AVAHO

SAN FRANCISCO — The immunotherapy combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab rivals chemotherapy as well as pembrolizumab monotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), new data indicated.

Findings from the CHECKMATE-8HW trial revealed that first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab led to a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy among patients with metastatic CRC.

More specifically, at 2 years, PFS was 72% among patients with microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) randomized to the immunotherapy combination compared with just 14% among those randomized to chemotherapy with or without targeted therapy.

The magnitude of the benefit was unexpected, especially considering patients received only four cycles of the immunotherapy combination in the trial. “It’s a good surprise,” said lead investigator Thierry Andre, MD, who presented the findings at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The findings indicate that nivolumab plus ipilimumab should really be “a new standard,” said Andre, a medical oncologist at Sorbonne University, Paris.

The combination as well as nivolumab alone has received US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) approval to treat MSI-H or dMMR metastatic CRC in the second line, following chemotherapy failure.

The FDA also approved pembrolizumab as first-line monotherapy for this CRC indication in 2020. The KEYNOTE-177 trial, which led to the pembrolizumab approval, reported a 2-year PFS of 48% among patients receiving the monotherapy. Andre was the lead investigator on KEYNOTE-177.

To compare PFS results for pembrolizumab and nivolumab alone, the CHECKMATE-8HW trial included a nivolumab monotherapy arm, but these results are pending, as are the overall survival findings, Andre said.

Overall, CHECKMATE-8HW must be taken into context with KEYNOTE-177, and “we need a little bit more trial data” for oncologists to decide between the two options, said Neil Newman, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, who co-moderated Dr. Andre’s presentation.

Andre noted, however, that if the nivolumab and pembrolizumab monotherapy results are similar, most patients will likely receive the nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, given the improved PFS outcomes.

In CHECKMATE-8HW, patients were randomized to three regimens. The 202 patients in the combination arm received nivolumab 240 mg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks. The 101 patients in the chemotherapy group received investigator’s choice of mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab. And the nivolumab monotherapy arm received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks for six doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks.

Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity over a maximum of 2 years. The median duration of treatment was 13.5 months in the nivolumab/ipilimumab arm vs 4 months in the chemotherapy arm.

PFS curves started to separate between nivolumab/ipilimumab and chemotherapy at about 3 months.

Patients receiving the combination exhibited a 79% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death at 2 years (72% vs 14%; hazard ratio, 0.21; P < .0001). The median PFS was not reached with the combination vs 5.9 months with chemotherapy. The PFS benefit of nivolumab/ipilimumab held across various subgroups, including patients with KRAS or NRAS mutations and baseline lung, liver, or peritoneal metastases.

The incidence of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events was 23% with nivolumab/ipilimumab vs 48% in the chemotherapy arm. The most common grade 3/4 events with nivolumab/ipilimumab were diarrhea/colitis (5%), adrenal insufficiency (4%), hepatitis (3%), and inflammation of the pituitary gland (3%).

Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination arm — one from pneumonitis and the second from myocarditis — and none occurred in the chemotherapy arm.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, was impressed with the CHECKMATE-8HW findings. The data are shaping up to make nivolumab/ipilimumab “the next great step in metastatic CRC management beyond KEYNOTE-177,” Dr. Lewis said.

Dr. Lewis noted that the new trial makes it “imperative” to standardize testing for immunotherapy candidacy upfront. “It is completely unacceptable for any patient with metastatic CRC to not have their MMR/MSI status assessed,” he said. “Much as no oncologist would dare treat breast cancer without testing ER, PR, HER2 status, biomarkers cannot be a later-line afterthought in stage IV CRC.”

Drugmaker Bristol-Myers Squibb told this news organization that the company will be seeking a first-line indication for the combination, and anticipates approval early next year or possibly sooner, if the FDA grants a priority review.

The work was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and the ONO Pharmaceutical Company. Dr. Andre had numerous industry ties, including being a consultant for both BMS and Merck. He also reported honoraria from both companies. Dr. Newman and Dr. Lewis didn’t have any disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO — The immunotherapy combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab rivals chemotherapy as well as pembrolizumab monotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), new data indicated.

Findings from the CHECKMATE-8HW trial revealed that first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab led to a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy among patients with metastatic CRC.

More specifically, at 2 years, PFS was 72% among patients with microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) randomized to the immunotherapy combination compared with just 14% among those randomized to chemotherapy with or without targeted therapy.

The magnitude of the benefit was unexpected, especially considering patients received only four cycles of the immunotherapy combination in the trial. “It’s a good surprise,” said lead investigator Thierry Andre, MD, who presented the findings at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The findings indicate that nivolumab plus ipilimumab should really be “a new standard,” said Andre, a medical oncologist at Sorbonne University, Paris.

The combination as well as nivolumab alone has received US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) approval to treat MSI-H or dMMR metastatic CRC in the second line, following chemotherapy failure.

The FDA also approved pembrolizumab as first-line monotherapy for this CRC indication in 2020. The KEYNOTE-177 trial, which led to the pembrolizumab approval, reported a 2-year PFS of 48% among patients receiving the monotherapy. Andre was the lead investigator on KEYNOTE-177.

To compare PFS results for pembrolizumab and nivolumab alone, the CHECKMATE-8HW trial included a nivolumab monotherapy arm, but these results are pending, as are the overall survival findings, Andre said.

Overall, CHECKMATE-8HW must be taken into context with KEYNOTE-177, and “we need a little bit more trial data” for oncologists to decide between the two options, said Neil Newman, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, who co-moderated Dr. Andre’s presentation.

Andre noted, however, that if the nivolumab and pembrolizumab monotherapy results are similar, most patients will likely receive the nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, given the improved PFS outcomes.

In CHECKMATE-8HW, patients were randomized to three regimens. The 202 patients in the combination arm received nivolumab 240 mg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks. The 101 patients in the chemotherapy group received investigator’s choice of mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab. And the nivolumab monotherapy arm received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks for six doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks.

Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity over a maximum of 2 years. The median duration of treatment was 13.5 months in the nivolumab/ipilimumab arm vs 4 months in the chemotherapy arm.

PFS curves started to separate between nivolumab/ipilimumab and chemotherapy at about 3 months.

Patients receiving the combination exhibited a 79% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death at 2 years (72% vs 14%; hazard ratio, 0.21; P < .0001). The median PFS was not reached with the combination vs 5.9 months with chemotherapy. The PFS benefit of nivolumab/ipilimumab held across various subgroups, including patients with KRAS or NRAS mutations and baseline lung, liver, or peritoneal metastases.

The incidence of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events was 23% with nivolumab/ipilimumab vs 48% in the chemotherapy arm. The most common grade 3/4 events with nivolumab/ipilimumab were diarrhea/colitis (5%), adrenal insufficiency (4%), hepatitis (3%), and inflammation of the pituitary gland (3%).

Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination arm — one from pneumonitis and the second from myocarditis — and none occurred in the chemotherapy arm.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, was impressed with the CHECKMATE-8HW findings. The data are shaping up to make nivolumab/ipilimumab “the next great step in metastatic CRC management beyond KEYNOTE-177,” Dr. Lewis said.

Dr. Lewis noted that the new trial makes it “imperative” to standardize testing for immunotherapy candidacy upfront. “It is completely unacceptable for any patient with metastatic CRC to not have their MMR/MSI status assessed,” he said. “Much as no oncologist would dare treat breast cancer without testing ER, PR, HER2 status, biomarkers cannot be a later-line afterthought in stage IV CRC.”

Drugmaker Bristol-Myers Squibb told this news organization that the company will be seeking a first-line indication for the combination, and anticipates approval early next year or possibly sooner, if the FDA grants a priority review.

The work was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and the ONO Pharmaceutical Company. Dr. Andre had numerous industry ties, including being a consultant for both BMS and Merck. He also reported honoraria from both companies. Dr. Newman and Dr. Lewis didn’t have any disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO — The immunotherapy combination nivolumab plus ipilimumab rivals chemotherapy as well as pembrolizumab monotherapy in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), new data indicated.

Findings from the CHECKMATE-8HW trial revealed that first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab led to a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy among patients with metastatic CRC.

More specifically, at 2 years, PFS was 72% among patients with microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) randomized to the immunotherapy combination compared with just 14% among those randomized to chemotherapy with or without targeted therapy.

The magnitude of the benefit was unexpected, especially considering patients received only four cycles of the immunotherapy combination in the trial. “It’s a good surprise,” said lead investigator Thierry Andre, MD, who presented the findings at the 2024 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.

The findings indicate that nivolumab plus ipilimumab should really be “a new standard,” said Andre, a medical oncologist at Sorbonne University, Paris.

The combination as well as nivolumab alone has received US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) approval to treat MSI-H or dMMR metastatic CRC in the second line, following chemotherapy failure.

The FDA also approved pembrolizumab as first-line monotherapy for this CRC indication in 2020. The KEYNOTE-177 trial, which led to the pembrolizumab approval, reported a 2-year PFS of 48% among patients receiving the monotherapy. Andre was the lead investigator on KEYNOTE-177.

To compare PFS results for pembrolizumab and nivolumab alone, the CHECKMATE-8HW trial included a nivolumab monotherapy arm, but these results are pending, as are the overall survival findings, Andre said.

Overall, CHECKMATE-8HW must be taken into context with KEYNOTE-177, and “we need a little bit more trial data” for oncologists to decide between the two options, said Neil Newman, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas, who co-moderated Dr. Andre’s presentation.

Andre noted, however, that if the nivolumab and pembrolizumab monotherapy results are similar, most patients will likely receive the nivolumab/ipilimumab combination, given the improved PFS outcomes.

In CHECKMATE-8HW, patients were randomized to three regimens. The 202 patients in the combination arm received nivolumab 240 mg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks. The 101 patients in the chemotherapy group received investigator’s choice of mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab. And the nivolumab monotherapy arm received nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks for six doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks.

Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity over a maximum of 2 years. The median duration of treatment was 13.5 months in the nivolumab/ipilimumab arm vs 4 months in the chemotherapy arm.

PFS curves started to separate between nivolumab/ipilimumab and chemotherapy at about 3 months.

Patients receiving the combination exhibited a 79% reduction in the risk for disease progression or death at 2 years (72% vs 14%; hazard ratio, 0.21; P < .0001). The median PFS was not reached with the combination vs 5.9 months with chemotherapy. The PFS benefit of nivolumab/ipilimumab held across various subgroups, including patients with KRAS or NRAS mutations and baseline lung, liver, or peritoneal metastases.

The incidence of grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events was 23% with nivolumab/ipilimumab vs 48% in the chemotherapy arm. The most common grade 3/4 events with nivolumab/ipilimumab were diarrhea/colitis (5%), adrenal insufficiency (4%), hepatitis (3%), and inflammation of the pituitary gland (3%).

Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination arm — one from pneumonitis and the second from myocarditis — and none occurred in the chemotherapy arm.

Mark A. Lewis, MD, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah, was impressed with the CHECKMATE-8HW findings. The data are shaping up to make nivolumab/ipilimumab “the next great step in metastatic CRC management beyond KEYNOTE-177,” Dr. Lewis said.

Dr. Lewis noted that the new trial makes it “imperative” to standardize testing for immunotherapy candidacy upfront. “It is completely unacceptable for any patient with metastatic CRC to not have their MMR/MSI status assessed,” he said. “Much as no oncologist would dare treat breast cancer without testing ER, PR, HER2 status, biomarkers cannot be a later-line afterthought in stage IV CRC.”

Drugmaker Bristol-Myers Squibb told this news organization that the company will be seeking a first-line indication for the combination, and anticipates approval early next year or possibly sooner, if the FDA grants a priority review.

The work was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and the ONO Pharmaceutical Company. Dr. Andre had numerous industry ties, including being a consultant for both BMS and Merck. He also reported honoraria from both companies. Dr. Newman and Dr. Lewis didn’t have any disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Overall cancer mortality in the United States has continued to decline, with more than 4 million cancer deaths averted since 1991, according to the 2024 American Cancer Society (ACS) annual report on cancer trends.

The “good news is that we are continuing to see a decline in cancer mortality,” which follows the steady decline we’ve observed in cancer mortality over the past three decades, Rebecca Siegel, MPH, with ACS, and lead author of the new report, told this news organization.

However, these gains are “threatened by increasing incidence for many common cancers, including 6 of the top 10 most commonly diagnosed cancers,” Ms. Siegel said.

Overall, new cancer diagnoses are projected to top 2 million in 2024. That’s an average of 5480 new diagnoses each day or one person diagnosed every 15 seconds.

“In the US, the way our healthcare system is designed, we like to treat more than we like to prevent disease, and I would personally like to see a shift towards more emphasis on cancer prevention,” she added.

The full report was published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

Cancer Hitting at Younger Ages

Although advancing age remains the strongest determinate of cancer risk, the new data showed that cancer incidence is steadily increasing in younger populations.

What’s most alarming is the increase in cancer diagnoses in adults under 50 years.

Between 2015 and 2019, incidence rates increased by 0.6%-1% annually for breast, pancreas, and uterine corpus cancers, by 1%-2% annually for cervical cancer in women between 30 and 44 years, and by 2%-3% annually for prostate, kidney, melanoma, and human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers, as well as liver cancer in women.

The continuing rise in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence in younger adults, in particular, is “very concerning,” Ms. Siegel said, and has shifted mortality patterns among adults younger than 50 years.

In this group, CRC is now the leading cause of cancer death in men and the second-leading cause in women behind breast cancer — up from the fourth leading cause of cancer death in both younger men and women 2 decades ago.

The obesity epidemic is likely a contributing factor in rising CRC rates, “but it’s not the whole story,” Ms. Siegel told this news organization. “A lot of work is going on to try to uncover what exactly is causing an increased risk of colorectal cancer.”

The proportion of new cancers diagnosed in adults aged 50-64 years has also increased — from 25% in 1995 to 30% in 2019-2020 — while the proportion of new cancers diagnosed in adults aged 65 years and older fell from 61% to 58% in that time frame. Among this older population, the authors observed steep declines in the incidence of prostate cancer and smoking-related cancers.

“Every generation born after the 1950s has had higher cancer risk than the previous generation. That tells us is that there is some exposure that is yet unknown that is causing this increased risk,” Ms. Siegel noted.

To halt and reverse this trend, it will be important to increase screening uptake as well as awareness of noninvasive stool tests and follow-up care in younger adults, Ahmedin Jemal, PhD, with ACS, commented in a press release.

Other key findings in the report include the sharp decline in cervical cancer incidence rates in women in their 20s — the first cohort to receive the HPV vaccine — but increases of nearly 2% in women 30-44 years, highlighting the need for more screening in young women as well as broader uptake of the vaccine, the authors said.

After decades of increases, cancer incidence in children has leveled off, although rates continue to increase among adolescents aged 15-19 years. The largest increase was a 4% per year rise in thyroid cancer, much of which is likely due to overdiagnosis.

On the survival front, uterine cancer is the only cancer for which survival decreased over the past few decades.

Progress against cancer has been hampered by persistent and widespread cancer disparities. Mortality rates are twofold higher among Black patients with prostate, stomach, and endometrial cancers than among White patients, and twofold higher among Native Americans with liver, stomach, and kidney cancers.

Black women are more often diagnosed at more advanced stages (44% vs 23%) and have worse 5‐year survival rates (63% vs 84%) than White women.

“This report underscores the need for public policy interventions to help reduce these cancer disparities and save more lives,” Lisa Lacasse, with the ACS Cancer Action Network, said in the release. “We urge lawmakers at all levels of government to advance policies that ensure more people have health insurance coverage as well as improved access to and affordability of care, such as increased funding for cancer research and screening programs.”

The authors of a linked editorial noted that while the report shows continued progress in oncology overall, certain ethnic, racial, age, and geographic populations face a disproportionate burden of cancer incidence and mortality.

“Like others, we find these health disparities wholly unacceptable and agree with the National Cancer Plan and Biden Moonshot Initiative that bold and new collaborations and thinking will be needed to produce different outcomes,” the editorialists said.

Overall, the editorialists noted, “every 15 seconds presents a real reminder of the urgency to end cancer as we know it for everyone.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Overall cancer mortality in the United States has continued to decline, with more than 4 million cancer deaths averted since 1991, according to the 2024 American Cancer Society (ACS) annual report on cancer trends.

The “good news is that we are continuing to see a decline in cancer mortality,” which follows the steady decline we’ve observed in cancer mortality over the past three decades, Rebecca Siegel, MPH, with ACS, and lead author of the new report, told this news organization.

However, these gains are “threatened by increasing incidence for many common cancers, including 6 of the top 10 most commonly diagnosed cancers,” Ms. Siegel said.

Overall, new cancer diagnoses are projected to top 2 million in 2024. That’s an average of 5480 new diagnoses each day or one person diagnosed every 15 seconds.

“In the US, the way our healthcare system is designed, we like to treat more than we like to prevent disease, and I would personally like to see a shift towards more emphasis on cancer prevention,” she added.

The full report was published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

Cancer Hitting at Younger Ages

Although advancing age remains the strongest determinate of cancer risk, the new data showed that cancer incidence is steadily increasing in younger populations.

What’s most alarming is the increase in cancer diagnoses in adults under 50 years.

Between 2015 and 2019, incidence rates increased by 0.6%-1% annually for breast, pancreas, and uterine corpus cancers, by 1%-2% annually for cervical cancer in women between 30 and 44 years, and by 2%-3% annually for prostate, kidney, melanoma, and human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers, as well as liver cancer in women.

The continuing rise in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence in younger adults, in particular, is “very concerning,” Ms. Siegel said, and has shifted mortality patterns among adults younger than 50 years.

In this group, CRC is now the leading cause of cancer death in men and the second-leading cause in women behind breast cancer — up from the fourth leading cause of cancer death in both younger men and women 2 decades ago.

The obesity epidemic is likely a contributing factor in rising CRC rates, “but it’s not the whole story,” Ms. Siegel told this news organization. “A lot of work is going on to try to uncover what exactly is causing an increased risk of colorectal cancer.”

The proportion of new cancers diagnosed in adults aged 50-64 years has also increased — from 25% in 1995 to 30% in 2019-2020 — while the proportion of new cancers diagnosed in adults aged 65 years and older fell from 61% to 58% in that time frame. Among this older population, the authors observed steep declines in the incidence of prostate cancer and smoking-related cancers.

“Every generation born after the 1950s has had higher cancer risk than the previous generation. That tells us is that there is some exposure that is yet unknown that is causing this increased risk,” Ms. Siegel noted.

To halt and reverse this trend, it will be important to increase screening uptake as well as awareness of noninvasive stool tests and follow-up care in younger adults, Ahmedin Jemal, PhD, with ACS, commented in a press release.

Other key findings in the report include the sharp decline in cervical cancer incidence rates in women in their 20s — the first cohort to receive the HPV vaccine — but increases of nearly 2% in women 30-44 years, highlighting the need for more screening in young women as well as broader uptake of the vaccine, the authors said.

After decades of increases, cancer incidence in children has leveled off, although rates continue to increase among adolescents aged 15-19 years. The largest increase was a 4% per year rise in thyroid cancer, much of which is likely due to overdiagnosis.

On the survival front, uterine cancer is the only cancer for which survival decreased over the past few decades.

Progress against cancer has been hampered by persistent and widespread cancer disparities. Mortality rates are twofold higher among Black patients with prostate, stomach, and endometrial cancers than among White patients, and twofold higher among Native Americans with liver, stomach, and kidney cancers.

Black women are more often diagnosed at more advanced stages (44% vs 23%) and have worse 5‐year survival rates (63% vs 84%) than White women.

“This report underscores the need for public policy interventions to help reduce these cancer disparities and save more lives,” Lisa Lacasse, with the ACS Cancer Action Network, said in the release. “We urge lawmakers at all levels of government to advance policies that ensure more people have health insurance coverage as well as improved access to and affordability of care, such as increased funding for cancer research and screening programs.”

The authors of a linked editorial noted that while the report shows continued progress in oncology overall, certain ethnic, racial, age, and geographic populations face a disproportionate burden of cancer incidence and mortality.

“Like others, we find these health disparities wholly unacceptable and agree with the National Cancer Plan and Biden Moonshot Initiative that bold and new collaborations and thinking will be needed to produce different outcomes,” the editorialists said.

Overall, the editorialists noted, “every 15 seconds presents a real reminder of the urgency to end cancer as we know it for everyone.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Overall cancer mortality in the United States has continued to decline, with more than 4 million cancer deaths averted since 1991, according to the 2024 American Cancer Society (ACS) annual report on cancer trends.

The “good news is that we are continuing to see a decline in cancer mortality,” which follows the steady decline we’ve observed in cancer mortality over the past three decades, Rebecca Siegel, MPH, with ACS, and lead author of the new report, told this news organization.

However, these gains are “threatened by increasing incidence for many common cancers, including 6 of the top 10 most commonly diagnosed cancers,” Ms. Siegel said.

Overall, new cancer diagnoses are projected to top 2 million in 2024. That’s an average of 5480 new diagnoses each day or one person diagnosed every 15 seconds.

“In the US, the way our healthcare system is designed, we like to treat more than we like to prevent disease, and I would personally like to see a shift towards more emphasis on cancer prevention,” she added.

The full report was published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

Cancer Hitting at Younger Ages

Although advancing age remains the strongest determinate of cancer risk, the new data showed that cancer incidence is steadily increasing in younger populations.

What’s most alarming is the increase in cancer diagnoses in adults under 50 years.

Between 2015 and 2019, incidence rates increased by 0.6%-1% annually for breast, pancreas, and uterine corpus cancers, by 1%-2% annually for cervical cancer in women between 30 and 44 years, and by 2%-3% annually for prostate, kidney, melanoma, and human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers, as well as liver cancer in women.

The continuing rise in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence in younger adults, in particular, is “very concerning,” Ms. Siegel said, and has shifted mortality patterns among adults younger than 50 years.

In this group, CRC is now the leading cause of cancer death in men and the second-leading cause in women behind breast cancer — up from the fourth leading cause of cancer death in both younger men and women 2 decades ago.

The obesity epidemic is likely a contributing factor in rising CRC rates, “but it’s not the whole story,” Ms. Siegel told this news organization. “A lot of work is going on to try to uncover what exactly is causing an increased risk of colorectal cancer.”

The proportion of new cancers diagnosed in adults aged 50-64 years has also increased — from 25% in 1995 to 30% in 2019-2020 — while the proportion of new cancers diagnosed in adults aged 65 years and older fell from 61% to 58% in that time frame. Among this older population, the authors observed steep declines in the incidence of prostate cancer and smoking-related cancers.

“Every generation born after the 1950s has had higher cancer risk than the previous generation. That tells us is that there is some exposure that is yet unknown that is causing this increased risk,” Ms. Siegel noted.

To halt and reverse this trend, it will be important to increase screening uptake as well as awareness of noninvasive stool tests and follow-up care in younger adults, Ahmedin Jemal, PhD, with ACS, commented in a press release.

Other key findings in the report include the sharp decline in cervical cancer incidence rates in women in their 20s — the first cohort to receive the HPV vaccine — but increases of nearly 2% in women 30-44 years, highlighting the need for more screening in young women as well as broader uptake of the vaccine, the authors said.

After decades of increases, cancer incidence in children has leveled off, although rates continue to increase among adolescents aged 15-19 years. The largest increase was a 4% per year rise in thyroid cancer, much of which is likely due to overdiagnosis.

On the survival front, uterine cancer is the only cancer for which survival decreased over the past few decades.

Progress against cancer has been hampered by persistent and widespread cancer disparities. Mortality rates are twofold higher among Black patients with prostate, stomach, and endometrial cancers than among White patients, and twofold higher among Native Americans with liver, stomach, and kidney cancers.

Black women are more often diagnosed at more advanced stages (44% vs 23%) and have worse 5‐year survival rates (63% vs 84%) than White women.

“This report underscores the need for public policy interventions to help reduce these cancer disparities and save more lives,” Lisa Lacasse, with the ACS Cancer Action Network, said in the release. “We urge lawmakers at all levels of government to advance policies that ensure more people have health insurance coverage as well as improved access to and affordability of care, such as increased funding for cancer research and screening programs.”

The authors of a linked editorial noted that while the report shows continued progress in oncology overall, certain ethnic, racial, age, and geographic populations face a disproportionate burden of cancer incidence and mortality.

“Like others, we find these health disparities wholly unacceptable and agree with the National Cancer Plan and Biden Moonshot Initiative that bold and new collaborations and thinking will be needed to produce different outcomes,” the editorialists said.

Overall, the editorialists noted, “every 15 seconds presents a real reminder of the urgency to end cancer as we know it for everyone.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New data provide no support for an increased risk for pancreatic cancer with use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for up to 7 years, although longer-term data are needed, researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some studies have raised concern about a possible increased risk for pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer in patients taking a GLP-1 RA. 
• Investigators behind this population-based cohort study assessed the association of GLP-1 RA treatment with pancreatic cancer incidence over a median of 7 years in 543,595 adults (mean age, 59.9 years; 51% women) with type 2 diabetes. 
• Treatment with basal insulin was used as an active comparator. 
• The analyses accounted for major confounding factors and time-related biases and adjusted for treatment with other glucose-lowering medications and a history of pancreatitis. 

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the study period, 33,377 patients (6.1%) used GLP-1 RAs and 106,849 (19.7%) used basal insulin, with 1665 of all patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. 
• There was no evidence that GLP-1 RA use increased pancreatic cancer risk compared with basal insulin. 
• The estimated hazard ratio (HR) for pancreatic cancer associated with incremental use of one defined daily dose per day of GLP-1 RA compared with basal insulin in years 5-7 was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.15-1.71). 
• New-user and prevalent new-user analyses showed HRs from year 5 onward following initiation of a GLP-1 RA vs basal insulin was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.19-1.41) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.37-1.53), respectively. 

IN PRACTICE: 

Using several analytical approaches, these findings do not suggest an increase in pancreatic cancer incidence over 7 years following the start of GLP-1 RA treatment, according to the investigation. “However, monitoring for pancreatic cancer risk beyond 7 years following initiation of treatment is still required,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Rachel Dankner, MD, MPH, Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Sheba Medical Center, Israel, was published online on January 4, 2024, in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on the exact type of GLP-1 RA were not available. The analyses accounted for history of pancreatitis but not alcohol use or exposure to pesticides/chemicals. Because of the risk for bias due to reverse causation, an emphasis was placed on drug effects several years after their initiation. However, this reduced the number of pancreatic cancer cases available and led to estimated HRs with wider CIs. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study received no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New data provide no support for an increased risk for pancreatic cancer with use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for up to 7 years, although longer-term data are needed, researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some studies have raised concern about a possible increased risk for pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer in patients taking a GLP-1 RA. 
• Investigators behind this population-based cohort study assessed the association of GLP-1 RA treatment with pancreatic cancer incidence over a median of 7 years in 543,595 adults (mean age, 59.9 years; 51% women) with type 2 diabetes. 
• Treatment with basal insulin was used as an active comparator. 
• The analyses accounted for major confounding factors and time-related biases and adjusted for treatment with other glucose-lowering medications and a history of pancreatitis. 

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the study period, 33,377 patients (6.1%) used GLP-1 RAs and 106,849 (19.7%) used basal insulin, with 1665 of all patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. 
• There was no evidence that GLP-1 RA use increased pancreatic cancer risk compared with basal insulin. 
• The estimated hazard ratio (HR) for pancreatic cancer associated with incremental use of one defined daily dose per day of GLP-1 RA compared with basal insulin in years 5-7 was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.15-1.71). 
• New-user and prevalent new-user analyses showed HRs from year 5 onward following initiation of a GLP-1 RA vs basal insulin was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.19-1.41) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.37-1.53), respectively. 

IN PRACTICE: 

Using several analytical approaches, these findings do not suggest an increase in pancreatic cancer incidence over 7 years following the start of GLP-1 RA treatment, according to the investigation. “However, monitoring for pancreatic cancer risk beyond 7 years following initiation of treatment is still required,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Rachel Dankner, MD, MPH, Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Sheba Medical Center, Israel, was published online on January 4, 2024, in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on the exact type of GLP-1 RA were not available. The analyses accounted for history of pancreatitis but not alcohol use or exposure to pesticides/chemicals. Because of the risk for bias due to reverse causation, an emphasis was placed on drug effects several years after their initiation. However, this reduced the number of pancreatic cancer cases available and led to estimated HRs with wider CIs. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study received no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New data provide no support for an increased risk for pancreatic cancer with use of a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for up to 7 years, although longer-term data are needed, researchers said.

METHODOLOGY:

• Some studies have raised concern about a possible increased risk for pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer in patients taking a GLP-1 RA. 
• Investigators behind this population-based cohort study assessed the association of GLP-1 RA treatment with pancreatic cancer incidence over a median of 7 years in 543,595 adults (mean age, 59.9 years; 51% women) with type 2 diabetes. 
• Treatment with basal insulin was used as an active comparator. 
• The analyses accounted for major confounding factors and time-related biases and adjusted for treatment with other glucose-lowering medications and a history of pancreatitis. 

TAKEAWAY: 

• During the study period, 33,377 patients (6.1%) used GLP-1 RAs and 106,849 (19.7%) used basal insulin, with 1665 of all patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. 
• There was no evidence that GLP-1 RA use increased pancreatic cancer risk compared with basal insulin. 
• The estimated hazard ratio (HR) for pancreatic cancer associated with incremental use of one defined daily dose per day of GLP-1 RA compared with basal insulin in years 5-7 was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.15-1.71). 
• New-user and prevalent new-user analyses showed HRs from year 5 onward following initiation of a GLP-1 RA vs basal insulin was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.19-1.41) and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.37-1.53), respectively. 

IN PRACTICE: 

Using several analytical approaches, these findings do not suggest an increase in pancreatic cancer incidence over 7 years following the start of GLP-1 RA treatment, according to the investigation. “However, monitoring for pancreatic cancer risk beyond 7 years following initiation of treatment is still required,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Rachel Dankner, MD, MPH, Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Sheba Medical Center, Israel, was published online on January 4, 2024, in JAMA Network Open. 

LIMITATIONS: 

Data on the exact type of GLP-1 RA were not available. The analyses accounted for history of pancreatitis but not alcohol use or exposure to pesticides/chemicals. Because of the risk for bias due to reverse causation, an emphasis was placed on drug effects several years after their initiation. However, this reduced the number of pancreatic cancer cases available and led to estimated HRs with wider CIs. 

DISCLOSURES: 

The study received no specific funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer in the world, largely because so many patients are diagnosed late.

Screening more patients could help, yet screening rates remain critically low. In the United States, only about 6% of eligible people get screened , according to the American Lung Association. Contrast that with screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, which all top 70%.

But what if lung cancer detection was as simple as taking a puff on an inhaler and following up with a urine test?

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts, have developed nanosensors that target lung cancer proteins and can be delivered via inhaler or nebulizer, according to research published this month in Science Advances. If the sensors spot these proteins, they produce a signal in the urine that can be detected with a paper test strip.

“It’s a more complex version of a pregnancy test, but it’s very simple to use,” said Qian Zhong, PhD, an MIT researcher and co-lead author of the study.

Currently, the only recommended screening test for lung cancer is low-dose CT. But not everyone has easy access to screening facilities, said the other co-lead author Edward Tan, PhD, a former MIT postdoc and currently a scientist at the biotech company Prime Medicine, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“Our focus is to provide an alternative for the early detection of lung cancer that does not rely on resource-intensive infrastructure,” said Dr. Tan. “Most developing countries don’t have such resources” — and residents in some parts of the United States don’t have easy access, either, he said.
 

How It Works

The sensors are polymer nanoparticles coated in DNA barcodes, short DNA sequences that are unique and easy to identify. The researchers engineered the particles to be targeted by protease enzymes linked to stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Upon contact, the proteases cleave off the barcodes, which make their way into the bloodstream and are excreted in urine. A test strip can detect them, revealing results about 20 minutes from the time it’s dipped.

The researchers tested this system in mice genetically engineered to develop human-like lung tumors. Using aerosol nebulizers, they delivered 20 sensors to mice with the equivalent of stage I or II cancer. Using a machine learning algorithm, they identified the four most accurate sensors. With 100% specificity, those four sensors exhibited sensitivity of 84.6%.

“One advantage of using inhalation is that it’s noninvasive, and another advantage is that it distributes across the lung quite homogeneously,” said Dr. Tan. The time from inhalation to detection is also relatively fast — in mice, the whole process took about 2 hours, and Dr. Zhong speculated that it would not be much longer in humans.
 

Other Applications and Challenges

An injectable version of this technology, also developed at MIT, has already been tested in a phase 1 clinical trial for diagnosing liver cancer and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The injection also works in tandem with a urine test, the researchers showed in 2021. According to Tan, his research group (led by  Sangeeta Bhatia, MD, PhD) was the first to describe this type of technology to screen for diseases.

The lab is also working toward using inhalable sensors to distinguish between viral, bacterial, and fungal pneumonia. And the technology could also be used to diagnose other lung conditions like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Tan said.

The tech is certainly “innovative,” remarked Gaetano Rocco, MD, a thoracic surgeon and lung cancer researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, who was not involved in the study.

Still, challenges may arise when applying it to people. Many factors are involved in regulating fluid volume, potentially interfering with the ability to detect the compounds in the urine, Rocco said. Diet, hydration, drug interference, renal function, and some chronic diseases could all limit effectiveness.

Another challenge: Human cancer can be more heterogeneous (containing different kinds of cancer cells), so four sensors may not be enough, Zhong said. He and colleagues are beginning to analyze human biopsy samples to see whether the same sensors that worked in mice would also work in humans. If all goes well, they hope to do studies on humans or nonhuman primates.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer in the world, largely because so many patients are diagnosed late.

Screening more patients could help, yet screening rates remain critically low. In the United States, only about 6% of eligible people get screened , according to the American Lung Association. Contrast that with screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, which all top 70%.

But what if lung cancer detection was as simple as taking a puff on an inhaler and following up with a urine test?

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts, have developed nanosensors that target lung cancer proteins and can be delivered via inhaler or nebulizer, according to research published this month in Science Advances. If the sensors spot these proteins, they produce a signal in the urine that can be detected with a paper test strip.

“It’s a more complex version of a pregnancy test, but it’s very simple to use,” said Qian Zhong, PhD, an MIT researcher and co-lead author of the study.

Currently, the only recommended screening test for lung cancer is low-dose CT. But not everyone has easy access to screening facilities, said the other co-lead author Edward Tan, PhD, a former MIT postdoc and currently a scientist at the biotech company Prime Medicine, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“Our focus is to provide an alternative for the early detection of lung cancer that does not rely on resource-intensive infrastructure,” said Dr. Tan. “Most developing countries don’t have such resources” — and residents in some parts of the United States don’t have easy access, either, he said.
 

How It Works

The sensors are polymer nanoparticles coated in DNA barcodes, short DNA sequences that are unique and easy to identify. The researchers engineered the particles to be targeted by protease enzymes linked to stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Upon contact, the proteases cleave off the barcodes, which make their way into the bloodstream and are excreted in urine. A test strip can detect them, revealing results about 20 minutes from the time it’s dipped.

The researchers tested this system in mice genetically engineered to develop human-like lung tumors. Using aerosol nebulizers, they delivered 20 sensors to mice with the equivalent of stage I or II cancer. Using a machine learning algorithm, they identified the four most accurate sensors. With 100% specificity, those four sensors exhibited sensitivity of 84.6%.

“One advantage of using inhalation is that it’s noninvasive, and another advantage is that it distributes across the lung quite homogeneously,” said Dr. Tan. The time from inhalation to detection is also relatively fast — in mice, the whole process took about 2 hours, and Dr. Zhong speculated that it would not be much longer in humans.
 

Other Applications and Challenges

An injectable version of this technology, also developed at MIT, has already been tested in a phase 1 clinical trial for diagnosing liver cancer and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The injection also works in tandem with a urine test, the researchers showed in 2021. According to Tan, his research group (led by  Sangeeta Bhatia, MD, PhD) was the first to describe this type of technology to screen for diseases.

The lab is also working toward using inhalable sensors to distinguish between viral, bacterial, and fungal pneumonia. And the technology could also be used to diagnose other lung conditions like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Tan said.

The tech is certainly “innovative,” remarked Gaetano Rocco, MD, a thoracic surgeon and lung cancer researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, who was not involved in the study.

Still, challenges may arise when applying it to people. Many factors are involved in regulating fluid volume, potentially interfering with the ability to detect the compounds in the urine, Rocco said. Diet, hydration, drug interference, renal function, and some chronic diseases could all limit effectiveness.

Another challenge: Human cancer can be more heterogeneous (containing different kinds of cancer cells), so four sensors may not be enough, Zhong said. He and colleagues are beginning to analyze human biopsy samples to see whether the same sensors that worked in mice would also work in humans. If all goes well, they hope to do studies on humans or nonhuman primates.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer in the world, largely because so many patients are diagnosed late.

Screening more patients could help, yet screening rates remain critically low. In the United States, only about 6% of eligible people get screened , according to the American Lung Association. Contrast that with screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer, which all top 70%.

But what if lung cancer detection was as simple as taking a puff on an inhaler and following up with a urine test?

Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts, have developed nanosensors that target lung cancer proteins and can be delivered via inhaler or nebulizer, according to research published this month in Science Advances. If the sensors spot these proteins, they produce a signal in the urine that can be detected with a paper test strip.

“It’s a more complex version of a pregnancy test, but it’s very simple to use,” said Qian Zhong, PhD, an MIT researcher and co-lead author of the study.

Currently, the only recommended screening test for lung cancer is low-dose CT. But not everyone has easy access to screening facilities, said the other co-lead author Edward Tan, PhD, a former MIT postdoc and currently a scientist at the biotech company Prime Medicine, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“Our focus is to provide an alternative for the early detection of lung cancer that does not rely on resource-intensive infrastructure,” said Dr. Tan. “Most developing countries don’t have such resources” — and residents in some parts of the United States don’t have easy access, either, he said.
 

How It Works

The sensors are polymer nanoparticles coated in DNA barcodes, short DNA sequences that are unique and easy to identify. The researchers engineered the particles to be targeted by protease enzymes linked to stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Upon contact, the proteases cleave off the barcodes, which make their way into the bloodstream and are excreted in urine. A test strip can detect them, revealing results about 20 minutes from the time it’s dipped.

The researchers tested this system in mice genetically engineered to develop human-like lung tumors. Using aerosol nebulizers, they delivered 20 sensors to mice with the equivalent of stage I or II cancer. Using a machine learning algorithm, they identified the four most accurate sensors. With 100% specificity, those four sensors exhibited sensitivity of 84.6%.

“One advantage of using inhalation is that it’s noninvasive, and another advantage is that it distributes across the lung quite homogeneously,” said Dr. Tan. The time from inhalation to detection is also relatively fast — in mice, the whole process took about 2 hours, and Dr. Zhong speculated that it would not be much longer in humans.
 

Other Applications and Challenges

An injectable version of this technology, also developed at MIT, has already been tested in a phase 1 clinical trial for diagnosing liver cancer and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. The injection also works in tandem with a urine test, the researchers showed in 2021. According to Tan, his research group (led by  Sangeeta Bhatia, MD, PhD) was the first to describe this type of technology to screen for diseases.

The lab is also working toward using inhalable sensors to distinguish between viral, bacterial, and fungal pneumonia. And the technology could also be used to diagnose other lung conditions like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Dr. Tan said.

The tech is certainly “innovative,” remarked Gaetano Rocco, MD, a thoracic surgeon and lung cancer researcher at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, who was not involved in the study.

Still, challenges may arise when applying it to people. Many factors are involved in regulating fluid volume, potentially interfering with the ability to detect the compounds in the urine, Rocco said. Diet, hydration, drug interference, renal function, and some chronic diseases could all limit effectiveness.

Another challenge: Human cancer can be more heterogeneous (containing different kinds of cancer cells), so four sensors may not be enough, Zhong said. He and colleagues are beginning to analyze human biopsy samples to see whether the same sensors that worked in mice would also work in humans. If all goes well, they hope to do studies on humans or nonhuman primates.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, excluding those at high prostate cancer risk, testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) showed low rates of adverse prostate events, including cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Uncertainty and concern exist about a link between prostate cancer risk and testosterone levels. Most professional society guidelines recommend against TRT in men with a history of or an increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The Testosterone Replacement Therapy for Assessment of Long-Term Vascular Events and Efficacy Response in Hypogonadal Men  included 5204 men (ages 45-80, 17% Black, 80% White), randomly assigned to receive testosterone gel or placebo.
• Men with a history of cardiovascular disease or increased cardiovascular risk were evaluated to exclude those at increased prostate cancer risk (fasting testosterone < 300 ng/dL, ≥ 1 hypogonadal symptoms).
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was high-grade prostate cancer incidence (Gleason score, ≥ 4 + 3).
• Secondary endpoints were incidences of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate biopsy, and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 14,304 person-years of follow-up, high-grade prostate cancer incidence did not differ significantly between the TRT and placebo (0.19% vs 0.12%; P = .51) groups.
• The incidences of prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate biopsy, and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms were also similar between the groups.
• TRT did not lead to an increase in lower urinary tract symptoms.
• The increase in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels was higher in the TRT group than in the placebo group (P < .001). However, the between-group difference did not widen after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

For “clinicians and patients who are considering testosterone replacement therapy for hypogonadism,” wrote the authors, “the study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, led the study. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

• The study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer or higher PSA values or those without confirmed hypogonadism.
• Although the TRAVERSE study was longer than many contemporary trials, carcinogens may require many years to induce malignant neoplasms.
• The trial’s structured evaluation of men after PSA testing did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests, which could affect the decision to perform a biopsy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corp, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Mr. Bhasin and two coauthors declared receiving grants, consulting and personal fees, and other ties with pharmaceutical and device companies and other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, excluding those at high prostate cancer risk, testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) showed low rates of adverse prostate events, including cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Uncertainty and concern exist about a link between prostate cancer risk and testosterone levels. Most professional society guidelines recommend against TRT in men with a history of or an increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The Testosterone Replacement Therapy for Assessment of Long-Term Vascular Events and Efficacy Response in Hypogonadal Men  included 5204 men (ages 45-80, 17% Black, 80% White), randomly assigned to receive testosterone gel or placebo.
• Men with a history of cardiovascular disease or increased cardiovascular risk were evaluated to exclude those at increased prostate cancer risk (fasting testosterone < 300 ng/dL, ≥ 1 hypogonadal symptoms).
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was high-grade prostate cancer incidence (Gleason score, ≥ 4 + 3).
• Secondary endpoints were incidences of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate biopsy, and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 14,304 person-years of follow-up, high-grade prostate cancer incidence did not differ significantly between the TRT and placebo (0.19% vs 0.12%; P = .51) groups.
• The incidences of prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate biopsy, and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms were also similar between the groups.
• TRT did not lead to an increase in lower urinary tract symptoms.
• The increase in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels was higher in the TRT group than in the placebo group (P < .001). However, the between-group difference did not widen after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

For “clinicians and patients who are considering testosterone replacement therapy for hypogonadism,” wrote the authors, “the study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, led the study. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

• The study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer or higher PSA values or those without confirmed hypogonadism.
• Although the TRAVERSE study was longer than many contemporary trials, carcinogens may require many years to induce malignant neoplasms.
• The trial’s structured evaluation of men after PSA testing did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests, which could affect the decision to perform a biopsy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corp, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Mr. Bhasin and two coauthors declared receiving grants, consulting and personal fees, and other ties with pharmaceutical and device companies and other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism, excluding those at high prostate cancer risk, testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) showed low rates of adverse prostate events, including cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Uncertainty and concern exist about a link between prostate cancer risk and testosterone levels. Most professional society guidelines recommend against TRT in men with a history of or an increased risk for prostate cancer.
• The Testosterone Replacement Therapy for Assessment of Long-Term Vascular Events and Efficacy Response in Hypogonadal Men  included 5204 men (ages 45-80, 17% Black, 80% White), randomly assigned to receive testosterone gel or placebo.
• Men with a history of cardiovascular disease or increased cardiovascular risk were evaluated to exclude those at increased prostate cancer risk (fasting testosterone < 300 ng/dL, ≥ 1 hypogonadal symptoms).
• The primary prostate safety endpoint was high-grade prostate cancer incidence (Gleason score, ≥ 4 + 3).
• Secondary endpoints were incidences of any prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedure for benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate biopsy, and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms.

TAKEAWAY:

• During 14,304 person-years of follow-up, high-grade prostate cancer incidence did not differ significantly between the TRT and placebo (0.19% vs 0.12%; P = .51) groups.
• The incidences of prostate cancer, acute urinary retention, invasive procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia, prostate biopsy, and new pharmacologic treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms were also similar between the groups.
• TRT did not lead to an increase in lower urinary tract symptoms.
• The increase in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels was higher in the TRT group than in the placebo group (P < .001). However, the between-group difference did not widen after 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

For “clinicians and patients who are considering testosterone replacement therapy for hypogonadism,” wrote the authors, “the study’s findings will facilitate a more informed appraisal of the potential prostate risks of testosterone replacement therapy.”

SOURCE:

Shalender Bhasin, MB, BS, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, led the study. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

• The study findings do not apply to men with known prostate cancer or higher PSA values or those without confirmed hypogonadism.
• Although the TRAVERSE study was longer than many contemporary trials, carcinogens may require many years to induce malignant neoplasms.
• The trial’s structured evaluation of men after PSA testing did not include prostate imaging or other biomarker tests, which could affect the decision to perform a biopsy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a consortium of testosterone manufacturers led by AbbVie Inc with additional financial support from Endo Pharmaceuticals, Acerus Pharmaceuticals Corp, and Upsher-Smith Laboratories. Mr. Bhasin and two coauthors declared receiving grants, consulting and personal fees, and other ties with pharmaceutical and device companies and other sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Radiation oncologists from the largest professional societies have come together to lobby for Medicare payment reform.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services. 

Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.

Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle. 

The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.

To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered. 

ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Radiation oncologists from the largest professional societies have come together to lobby for Medicare payment reform.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services. 

Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.

Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle. 

The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.

To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered. 

ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Radiation oncologists from the largest professional societies have come together to lobby for Medicare payment reform.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) recently announced its partnership with three other groups — the American College of Radiation Oncology, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology — to change how the specialty is paid for services. 

Over the past decade, radiation oncologists have seen a 23% drop in Medicare reimbursement for radiation therapy services, with more cuts to come, according to a press release from ASTRO.

Traditionally, Medicare has reimbursed on the basis of the fraction of radiation delivered. But with moves toward hypofractionated regimens, deescalated therapy, and other changes in the field, reimbursement has continued to dwindle. 

The cuts have led to practice consolidation and closures that threaten patient access especially in rural and underserved areas, a spokesperson for the group told this news organization.

To reverse this trend, ASTRO recently proposed the Radiation Oncology Case Rate program, a legislative initiative to base reimbursements on patient volumes instead of fractions delivered. 

ASTRO is currently drafting a congressional bill to change the current payment structure, which “has become untenable,” the spokesperson said. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer fare better with standard preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery than with primary surgery and adjuvant chemoradiation, demonstrating better disease-free survival and lower recurrence rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• The standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer is chemoradiation followed by surgery, which is known to reduce the likelihood of local recurrence; however, it is also linked to adverse effects including  and bowel/sexual dysfunction.
• A previous trial found that preoperative MRI could delineate tumor involvement of the mesorectal fascia (MRF).
• This Chinese, noninferiority trial tested whether patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with MRI-predicted negative MRF can skip preoperative chemoradiation.
• The study included 275 patients with T3-4aN0 or T1-4aN1-2 rectal adenocarcinoma, an inferior tumor edge 6-12 cm from the anal verge, and gross primary or nodal disease > 1 mm from the MRF — all based on preoperative MRI.
• Patients in the intervention group, 140, were assigned to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with  followed by capecitabine/ started 4 weeks after surgery) and the remaining 135 to upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemo/chemoradiation when there was tumor within 1 mm of circumferential margins.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a median follow-up of 34.6 months, there were six (4.4%) local recurrences in the intervention group and none in the control group.
• In the intention-to-treat population, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.8% in the intervention group vs 85.4% in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76).
• In the per protocol dataset, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.1% in the primary surgery group vs 86.6% in the preoperative chemoradiation group — a difference of −5.4% (HR, 2.02), prompting the researchers to stop the trial early.

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial was shut down earlier due to an excessive number of [disease-free survival] and local recurrence events observed in the interventional group of primary surgery. Based on our findings, in [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients with high risk though negative MRF, primary surgery would potentially compromise their [disease-free survival] rates. Therefore, primary surgery is an inferior strategy, compared to preoperative [chemoradiation] followed by surgery, and cannot be recommended for [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients in clinical practice,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jun Li, MD, Department of Colorectal Surgery and Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China, was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample size will result in compromises in stratified randomization and lower the power for survival analysis. A relatively high proportion of patients (n = 32) crossed over from the neoadjuvant (chemoradiation) group to the primary surgery group. Follow-up time was relatively short, with only 43% of patients completing 3 years of follow-up.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer fare better with standard preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery than with primary surgery and adjuvant chemoradiation, demonstrating better disease-free survival and lower recurrence rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• The standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer is chemoradiation followed by surgery, which is known to reduce the likelihood of local recurrence; however, it is also linked to adverse effects including  and bowel/sexual dysfunction.
• A previous trial found that preoperative MRI could delineate tumor involvement of the mesorectal fascia (MRF).
• This Chinese, noninferiority trial tested whether patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with MRI-predicted negative MRF can skip preoperative chemoradiation.
• The study included 275 patients with T3-4aN0 or T1-4aN1-2 rectal adenocarcinoma, an inferior tumor edge 6-12 cm from the anal verge, and gross primary or nodal disease > 1 mm from the MRF — all based on preoperative MRI.
• Patients in the intervention group, 140, were assigned to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with  followed by capecitabine/ started 4 weeks after surgery) and the remaining 135 to upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemo/chemoradiation when there was tumor within 1 mm of circumferential margins.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a median follow-up of 34.6 months, there were six (4.4%) local recurrences in the intervention group and none in the control group.
• In the intention-to-treat population, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.8% in the intervention group vs 85.4% in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76).
• In the per protocol dataset, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.1% in the primary surgery group vs 86.6% in the preoperative chemoradiation group — a difference of −5.4% (HR, 2.02), prompting the researchers to stop the trial early.

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial was shut down earlier due to an excessive number of [disease-free survival] and local recurrence events observed in the interventional group of primary surgery. Based on our findings, in [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients with high risk though negative MRF, primary surgery would potentially compromise their [disease-free survival] rates. Therefore, primary surgery is an inferior strategy, compared to preoperative [chemoradiation] followed by surgery, and cannot be recommended for [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients in clinical practice,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jun Li, MD, Department of Colorectal Surgery and Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China, was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample size will result in compromises in stratified randomization and lower the power for survival analysis. A relatively high proportion of patients (n = 32) crossed over from the neoadjuvant (chemoradiation) group to the primary surgery group. Follow-up time was relatively short, with only 43% of patients completing 3 years of follow-up.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer fare better with standard preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery than with primary surgery and adjuvant chemoradiation, demonstrating better disease-free survival and lower recurrence rates.

METHODOLOGY:

• The standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer is chemoradiation followed by surgery, which is known to reduce the likelihood of local recurrence; however, it is also linked to adverse effects including  and bowel/sexual dysfunction.
• A previous trial found that preoperative MRI could delineate tumor involvement of the mesorectal fascia (MRF).
• This Chinese, noninferiority trial tested whether patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with MRI-predicted negative MRF can skip preoperative chemoradiation.
• The study included 275 patients with T3-4aN0 or T1-4aN1-2 rectal adenocarcinoma, an inferior tumor edge 6-12 cm from the anal verge, and gross primary or nodal disease > 1 mm from the MRF — all based on preoperative MRI.
• Patients in the intervention group, 140, were assigned to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions with  followed by capecitabine/ started 4 weeks after surgery) and the remaining 135 to upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemo/chemoradiation when there was tumor within 1 mm of circumferential margins.

TAKEAWAY:

• After a median follow-up of 34.6 months, there were six (4.4%) local recurrences in the intervention group and none in the control group.
• In the intention-to-treat population, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.8% in the intervention group vs 85.4% in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76).
• In the per protocol dataset, the 3-year disease-free survival rate was 81.1% in the primary surgery group vs 86.6% in the preoperative chemoradiation group — a difference of −5.4% (HR, 2.02), prompting the researchers to stop the trial early.

IN PRACTICE:

“This trial was shut down earlier due to an excessive number of [disease-free survival] and local recurrence events observed in the interventional group of primary surgery. Based on our findings, in [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients with high risk though negative MRF, primary surgery would potentially compromise their [disease-free survival] rates. Therefore, primary surgery is an inferior strategy, compared to preoperative [chemoradiation] followed by surgery, and cannot be recommended for [locally advanced rectal cancer] patients in clinical practice,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Jun Li, MD, Department of Colorectal Surgery and Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China, was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics.

LIMITATIONS:

The limited sample size will result in compromises in stratified randomization and lower the power for survival analysis. A relatively high proportion of patients (n = 32) crossed over from the neoadjuvant (chemoradiation) group to the primary surgery group. Follow-up time was relatively short, with only 43% of patients completing 3 years of follow-up.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For years, oncologist John DiPersio, MD, PhD, had faced frustrating encounters with insurers that only cover medications through a process called white bagging.

Instead of the traditional buy-and-bill pathway where oncologists purchase specialty drugs, such as infusion medications, directly from the distributor or manufacturer, white bagging requires physicians to receive these drugs from a specialty pharmacy.

On its face, the differences may seem minor. However, as Dr. DiPersio knows well, the consequences for oncologists and patients are not.

White bagging, research showed, leads to higher costs for patients and lower reimbursement for oncology practices. The practice can also create safety issues for patients.

That is why Dr. DiPersio’s cancer center does not allow white bagging.

And when insurers refuse to reconsider the white bagging policy, his cancer team is left with few options.

“Sometimes, we have to redirect patients to other places,” said Dr. DiPersio, a bone marrow transplant specialist at Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University, St. Louis.

In emergency instances where patients cannot wait, Dr. DiPersio’s team will administer their own stock of a drug. In such cases, “we accept the fact that by not allowing white bagging, there may be nonpayment. We take the hit as far as cost.”

Increasingly, white bagging mandates are becoming harder for practices to avoid.

In a 2021 survey, 87% of Association of Community Cancer Centers members said white bagging has become an insurer mandate for some of their patients.

A 2023 analysis from Adam J. Fein, PhD, of Drug Channels Institute, Philadelphia, found that white bagging accounted for 17% of infused oncology product sourcing from clinics and 38% from hospital outpatient departments, up from 15% to 28% in 2019. Another practice called brown bagging, where specialty pharmacies send drugs directly to patients, creates many of the same issues but is much less prevalent than white bagging.

This change reflects “the broader battle over oncology margins” and insurers’ “attempts to shift costs to providers, patients, and manufacturers,” Dr. Fein wrote in his 2023 report.
 

White Bagging: Who Benefits?

At its core, white bagging changes how drugs are covered and reimbursed. Under buy and bill, drugs fall under a patient’s medical benefit. Oncologists purchase drugs directly from the manufacturer or distributor and receive reimbursement from the insurance company for both the cost of the drug as well as for administering it to patients.

Under white bagging, drugs fall under a patient’s pharmacy benefit. In these instances, a specialty pharmacy prepares the infusion ahead of time and ships it directly to the physician’s office or clinic. Because oncologists do not purchase the drug directly, they cannot bill insurers for it; instead, the pharmacy receives reimbursement for the drug and the provider is reimbursed for administering it.

Insurance companies argue that white bagging reduces patients’ out-of-pocket costs “by preventing hospitals and physicians from charging exorbitant fees to buy and store specialty medicines themselves,” according to advocacy group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

Data from AHIP suggested that hospitals mark up the price of cancer drugs considerably, charging about twice as much as a specialty pharmacy, and that physician’s offices also charge about 23% more. However, these figures highlight how much insurers are billed, not necessarily how much patients ultimately pay.

Other evidence shows that white bagging raises costs for patients while reducing reimbursement for oncologists and saving insurance companies money.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open, which looked at 50 cancer drugs associated with the highest total spending from the 2020 Medicare Part B, found that mean insurance payments to providers were more than $2000 lower for drugs distributed under bagging than traditional buy and bill: $7405 vs $9547 per patient per month. Investigators found the same pattern in median insurance payments: $5746 vs $6681. Patients also paid more out-of-pocket each month with bagging vs buy and bill: $315 vs $145.

For patients with private insurance, “out-of-pocket costs were higher under bagging practice than the traditional buy-and-bill practice,” said lead author Ya-Chen Tina Shih, PhD, a professor in the department of radiation oncology at UCLA Health, Los Angeles.

White bagging is entirely for the profit of health insurers, specialty pharmacies, and pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen who negotiate drug prices on behalf of payers.

Many people may not realize the underlying money-making strategies behind white bagging, explained Ted Okon, executive director for Community Oncology Alliance, which opposes the practice. Often, an insurer, pharmacy benefit manager, and mail order pharmacy involved in the process are all affiliated with the same corporation. In such cases, an insurer has a financial motive to control the source of medications and steer business to its affiliated pharmacies, Mr. Okon said.

When a single corporation owns numerous parts of the drug supply chain, insurers end up having “sway over what drug to use and then how the patient is going to get it,” Mr. Okon said. If the specialty pharmacy is a 340B contract pharmacy, it likely also receives a sizable discount on the drug and can make more money through white bagging.
 

Dangerous to Patients?

On the safety front, proponents of white bagging say the process is safe and efficient.

Specialty pharmacies are used only for prescription drugs that can be safely delivered, said AHIP spokesman David Allen.

In addition to having the same supply chain safety requirements as any other dispensing pharmacy, “specialty pharmacies also must meet additional safety requirements for specialty drugs” to ensure “the safe storage, handling, and dispensing of the drugs,” Mr. Allen explained.

However, oncologists argue that white bagging can be dangerous.

With white bagging, specialty pharmacies send a specified dose to practices, which does not allow practices to source and mix the drug themselves or make essential last-minute dose-related changes — something that happens every day in the clinic, said Debra Patt, MD, PhD, MBA, executive vice president for policy and strategy for Texas Oncology, Dallas.

White bagging also increases the risk for drug contamination, results in drug waste if the medication can’t be used, and can create delays in care.

Essentially, white bagging takes control away from oncologists and makes patient care more unpredictable and complex, explained Dr. Patt, president of the Texas Society of Clinical Oncology, Rockville, Maryland.

Dr. Patt, who does not allow white bagging in her practice, recalled a recent patient with metastatic breast cancer who came to the clinic for trastuzumab deruxtecan. The patient had been experiencing acute abdominal pain. After an exam and CT, Dr. Patt found the breast cancer had grown and moved into the patient’s liver.

“I had to discontinue that plan and change to a different chemotherapy,” she said. “If we had white bagged, that would have been a waste of several thousand dollars. Also, the patient would have to wait for the new medication to be white bagged, a delay that would be at least a week and the patient would have to come back at another time.”

When asked about the safety concerns associated with white bagging, Lemrey “Al” Carter, MS, PharmD, RPh, executive director of the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP), said the NABP “acknowledges that all these issues exist.

“It is unfortunate if patient care or costs are negatively impacted,” Dr. Carter said, adding that “boards of pharmacy can investigate if they are made aware of safety concerns at the pharmacy level. If a violation of the pharmacy laws or rules is found, boards can take action.”
 

More Legislation to Prevent Bagging

As white bagging mandates from insurance companies ramp up, more practices and states are banning it.

In the Association of Community Cancer Centers’ 2021 survey, 59% of members said their cancer program or practice does not allow white bagging.

At least 15 states have introduced legislation that restricts and/or prohibits white and brown bagging practices, according to a 2023 report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Some of the proposed laws would restrict mandates by stipulating that physicians are reimbursed at the contracted amount for clinician-administered drugs, whether obtained from a pharmacy or the manufacturer.

Louisiana, Vermont, and Minnesota were the first to enact anti–white bagging laws. Louisiana’s law, for example, enacted in 2021, bans white bagging and requires insurers to reimburse providers for physician-administered drugs if obtained from out-of-network pharmacies.

When the legislation passed, white bagging was just starting to enter the healthcare market in Louisiana, and the state wanted to act proactively, said Kathy W. Oubre, MS, CEO of the Pontchartrain Cancer Center, Covington, Louisiana, and president of the Coalition of Hematology and Oncology Practices, Mountain View, California.

“We recognized the growing concern around it,” Ms. Oubre said. The state legislature at the time included physicians and pharmacists who “really understood from a practice and patient perspective, the harm that policy could do.”

Ms. Oubre would like to see more legislation in other states and believes Louisiana’s law is a good model.

At the federal level, the American Hospital Association and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have also urged the US Food and Drug Administration to take appropriate enforcement action to protect patients from white bagging.

Legislation that bars white bagging mandates is the most reasonable way to support timely and appropriate access to cancer care, Dr. Patt said. In the absence of such legislation, she said oncologists can only opt out of insurance contracts that may require the practice.

“That is a difficult position to put oncologists in,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of psilocybin administered in a group setting with one-on-one psychological support was associated with a significant and lasting reduction in depression severity among adults with cancer and major depressive disorder, a small study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Depression remains common in patients with cancer, and common treatment approaches — antidepressants and psychotherapy — have demonstrated limited success.
• Researchers explored the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in 30 patients with major depressive disorder and cancer — about half with earlier-stage disease and half with metastatic disease.
• In this single-center, open-label, phase 2 study, participants received one-on-one and group therapy sessions before, during, and after receiving a single 25-mg psilocybin dose.
• Alongside individual therapy sessions, each cohort of three to four participants received group sessions guided by a therapist who provided educational material and worked to foster trust among participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants experienced a significant reduction in depression severity, demonstrating a 19.1-point reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline to follow-up at week 8.
• Overall, 80% of patients showed a lasting response to psilocybin treatment and 50% showed full remission of depressive symptoms by week 1, which persisted for at least 8 weeks.
• The approach was effective for patients with curable and noncurable cancer — with almost 80% in the curable group and 62% in the noncurable group showing clinically meaningful declines in depressive symptoms. The researchers also noted improvements in patients’ anxiety, pain, demoralization, disability, and spiritual well-being.
• No suicidality or other serious treatment-related adverse events occurred; treatment-related nausea and headache were generally mild and expected.

IN PRACTICE:

“Beyond tolerability, psilocybin therapy led to clinically meaningful reductions in depressive symptoms,” the authors concluded. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the feasibility of a group-therapy approach for psilocybin‐assisted treatment in patients with cancer. This innovative framework offers increased scalability and dissemination of psilocybin treatment in real‐world settings.”

Among the 28 participants available for exit interviews, the authors reported that, overall, “participants described that the group/simultaneous model fostered a sense of connectedness, meaning, and transcendence through the shared psilocybin experience and group integration.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Manish Agrawal, MD, Sunstone Therapies, Rockville, Maryland, was published online on December 21, 2023, in Cancer, along with an editorial and related article on patient acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, and the sample size was small and lacked diversity. The study was also not powered to statistically adjust efficacy measures on a possible group effect.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by Compass Pathways. Some authors reported various relationships with Compass Pathways and Sunstone Therapies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of psilocybin administered in a group setting with one-on-one psychological support was associated with a significant and lasting reduction in depression severity among adults with cancer and major depressive disorder, a small study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Depression remains common in patients with cancer, and common treatment approaches — antidepressants and psychotherapy — have demonstrated limited success.
• Researchers explored the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in 30 patients with major depressive disorder and cancer — about half with earlier-stage disease and half with metastatic disease.
• In this single-center, open-label, phase 2 study, participants received one-on-one and group therapy sessions before, during, and after receiving a single 25-mg psilocybin dose.
• Alongside individual therapy sessions, each cohort of three to four participants received group sessions guided by a therapist who provided educational material and worked to foster trust among participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants experienced a significant reduction in depression severity, demonstrating a 19.1-point reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline to follow-up at week 8.
• Overall, 80% of patients showed a lasting response to psilocybin treatment and 50% showed full remission of depressive symptoms by week 1, which persisted for at least 8 weeks.
• The approach was effective for patients with curable and noncurable cancer — with almost 80% in the curable group and 62% in the noncurable group showing clinically meaningful declines in depressive symptoms. The researchers also noted improvements in patients’ anxiety, pain, demoralization, disability, and spiritual well-being.
• No suicidality or other serious treatment-related adverse events occurred; treatment-related nausea and headache were generally mild and expected.

IN PRACTICE:

“Beyond tolerability, psilocybin therapy led to clinically meaningful reductions in depressive symptoms,” the authors concluded. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the feasibility of a group-therapy approach for psilocybin‐assisted treatment in patients with cancer. This innovative framework offers increased scalability and dissemination of psilocybin treatment in real‐world settings.”

Among the 28 participants available for exit interviews, the authors reported that, overall, “participants described that the group/simultaneous model fostered a sense of connectedness, meaning, and transcendence through the shared psilocybin experience and group integration.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Manish Agrawal, MD, Sunstone Therapies, Rockville, Maryland, was published online on December 21, 2023, in Cancer, along with an editorial and related article on patient acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, and the sample size was small and lacked diversity. The study was also not powered to statistically adjust efficacy measures on a possible group effect.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by Compass Pathways. Some authors reported various relationships with Compass Pathways and Sunstone Therapies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A single dose of psilocybin administered in a group setting with one-on-one psychological support was associated with a significant and lasting reduction in depression severity among adults with cancer and major depressive disorder, a small study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• Depression remains common in patients with cancer, and common treatment approaches — antidepressants and psychotherapy — have demonstrated limited success.
• Researchers explored the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in 30 patients with major depressive disorder and cancer — about half with earlier-stage disease and half with metastatic disease.
• In this single-center, open-label, phase 2 study, participants received one-on-one and group therapy sessions before, during, and after receiving a single 25-mg psilocybin dose.
• Alongside individual therapy sessions, each cohort of three to four participants received group sessions guided by a therapist who provided educational material and worked to foster trust among participants.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants experienced a significant reduction in depression severity, demonstrating a 19.1-point reduction in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline to follow-up at week 8.
• Overall, 80% of patients showed a lasting response to psilocybin treatment and 50% showed full remission of depressive symptoms by week 1, which persisted for at least 8 weeks.
• The approach was effective for patients with curable and noncurable cancer — with almost 80% in the curable group and 62% in the noncurable group showing clinically meaningful declines in depressive symptoms. The researchers also noted improvements in patients’ anxiety, pain, demoralization, disability, and spiritual well-being.
• No suicidality or other serious treatment-related adverse events occurred; treatment-related nausea and headache were generally mild and expected.

IN PRACTICE:

“Beyond tolerability, psilocybin therapy led to clinically meaningful reductions in depressive symptoms,” the authors concluded. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show the feasibility of a group-therapy approach for psilocybin‐assisted treatment in patients with cancer. This innovative framework offers increased scalability and dissemination of psilocybin treatment in real‐world settings.”

Among the 28 participants available for exit interviews, the authors reported that, overall, “participants described that the group/simultaneous model fostered a sense of connectedness, meaning, and transcendence through the shared psilocybin experience and group integration.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Manish Agrawal, MD, Sunstone Therapies, Rockville, Maryland, was published online on December 21, 2023, in Cancer, along with an editorial and related article on patient acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy.

LIMITATIONS:

The study lacked a control group, and the sample size was small and lacked diversity. The study was also not powered to statistically adjust efficacy measures on a possible group effect.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by Compass Pathways. Some authors reported various relationships with Compass Pathways and Sunstone Therapies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

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