that we need more trials of chemotherapy in older folk to see if the addition of drugs like oxaliplatin to a fluoropyrimidine backbone really does make a difference. I’ve said many times before that we, the medical community recommending adjuvant treatment, need to have better risk stratifiers. We need to have better prognostic markers. We need to have better indices that would allow us to perhaps consider these combination treatments in a more focused group of patients who may have a higher risk for recurrence.

Have a look at the paper and see what you think. I think it’s well done. It’s certainly given me pause for thought about the treatment that we will offer our elderly patients.

Have a think about it. Let me know if there are any comments that you’d like to make. For the time being, over and out.

Dr. Kerr is Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom. He disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

One of my abiding interests, part of my daily routine as a cancer physician, is considering whether we should or should not recommend adjuvant therapy for patients who have just had potentially curative resection of their colorectal cancer.

Our group, the QUASAR Group, made a very significant contribution in terms of trials and knowledge in this field. One of the things that we still need to discuss and think about in our wider community is the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients.

Colorectal cancer is a disease of the elderly, with the median age of presentation around 72. We know that, at presentation, more than 50% of patients are aged 65 or over and one third of patients are 75 or over. It’s a disease predominantly of the elderly. Are we justified in giving combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin to high-risk resected colorectal cancer patients?

There’s a very nice report of a meta-analysis by Dottorini and colleagues that came out recently in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. It’s an excellent group. They did their meta-analytical work according to a strict, rational protocol. Their statistical analyses were on point, and they collected data from all the relevant trials.

According to the results of their study, it could be concluded that the addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant therapy for resected high-risk colorectal cancer in older patients — patients older than 70 — doesn’t result in any statistically significant gain in terms of preventing recurrences or saving lives.

When we did our QUASAR trials, initially we were looking at control vs fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. Although there was an overall impact on survival of the whole trial group (the 5000 patients in our study), when we looked by decile, there was a significant diminution of benefit even to fluoropyrimidine therapy in our trial in patients aged 70 or above. I think this careful meta-analysis must make us question the use of oxaliplatin in elderly patients.

What could the explanation be? Why could the well-known and described benefits of oxaliplatin, particularly for stage III disease, attenuate in older people? It may be to do with reduction in dose intensity. Older people have more side effects; therefore, the chemotherapy isn’t completed as planned. Although, increasingly these days, we tend only to be giving 3 months of treatment.

Is there something biologically in terms of the biology or the somatic mutational landscape of the tumor in older people? I don’t think so. Certainly, in terms of their capacity, in terms of stem cell reserve to be as resistant to the side effects of chemotherapy as younger people, we know that does attenuate with age.

Food for thought: The majority of patients I see in the clinic for the adjuvant treatment are elderly. The majority are coming these days with high-risk stage II or stage III disease. There is a real question mark about whether we should be using oxaliplatin at all.

Clearly, one would say that we need more trials of chemotherapy in older folk to see if the addition of drugs like oxaliplatin to a fluoropyrimidine backbone really does make a difference. I’ve said many times before that we, the medical community recommending adjuvant treatment, need to have better risk stratifiers. We need to have better prognostic markers. We need to have better indices that would allow us to perhaps consider these combination treatments in a more focused group of patients who may have a higher risk for recurrence.

Have a look at the paper and see what you think. I think it’s well done. It’s certainly given me pause for thought about the treatment that we will offer our elderly patients.

Have a think about it. Let me know if there are any comments that you’d like to make. For the time being, over and out.

Dr. Kerr is Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom. He disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

One of my abiding interests, part of my daily routine as a cancer physician, is considering whether we should or should not recommend adjuvant therapy for patients who have just had potentially curative resection of their colorectal cancer.

Our group, the QUASAR Group, made a very significant contribution in terms of trials and knowledge in this field. One of the things that we still need to discuss and think about in our wider community is the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients.

Colorectal cancer is a disease of the elderly, with the median age of presentation around 72. We know that, at presentation, more than 50% of patients are aged 65 or over and one third of patients are 75 or over. It’s a disease predominantly of the elderly. Are we justified in giving combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin to high-risk resected colorectal cancer patients?

There’s a very nice report of a meta-analysis by Dottorini and colleagues that came out recently in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. It’s an excellent group. They did their meta-analytical work according to a strict, rational protocol. Their statistical analyses were on point, and they collected data from all the relevant trials.

According to the results of their study, it could be concluded that the addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant therapy for resected high-risk colorectal cancer in older patients — patients older than 70 — doesn’t result in any statistically significant gain in terms of preventing recurrences or saving lives.

When we did our QUASAR trials, initially we were looking at control vs fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. Although there was an overall impact on survival of the whole trial group (the 5000 patients in our study), when we looked by decile, there was a significant diminution of benefit even to fluoropyrimidine therapy in our trial in patients aged 70 or above. I think this careful meta-analysis must make us question the use of oxaliplatin in elderly patients.

What could the explanation be? Why could the well-known and described benefits of oxaliplatin, particularly for stage III disease, attenuate in older people? It may be to do with reduction in dose intensity. Older people have more side effects; therefore, the chemotherapy isn’t completed as planned. Although, increasingly these days, we tend only to be giving 3 months of treatment.

Is there something biologically in terms of the biology or the somatic mutational landscape of the tumor in older people? I don’t think so. Certainly, in terms of their capacity, in terms of stem cell reserve to be as resistant to the side effects of chemotherapy as younger people, we know that does attenuate with age.

Food for thought: The majority of patients I see in the clinic for the adjuvant treatment are elderly. The majority are coming these days with high-risk stage II or stage III disease. There is a real question mark about whether we should be using oxaliplatin at all.

Clearly, one would say that we need more trials of chemotherapy in older folk to see if the addition of drugs like oxaliplatin to a fluoropyrimidine backbone really does make a difference. I’ve said many times before that we, the medical community recommending adjuvant treatment, need to have better risk stratifiers. We need to have better prognostic markers. We need to have better indices that would allow us to perhaps consider these combination treatments in a more focused group of patients who may have a higher risk for recurrence.

Have a look at the paper and see what you think. I think it’s well done. It’s certainly given me pause for thought about the treatment that we will offer our elderly patients.

Have a think about it. Let me know if there are any comments that you’d like to make. For the time being, over and out.

Dr. Kerr is Professor, Nuffield Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Oxford; Professor of Cancer Medicine, Oxford Cancer Centre, Oxford, United Kingdom. He disclosed ties with Celleron Therapeutics, Oxford Cancer Biomarkers, Afrox, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Genomic Health, Merck Serono, and Roche.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

Exercising for upwards of 30 minutes most days may help relieve pain in patients who’ve been diagnosed with cancer, according to a study of exercise and pain outcomes from more than 60,000 people, including 10,000 with a history of cancer. 

Study participants who’d been diagnosed with cancer and surpassed 150 minutes of moderate activity a week were 16% less likely to report pain than those who did not exercise or who exercised less. Exercise was particularly helpful for those with moderate to severe pain. In general, the more people exercised, the less pain they felt — and that was true for those with and without a history of cancer.

“This adds to a large evidence base regarding other benefits of exercise after cancer,” said lead study author Christopher Swain, PhD, a researcher at the University of Melbourne, Australia, who studies how physical activity can protect against cancer. “It would be great for physicians to encourage physical activity” for anyone who’s ever been diagnosed with cancer. 

The findings also add to mounting evidence — including observational and experimental studies — that physical activity may help ease people’s pain. One large cross-sectional study of Norwegian adults found that the prevalence of chronic pain was 10%-38% lower among people who exercised. Randomized trials suggest exercise could be an effective pain management tool for a range of conditions, including neck and low-back pain, osteoarthritis, myofascial pain, and fibromyalgia. 

Still, the analgesic effects of exercise are less established for cancer-related pain, the authors wrote in the recent study published in Cancer — even though cancer pain remains a common and critical issue. 

Cancer-related pain is unique, stemming from multiple potential causes, said Shakil Ahmed, MB, an anesthesiologist at Weill Cornell Medicine who specializes in treating cancer pain. (Dr. Ahmed was not involved in the study.) Patients “might be having pain from the tumor itself,” — such as a tumor pressing on nerves — “or as a result of treatment, including surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, or complications from long-term medications,” Dr. Ahmed said. Indeed, some 40% of patients have chronic pain post cancer diagnosis, and it›s often undertreated and underdiagnosed.
 

How Does Exercise Reduce Pain?

Researchers aren’t exactly sure how exercise modulates pain, but they have some theories.

A 2021 meta-analysis found that exercise training can raise a person›s pain threshold, particularly at the pain site, suggesting adaptations in central inhibition, a process in the central nervous system that suppresses the perception of pain. This echoes a 2017 review that suggests exercise may help relieve pain by activating central inhibitory pathways. 

“There’s definitely evidence that there is improvement in the pain-reduction chemicals and augmentation of the pain inhibitory process in the central nervous system,” said Dr. Ahmed. That is, exercise may induce chemical changes that alter how much pain the brain’s sensory neurons can detect. 

Regular exercise can also reduce inflammation and improve blood flow, noted William McCarthy, PhD, a public health researcher with UCLA Health — both effects that may help to reduce pain.

Psychological factors may be another part of it. “There’s a lot of psychological stress as a result of a cancer diagnosis, which can lower the pain threshold,” said Dr. Ahmed. Exercise may help boost mood and reduce stress, increasing pain tolerance.

“People who are physically active also tend to be more socially active,” Dr. McCarthy added. “Engaging in social networks that provide social support can often palliate a sense of constant battling with fatigue, pain, and other negative effects of cancer.” Social activity, in turn, may promote physical activity: Studies show that when sedentary people socialize with active people, they become more active themselves — often by joining in walks or sports.

 

Help Patients Reap the Pain-Relieving Benefits of Exercise 

For beginners, the key to establishing a long-term exercise routine is to start low and slow, said Dr. Ahmed. That is, start with low-intensity activities like walking (walking was the most common activity reported in the study) or using light weights. Then, build slowly from there. 

Keep in mind that some pain or stiffness is normal at first, as one’s muscles and joints get used to the new activity. But be sure to investigate any new pain, Dr. Ahmed said. “Especially for patients who have had cancer, you want to see if the patient has any recurrence of disease,” Dr. Ahmed said. “That has to be kept in mind when you recommend any kind of exercise. “ 

It’s worth acknowledging that pain can be a significant barrier to exercise. If appropriate, you may consider referring out to exercise or physical therapy professionals in your network. Emphasizing the benefits of exercise — like the pain relief — may help motivate patients as well. 

For Dr. Swain, encouraging exercise is less about prescribing specific quantities and more about helping patients find activities “that give them enjoyment, that they feel comfortable doing, and that they can sustain over time.”

“The field needs to consider the different ways of supporting physical activity after a cancer diagnosis and treatment,” Dr. Swain said. “We have a lot of great research that shows the benefit of physical activity but not as strong an understanding of how to encourage and support it.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exercising for upwards of 30 minutes most days may help relieve pain in patients who’ve been diagnosed with cancer, according to a study of exercise and pain outcomes from more than 60,000 people, including 10,000 with a history of cancer. 

Study participants who’d been diagnosed with cancer and surpassed 150 minutes of moderate activity a week were 16% less likely to report pain than those who did not exercise or who exercised less. Exercise was particularly helpful for those with moderate to severe pain. In general, the more people exercised, the less pain they felt — and that was true for those with and without a history of cancer.

“This adds to a large evidence base regarding other benefits of exercise after cancer,” said lead study author Christopher Swain, PhD, a researcher at the University of Melbourne, Australia, who studies how physical activity can protect against cancer. “It would be great for physicians to encourage physical activity” for anyone who’s ever been diagnosed with cancer. 

The findings also add to mounting evidence — including observational and experimental studies — that physical activity may help ease people’s pain. One large cross-sectional study of Norwegian adults found that the prevalence of chronic pain was 10%-38% lower among people who exercised. Randomized trials suggest exercise could be an effective pain management tool for a range of conditions, including neck and low-back pain, osteoarthritis, myofascial pain, and fibromyalgia. 

Still, the analgesic effects of exercise are less established for cancer-related pain, the authors wrote in the recent study published in Cancer — even though cancer pain remains a common and critical issue. 

Cancer-related pain is unique, stemming from multiple potential causes, said Shakil Ahmed, MB, an anesthesiologist at Weill Cornell Medicine who specializes in treating cancer pain. (Dr. Ahmed was not involved in the study.) Patients “might be having pain from the tumor itself,” — such as a tumor pressing on nerves — “or as a result of treatment, including surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, or complications from long-term medications,” Dr. Ahmed said. Indeed, some 40% of patients have chronic pain post cancer diagnosis, and it›s often undertreated and underdiagnosed.
 

How Does Exercise Reduce Pain?

Researchers aren’t exactly sure how exercise modulates pain, but they have some theories.

A 2021 meta-analysis found that exercise training can raise a person›s pain threshold, particularly at the pain site, suggesting adaptations in central inhibition, a process in the central nervous system that suppresses the perception of pain. This echoes a 2017 review that suggests exercise may help relieve pain by activating central inhibitory pathways. 

“There’s definitely evidence that there is improvement in the pain-reduction chemicals and augmentation of the pain inhibitory process in the central nervous system,” said Dr. Ahmed. That is, exercise may induce chemical changes that alter how much pain the brain’s sensory neurons can detect. 

Regular exercise can also reduce inflammation and improve blood flow, noted William McCarthy, PhD, a public health researcher with UCLA Health — both effects that may help to reduce pain.

Psychological factors may be another part of it. “There’s a lot of psychological stress as a result of a cancer diagnosis, which can lower the pain threshold,” said Dr. Ahmed. Exercise may help boost mood and reduce stress, increasing pain tolerance.

“People who are physically active also tend to be more socially active,” Dr. McCarthy added. “Engaging in social networks that provide social support can often palliate a sense of constant battling with fatigue, pain, and other negative effects of cancer.” Social activity, in turn, may promote physical activity: Studies show that when sedentary people socialize with active people, they become more active themselves — often by joining in walks or sports.

 

Help Patients Reap the Pain-Relieving Benefits of Exercise 

For beginners, the key to establishing a long-term exercise routine is to start low and slow, said Dr. Ahmed. That is, start with low-intensity activities like walking (walking was the most common activity reported in the study) or using light weights. Then, build slowly from there. 

Keep in mind that some pain or stiffness is normal at first, as one’s muscles and joints get used to the new activity. But be sure to investigate any new pain, Dr. Ahmed said. “Especially for patients who have had cancer, you want to see if the patient has any recurrence of disease,” Dr. Ahmed said. “That has to be kept in mind when you recommend any kind of exercise. “ 

It’s worth acknowledging that pain can be a significant barrier to exercise. If appropriate, you may consider referring out to exercise or physical therapy professionals in your network. Emphasizing the benefits of exercise — like the pain relief — may help motivate patients as well. 

For Dr. Swain, encouraging exercise is less about prescribing specific quantities and more about helping patients find activities “that give them enjoyment, that they feel comfortable doing, and that they can sustain over time.”

“The field needs to consider the different ways of supporting physical activity after a cancer diagnosis and treatment,” Dr. Swain said. “We have a lot of great research that shows the benefit of physical activity but not as strong an understanding of how to encourage and support it.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exercising for upwards of 30 minutes most days may help relieve pain in patients who’ve been diagnosed with cancer, according to a study of exercise and pain outcomes from more than 60,000 people, including 10,000 with a history of cancer. 

Study participants who’d been diagnosed with cancer and surpassed 150 minutes of moderate activity a week were 16% less likely to report pain than those who did not exercise or who exercised less. Exercise was particularly helpful for those with moderate to severe pain. In general, the more people exercised, the less pain they felt — and that was true for those with and without a history of cancer.

“This adds to a large evidence base regarding other benefits of exercise after cancer,” said lead study author Christopher Swain, PhD, a researcher at the University of Melbourne, Australia, who studies how physical activity can protect against cancer. “It would be great for physicians to encourage physical activity” for anyone who’s ever been diagnosed with cancer. 

The findings also add to mounting evidence — including observational and experimental studies — that physical activity may help ease people’s pain. One large cross-sectional study of Norwegian adults found that the prevalence of chronic pain was 10%-38% lower among people who exercised. Randomized trials suggest exercise could be an effective pain management tool for a range of conditions, including neck and low-back pain, osteoarthritis, myofascial pain, and fibromyalgia. 

Still, the analgesic effects of exercise are less established for cancer-related pain, the authors wrote in the recent study published in Cancer — even though cancer pain remains a common and critical issue. 

Cancer-related pain is unique, stemming from multiple potential causes, said Shakil Ahmed, MB, an anesthesiologist at Weill Cornell Medicine who specializes in treating cancer pain. (Dr. Ahmed was not involved in the study.) Patients “might be having pain from the tumor itself,” — such as a tumor pressing on nerves — “or as a result of treatment, including surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, or complications from long-term medications,” Dr. Ahmed said. Indeed, some 40% of patients have chronic pain post cancer diagnosis, and it›s often undertreated and underdiagnosed.
 

How Does Exercise Reduce Pain?

Researchers aren’t exactly sure how exercise modulates pain, but they have some theories.

A 2021 meta-analysis found that exercise training can raise a person›s pain threshold, particularly at the pain site, suggesting adaptations in central inhibition, a process in the central nervous system that suppresses the perception of pain. This echoes a 2017 review that suggests exercise may help relieve pain by activating central inhibitory pathways. 

“There’s definitely evidence that there is improvement in the pain-reduction chemicals and augmentation of the pain inhibitory process in the central nervous system,” said Dr. Ahmed. That is, exercise may induce chemical changes that alter how much pain the brain’s sensory neurons can detect. 

Regular exercise can also reduce inflammation and improve blood flow, noted William McCarthy, PhD, a public health researcher with UCLA Health — both effects that may help to reduce pain.

Psychological factors may be another part of it. “There’s a lot of psychological stress as a result of a cancer diagnosis, which can lower the pain threshold,” said Dr. Ahmed. Exercise may help boost mood and reduce stress, increasing pain tolerance.

“People who are physically active also tend to be more socially active,” Dr. McCarthy added. “Engaging in social networks that provide social support can often palliate a sense of constant battling with fatigue, pain, and other negative effects of cancer.” Social activity, in turn, may promote physical activity: Studies show that when sedentary people socialize with active people, they become more active themselves — often by joining in walks or sports.

 

Help Patients Reap the Pain-Relieving Benefits of Exercise 

For beginners, the key to establishing a long-term exercise routine is to start low and slow, said Dr. Ahmed. That is, start with low-intensity activities like walking (walking was the most common activity reported in the study) or using light weights. Then, build slowly from there. 

Keep in mind that some pain or stiffness is normal at first, as one’s muscles and joints get used to the new activity. But be sure to investigate any new pain, Dr. Ahmed said. “Especially for patients who have had cancer, you want to see if the patient has any recurrence of disease,” Dr. Ahmed said. “That has to be kept in mind when you recommend any kind of exercise. “ 

It’s worth acknowledging that pain can be a significant barrier to exercise. If appropriate, you may consider referring out to exercise or physical therapy professionals in your network. Emphasizing the benefits of exercise — like the pain relief — may help motivate patients as well. 

For Dr. Swain, encouraging exercise is less about prescribing specific quantities and more about helping patients find activities “that give them enjoyment, that they feel comfortable doing, and that they can sustain over time.”

“The field needs to consider the different ways of supporting physical activity after a cancer diagnosis and treatment,” Dr. Swain said. “We have a lot of great research that shows the benefit of physical activity but not as strong an understanding of how to encourage and support it.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”

It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.

Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.

Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.

And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.

As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.

Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.

An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium

All of this is telling us how we need to ramp up our game if we are going to be able to use our immune system to quash a cancer. Fortunately, we have abundant and ever-growing capabilities for doing just that.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.

But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.

Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines

There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.

Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.

An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.

Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)

There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.

A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.

This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.

Oncolytic Viruses

Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.

After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.

Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])

As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.

As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.

Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.

Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.

Summary

Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.

Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.

Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.

Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.

Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”

It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.

Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.

Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.

And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.

As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.

Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.

An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium

All of this is telling us how we need to ramp up our game if we are going to be able to use our immune system to quash a cancer. Fortunately, we have abundant and ever-growing capabilities for doing just that.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.

But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.

Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines

There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.

Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.

An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.

Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)

There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.

A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.

This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.

Oncolytic Viruses

Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.

After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.

Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])

As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.

As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.

Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.

Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.

Summary

Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.

Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.

Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.

Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.

Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published on February 10 in Eric Topol’s substack “Ground Truths.”

It’s astounding how devious cancer cells and tumor tissue can be. This week in Science we learned how certain lung cancer cells can function like “Catch Me If You Can” — changing their driver mutation and cell identity to escape targeted therapy. This histologic transformation, as seen in an experimental model, is just one of so many cancer tricks that we are learning about.

Recently, as shown by single-cell sequencing, cancer cells can steal the mitochondria from T cells, a double whammy that turbocharges cancer cells with the hijacked fuel supply and, at the same time, dismantles the immune response.

Last week, we saw how tumor cells can release a virus-like protein that unleashes a vicious autoimmune response.

And then there’s the finding that cancer cell spread predominantly is occurring while we sleep.

As I previously reviewed, the ability for cancer cells to hijack neurons and neural circuits is now well established, no less their ability to reprogram neurons to become adrenergic and stimulate tumor progression, and interfere with the immune response. Stay tuned on that for a new Ground Truths podcast with Prof Michelle Monje, a leader in cancer neuroscience, which will post soon.

Add advancing age’s immunosenescence as yet another challenge to the long and growing list of formidable ways that cancer cells, and the tumor microenvironment, evade our immune response.

An Ever-Expanding Armamentarium

All of this is telling us how we need to ramp up our game if we are going to be able to use our immune system to quash a cancer. Fortunately, we have abundant and ever-growing capabilities for doing just that.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

The field of immunotherapies took off with the immune checkpoint inhibitors, first approved by the FDA in 2011, that take the brakes off of T cells, with the programmed death-1 (PD-1), PD-ligand1, and anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibodies.

But we’re clearly learning they are not enough to prevail over cancer with common recurrences, only short term success in most patients, with some notable exceptions. Adding other immune response strategies, such as a vaccine, or antibody-drug conjugates, or engineered T cells, are showing improved chances for success.

Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines

There are many therapeutic cancer vaccines in the works, as reviewed in depth here.

Here’s a list of ongoing clinical trials of cancer vaccines. You’ll note most of these are on top of a checkpoint inhibitor and use personalized neoantigens (cancer cell surface proteins) derived from sequencing (whole-exome or whole genome, RNA-sequencing and HLA-profiling) the patient’s tumor.

An example of positive findings is with the combination of an mRNA-nanoparticle vaccine with up to 34 personalized neoantigens and pembrolizumab (Keytruda) vs pembrolizumab alone in advanced melanoma after resection, with improved outcomes at 3-year follow-up, cutting death or relapse rate in half.

Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADC)

There is considerable excitement about antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) whereby a linker is used to attach a chemotherapy agent to the checkpoint inhibitor antibody, specifically targeting the cancer cell and facilitating entry of the chemotherapy into the cell. Akin to these are bispecific antibodies (BiTEs, binding to a tumor antigen and T cell receptor simultaneously), both of these conjugates acting as “biologic” or “guided” missiles.

A very good example of the potency of an ADC was seen in a “HER2-low” breast cancer randomized trial. The absence or very low expression or amplification of the HER2 receptor is common in breast cancer and successful treatment has been elusive. A randomized trial of an ADC (trastuzumab deruxtecan) compared to physician’s choice therapy demonstrated a marked success for progression-free survival in HER2-low patients, which was characterized as “unheard-of success” by media coverage.

This strategy is being used to target some of the most difficult cancer driver mutations such as TP53 and KRAS.

Oncolytic Viruses

Modifying viruses to infect the tumor and make it more visible to the immune system, potentiating anti-tumor responses, known as oncolytic viruses, have been proposed as a way to rev up the immune response for a long time but without positive Phase 3 clinical trials.

After decades of failure, a recent trial in refractory bladder cancer showed marked success, along with others, summarized here, now providing very encouraging results. It looks like oncolytic viruses are on a comeback path.

Engineering T Cells (Chimeric Antigen Receptor [CAR-T])

As I recently reviewed, there are over 500 ongoing clinical trials to build on the success of the first CAR-T approval for leukemia 7 years ago. I won’t go through that all again here, but to reiterate most of the success to date has been in “liquid” blood (leukemia and lymphoma) cancer tumors. This week in Nature is the discovery of a T cell cancer mutation, a gene fusion CARD11-PIK3R3, from a T cell lymphoma that can potentially be used to augment CAR-T efficacy. It has pronounced and prolonged effects in the experimental model. Instead of 1 million cells needed for treatment, even 20,000 were enough to melt the tumor. This is a noteworthy discovery since CAR-T work to date has largely not exploited such naturally occurring mutations, while instead concentrating on those seen in the patient’s set of key tumor mutations.

As currently conceived, CAR-T, and what is being referred to more broadly as adoptive cell therapies, involves removing T cells from the patient’s body and engineering their activation, then reintroducing them back to the patient. This is laborious, technically difficult, and very expensive. Recently, the idea of achieving all of this via an injection of virus that specifically infects T cells and inserts the genes needed, was advanced by two biotech companies with preclinical results, one in non-human primates.

Gearing up to meet the challenge of solid tumor CAR-T intervention, there’s more work using CRISPR genome editing of T cell receptors. A.I. is increasingly being exploited to process the data from sequencing and identify optimal neoantigens.

Instead of just CAR-T, we’re seeing the emergence of CAR-macrophage and CAR-natural killer (NK) cells strategies, and rapidly expanding potential combinations of all the strategies I’ve mentioned. No less, there’s been maturation of on-off suicide switches programmed in, to limit cytokine release and promote safety of these interventions. Overall, major side effects of immunotherapies are not only cytokine release syndromes, but also include interstitial pneumonitis and neurotoxicity.

Summary

Given the multitude of ways cancer cells and tumor tissue can evade our immune response, durably successful treatment remains a daunting challenge. But the ingenuity of so many different approaches to unleash our immune response, and their combinations, provides considerable hope that we’ll increasingly meet the challenge in the years ahead. We have clearly learned that combining different immunotherapy strategies will be essential for many patients with the most resilient solid tumors.

Of concern, as noted by a recent editorial in The Lancet, entitled “Cancer Research Equity: Innovations For The Many, Not The Few,” is that these individualized, sophisticated strategies are not scalable; they will have limited reach and benefit. The movement towards “off the shelf” CAR-T and inexpensive, orally active checkpoint inhibitors may help mitigate this issue.

Notwithstanding this important concern, we’re seeing an array of diverse and potent immunotherapy strategies that are providing highly encouraging results, engendering more excitement than we’ve seen in this space for some time. These should propel substantial improvements in outcomes for patients in the years ahead. It can’t happen soon enough.

Thanks for reading this edition of Ground Truths. If you found it informative, please share it with your colleagues.

Dr. Topol has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Dexcom; Illumina; Molecular Stethoscope; Quest Diagnostics; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Received research grant from National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Upon reviewing repeated prostate cancer screenings, researchers observed the absence of suspicious MRI findings in over 86% of men who had prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 3 ng/mL or higher during their second screening.

METHODOLOGY:

• New initiatives are focusing on organizing prostate cancer screening using MRI to reduce overdiagnosis, as current evidence does not support the effectiveness of a single PSA test, with guidelines now recommending repeated testing every 1-4 years.
• In the STHLM3-MRI trial, men, aged 50-74 years, living in Stockholm County, Sweden, were invited to participate in prostate cancer screening and randomly assigned to traditional screening with systematic  or an MRI-based strategy.
• Blood samples were analyzed for PSA levels and Stockholm3 risk score; men with elevated risk underwent targeted MRI and biopsy procedures.
• In this follow-up analysis, 2,078 men with PSA levels of 1.5 ng/mL or higher and a Stockholm3 risk score less than 0.11 were re-invited for screening 2-3 years after their initial screening.
• The primary outcome was clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score of 3 + 4 or greater). A Gleason score of 6 was detected in 0.7% of patients, and a score of 4 + 3 or greater was detected in 19 (1.3%) men.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 1,500 men (median age of 67 years) who underwent a blood test, the median PSA level was 2.8 ng/mL and 26.0% changed risk classification groups (PSA levels < 3 vs 3 ng/mL).
• Out of 667 men with PSA levels of 3 ng/mL or higher, 617 (92.5%) had an MRI. Of the 617, 51 (7.6%) had equivocal lesions (a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of 3) and 33 (4.9%) had suspicious lesions.
• Of the 1,500 rescreened men, clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 48 men (3.2%); this corresponds to 59.2% of the biopsied men.
• Out of 383 men who had previously received a negative MRI result, only 10 (2.6%) exhibited a lesion with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of 4 or higher.

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Ola Bratt, MD, PhD, noted that the “most important finding was the very high proportion of nonsuspicious repeat MRI scans,” but also emphasizes the necessity of observing a decrease in overall prostate cancer incidence before asserting that the current cancer diagnostics effectively reduce overdiagnosis.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Tobias Nordström, MD, PhD, from Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, was published on February 7, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Long-term outcomes like prostate cancer mortality were not evaluated. Information on cancer detection in men with a negative MRI result at rescreening was not available. Authors noted that a subset of individuals may still be at risk despite lower PSA levels.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Karolinska Institute, Prostatacancerförbundet, Region Stockholm, and Åke Wibergs Stiftelse. The authors reported financial relationships outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Upon reviewing repeated prostate cancer screenings, researchers observed the absence of suspicious MRI findings in over 86% of men who had prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 3 ng/mL or higher during their second screening.

METHODOLOGY:

• New initiatives are focusing on organizing prostate cancer screening using MRI to reduce overdiagnosis, as current evidence does not support the effectiveness of a single PSA test, with guidelines now recommending repeated testing every 1-4 years.
• In the STHLM3-MRI trial, men, aged 50-74 years, living in Stockholm County, Sweden, were invited to participate in prostate cancer screening and randomly assigned to traditional screening with systematic  or an MRI-based strategy.
• Blood samples were analyzed for PSA levels and Stockholm3 risk score; men with elevated risk underwent targeted MRI and biopsy procedures.
• In this follow-up analysis, 2,078 men with PSA levels of 1.5 ng/mL or higher and a Stockholm3 risk score less than 0.11 were re-invited for screening 2-3 years after their initial screening.
• The primary outcome was clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score of 3 + 4 or greater). A Gleason score of 6 was detected in 0.7% of patients, and a score of 4 + 3 or greater was detected in 19 (1.3%) men.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 1,500 men (median age of 67 years) who underwent a blood test, the median PSA level was 2.8 ng/mL and 26.0% changed risk classification groups (PSA levels < 3 vs 3 ng/mL).
• Out of 667 men with PSA levels of 3 ng/mL or higher, 617 (92.5%) had an MRI. Of the 617, 51 (7.6%) had equivocal lesions (a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of 3) and 33 (4.9%) had suspicious lesions.
• Of the 1,500 rescreened men, clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 48 men (3.2%); this corresponds to 59.2% of the biopsied men.
• Out of 383 men who had previously received a negative MRI result, only 10 (2.6%) exhibited a lesion with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of 4 or higher.

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Ola Bratt, MD, PhD, noted that the “most important finding was the very high proportion of nonsuspicious repeat MRI scans,” but also emphasizes the necessity of observing a decrease in overall prostate cancer incidence before asserting that the current cancer diagnostics effectively reduce overdiagnosis.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Tobias Nordström, MD, PhD, from Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, was published on February 7, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Long-term outcomes like prostate cancer mortality were not evaluated. Information on cancer detection in men with a negative MRI result at rescreening was not available. Authors noted that a subset of individuals may still be at risk despite lower PSA levels.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Karolinska Institute, Prostatacancerförbundet, Region Stockholm, and Åke Wibergs Stiftelse. The authors reported financial relationships outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Upon reviewing repeated prostate cancer screenings, researchers observed the absence of suspicious MRI findings in over 86% of men who had prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 3 ng/mL or higher during their second screening.

METHODOLOGY:

• New initiatives are focusing on organizing prostate cancer screening using MRI to reduce overdiagnosis, as current evidence does not support the effectiveness of a single PSA test, with guidelines now recommending repeated testing every 1-4 years.
• In the STHLM3-MRI trial, men, aged 50-74 years, living in Stockholm County, Sweden, were invited to participate in prostate cancer screening and randomly assigned to traditional screening with systematic  or an MRI-based strategy.
• Blood samples were analyzed for PSA levels and Stockholm3 risk score; men with elevated risk underwent targeted MRI and biopsy procedures.
• In this follow-up analysis, 2,078 men with PSA levels of 1.5 ng/mL or higher and a Stockholm3 risk score less than 0.11 were re-invited for screening 2-3 years after their initial screening.
• The primary outcome was clinically significant prostate cancer (Gleason score of 3 + 4 or greater). A Gleason score of 6 was detected in 0.7% of patients, and a score of 4 + 3 or greater was detected in 19 (1.3%) men.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of 1,500 men (median age of 67 years) who underwent a blood test, the median PSA level was 2.8 ng/mL and 26.0% changed risk classification groups (PSA levels < 3 vs 3 ng/mL).
• Out of 667 men with PSA levels of 3 ng/mL or higher, 617 (92.5%) had an MRI. Of the 617, 51 (7.6%) had equivocal lesions (a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of 3) and 33 (4.9%) had suspicious lesions.
• Of the 1,500 rescreened men, clinically significant prostate cancer was detected in 48 men (3.2%); this corresponds to 59.2% of the biopsied men.
• Out of 383 men who had previously received a negative MRI result, only 10 (2.6%) exhibited a lesion with a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System score of 4 or higher.

IN PRACTICE:

In an accompanying editorial, Ola Bratt, MD, PhD, noted that the “most important finding was the very high proportion of nonsuspicious repeat MRI scans,” but also emphasizes the necessity of observing a decrease in overall prostate cancer incidence before asserting that the current cancer diagnostics effectively reduce overdiagnosis.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Tobias Nordström, MD, PhD, from Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden, was published on February 7, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Long-term outcomes like prostate cancer mortality were not evaluated. Information on cancer detection in men with a negative MRI result at rescreening was not available. Authors noted that a subset of individuals may still be at risk despite lower PSA levels.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Karolinska Institute, Prostatacancerförbundet, Region Stockholm, and Åke Wibergs Stiftelse. The authors reported financial relationships outside this work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.