AVAHO

New research strengthens the body of evidence demonstrating an increased risk of blood cancer from exposure to low doses of radiation from CT scans. The results suggest that, for every 10,000 children examined with an average low dose of 8 mGy, 1-2 will likely develop a hematologic malignancy related to radiation exposure over the next 12 years.

The findings, published online in Nature Medicine, are based on more than 1.3 million CT scans in nearly 900,000 people younger than 22 years old when scanned.

This study makes a “significant contribution to the understanding of the effects of ionizing radiation, specifically x-rays, on the human body at the levels of radiation exposure encountered in diagnostic CT procedures,” Peter Marsden, PhD, and Jim Thurston, radiation protection experts at Dorset County (England) Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, said in a press release from the U.K. nonprofit Science Media Centre.

These findings highlight levels of risk that “align with those currently estimated and do not suggest that the use of CT carries a greater risk than previously thought,” Dr. Marsden and Thurston said.

Exposure to moderate- (≥ 100 mGy) to high-dose (≥ 1 Gy) ionizing radiation is a well-established risk factor for leukemia in both children and adults. However, the risk associated with low-dose exposure (< 100 mGy) typically associated with diagnostic CT exams in children and teens remains unclear.

The current study, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, aimed to improve direct estimates of cancer risk from low-dose radiation exposure from CT scans performed in childhood and adolescence. The researchers estimated radiation doses to the active bone marrow based on body part scanned, patient characteristics, time period, and inferred CT technical parameters.

A total of 790 hematologic malignancies, including lymphoid and myeloid malignancies, were identified during follow-up. More than half (51%) of the cases were diagnosed in people under age 20 and 88.5% were diagnosed in people under age 30 years.

Overall, the observational study found a nearly twofold excess risk of all hematologic malignancies per 100 mGy in children, adolescents, and young adults, with similar risk estimates observed for lymphoid and myeloid cancers. The excess relative risk for hematologic malignancies increased as the number of CT exams increased – with risk rising by 43% per exam.

The results of this study “strengthen the findings from previous low-dose studies of a consistent and robust dose-related increased risk of radiation-induced hematological malignancies” and highlight the importance of optimizing doses in this patient population, study author Elisabeth Cardis, PhD, with the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, and colleagues concluded.

Sarah McQuaid, PhD, chair of the nuclear medicine special interest group, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, York, England, agreed.

“This publication indicates that there could be a small cancer risk from CT scans in young people, but it is important for this to be viewed in the context of the substantial benefit these scans bring, due to the important diagnostic information they provide,” Dr. McQuaid said in the press release. Overall, “the number of patients whose medical care will have been improved from these CT scans will have been very high, and lives undoubtedly saved as a result.”

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and outside experts reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research strengthens the body of evidence demonstrating an increased risk of blood cancer from exposure to low doses of radiation from CT scans. The results suggest that, for every 10,000 children examined with an average low dose of 8 mGy, 1-2 will likely develop a hematologic malignancy related to radiation exposure over the next 12 years.

The findings, published online in Nature Medicine, are based on more than 1.3 million CT scans in nearly 900,000 people younger than 22 years old when scanned.

This study makes a “significant contribution to the understanding of the effects of ionizing radiation, specifically x-rays, on the human body at the levels of radiation exposure encountered in diagnostic CT procedures,” Peter Marsden, PhD, and Jim Thurston, radiation protection experts at Dorset County (England) Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, said in a press release from the U.K. nonprofit Science Media Centre.

These findings highlight levels of risk that “align with those currently estimated and do not suggest that the use of CT carries a greater risk than previously thought,” Dr. Marsden and Thurston said.

Exposure to moderate- (≥ 100 mGy) to high-dose (≥ 1 Gy) ionizing radiation is a well-established risk factor for leukemia in both children and adults. However, the risk associated with low-dose exposure (< 100 mGy) typically associated with diagnostic CT exams in children and teens remains unclear.

The current study, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, aimed to improve direct estimates of cancer risk from low-dose radiation exposure from CT scans performed in childhood and adolescence. The researchers estimated radiation doses to the active bone marrow based on body part scanned, patient characteristics, time period, and inferred CT technical parameters.

A total of 790 hematologic malignancies, including lymphoid and myeloid malignancies, were identified during follow-up. More than half (51%) of the cases were diagnosed in people under age 20 and 88.5% were diagnosed in people under age 30 years.

Overall, the observational study found a nearly twofold excess risk of all hematologic malignancies per 100 mGy in children, adolescents, and young adults, with similar risk estimates observed for lymphoid and myeloid cancers. The excess relative risk for hematologic malignancies increased as the number of CT exams increased – with risk rising by 43% per exam.

The results of this study “strengthen the findings from previous low-dose studies of a consistent and robust dose-related increased risk of radiation-induced hematological malignancies” and highlight the importance of optimizing doses in this patient population, study author Elisabeth Cardis, PhD, with the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, and colleagues concluded.

Sarah McQuaid, PhD, chair of the nuclear medicine special interest group, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, York, England, agreed.

“This publication indicates that there could be a small cancer risk from CT scans in young people, but it is important for this to be viewed in the context of the substantial benefit these scans bring, due to the important diagnostic information they provide,” Dr. McQuaid said in the press release. Overall, “the number of patients whose medical care will have been improved from these CT scans will have been very high, and lives undoubtedly saved as a result.”

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and outside experts reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research strengthens the body of evidence demonstrating an increased risk of blood cancer from exposure to low doses of radiation from CT scans. The results suggest that, for every 10,000 children examined with an average low dose of 8 mGy, 1-2 will likely develop a hematologic malignancy related to radiation exposure over the next 12 years.

The findings, published online in Nature Medicine, are based on more than 1.3 million CT scans in nearly 900,000 people younger than 22 years old when scanned.

This study makes a “significant contribution to the understanding of the effects of ionizing radiation, specifically x-rays, on the human body at the levels of radiation exposure encountered in diagnostic CT procedures,” Peter Marsden, PhD, and Jim Thurston, radiation protection experts at Dorset County (England) Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, said in a press release from the U.K. nonprofit Science Media Centre.

These findings highlight levels of risk that “align with those currently estimated and do not suggest that the use of CT carries a greater risk than previously thought,” Dr. Marsden and Thurston said.

Exposure to moderate- (≥ 100 mGy) to high-dose (≥ 1 Gy) ionizing radiation is a well-established risk factor for leukemia in both children and adults. However, the risk associated with low-dose exposure (< 100 mGy) typically associated with diagnostic CT exams in children and teens remains unclear.

The current study, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, aimed to improve direct estimates of cancer risk from low-dose radiation exposure from CT scans performed in childhood and adolescence. The researchers estimated radiation doses to the active bone marrow based on body part scanned, patient characteristics, time period, and inferred CT technical parameters.

A total of 790 hematologic malignancies, including lymphoid and myeloid malignancies, were identified during follow-up. More than half (51%) of the cases were diagnosed in people under age 20 and 88.5% were diagnosed in people under age 30 years.

Overall, the observational study found a nearly twofold excess risk of all hematologic malignancies per 100 mGy in children, adolescents, and young adults, with similar risk estimates observed for lymphoid and myeloid cancers. The excess relative risk for hematologic malignancies increased as the number of CT exams increased – with risk rising by 43% per exam.

The results of this study “strengthen the findings from previous low-dose studies of a consistent and robust dose-related increased risk of radiation-induced hematological malignancies” and highlight the importance of optimizing doses in this patient population, study author Elisabeth Cardis, PhD, with the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, and colleagues concluded.

Sarah McQuaid, PhD, chair of the nuclear medicine special interest group, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, York, England, agreed.

“This publication indicates that there could be a small cancer risk from CT scans in young people, but it is important for this to be viewed in the context of the substantial benefit these scans bring, due to the important diagnostic information they provide,” Dr. McQuaid said in the press release. Overall, “the number of patients whose medical care will have been improved from these CT scans will have been very high, and lives undoubtedly saved as a result.”

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and outside experts reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

PARIS – Most diarrhea that leads patients to seek medical advice is actually a false alarm, said gastroenterologist Nassim Hammoudi, MD, PhD, of the Lariboisière Hospital in Paris, during France’s annual general medicine conference (JNMG 2023). He said that doctors need to understand the characteristics of chronic diarrhea and adapt its management accordingly. In his presentation, Dr. Hammoudi highlighted the clinical signs that should be considered.

Mechanisms of chronic diarrhea

Chronic diarrhea can result from different mechanisms, such as motility disorders related to accelerated intestinal transit, malabsorption, osmotic diarrhea, and secretory diarrhea, which are often interlinked. When an endoscopy is performed, it is recommended to conduct multilevel biopsies to detect microscopic colitis, which Dr. Hammoudi believes is “probably underdiagnosed.”

Diarrhea is defined as the passage of frequent stools (more than three a day), soft to liquid in consistency, and a daily weight exceeding 300 g. It is considered chronic when it persists for more than a month.
 

Identifying false diarrhea

Practitioners must first distinguish between genuine and false diarrhea, with the latter presenting in most consultations. “Thorough questioning is fundamental,” Dr. Hammoudi emphasized. It is essential to determine the daily stool count, the presence of nocturnal stools, and stool consistency. “A soft stool passed once a day is not diarrhea,” he said.

The most challenging form of false diarrhea to identify is what he called “constipated person’s diarrhea.” These patients, who are typically elderly, reside in care homes, and are bed-bound and taking morphine, have daily liquid stools but are actually constipated. “Taking antidiarrheal medications makes the situation worse,” said Dr. Hammoudi.

Another type of false diarrhea is tenesmus, in which patients feel like they have a full rectum, even though it is physiologically empty. The recurring urge to defecate results in mucus discharges that resemble diarrhea. Inflammatory rectal involvement could be the cause, necessitating a gastroenterology consultation.

Anal incontinence can also cause false diarrhea. It is more common in elderly people residing in care homes and in women in the postpartum period. This condition is difficult to manage and requires referral to a gastroenterologist.
 

Chronic diarrhea: Could cancer be the culprit?

After ruling out false diarrhea, clinicians should be vigilant for warning signs. The first question to consider, said Dr. Hammoudi, is whether the chronic diarrhea is associated with a lesion. Several criteria should prompt a colonoscopy, especially to search for colorectal cancer lesions:

• Age greater than 50 years
• Personal or family history of colorectal cancer
• Recent changes in bowel habits
• Rectal bleeding
• Nighttime stools
• Unexplained weight loss
• Iron-deficiency anemia

Obvious causes of chronic diarrhea should be prioritized in the management plan. Medications top the list, with more than 500 treatments – for example, ACE inhibitors, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), antidiabetic drugs, colchicine, magnesium, laxatives – known to have diarrhea as a side effect.

Certain dietary habits can also exacerbate diarrhea, such as milk consumption in cases of lactose intolerance, or excessive sugar intake, which can lead to osmotic diarrhea.
 

IBS is often at play

Once these causes have been ruled out, several etiological pathways should be investigated. The first relates to motility issues, which are the most common diarrhea-related problem, said Dr. Hammoudi.

This type of diarrhea is linked to rapid intestinal transit time and is characterized by postprandial bowel movements (occurring shortly after a meal). Here, patients experience urgency and notice identifiable food debris in their stools. It tends to stop when fasting and can be treated effectively with antidiarrheals.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is the main cause of rapid intestinal transit diarrhea. It is defined as recurrent abdominal pain (at least 1 day/week) over a period of 3 months, associated with two of the following criteria: pain eases or worsens on passing feces, change in frequency of bowel movements, change in the consistency of stools.

Symptoms may come on suddenly, sometimes after taking antibiotics, and may result in misdiagnosis.

IBS medications treat the symptoms. Antispasmodics, such as trimebutine, phloroglucinol (Spasfon), or pinaverium bromide (Dicetel) are recommended, even there can be a placebo effect. The antidiarrheal medication loperamide (Imodium) can also be used. Probiotics may be beneficial, as an imbalanced intestinal microbiota is often implicated.

Dietary changes can also have a positive impact. Encouraging a diet rich in fruit and vegetables to enhance fiber intake is advised. A low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols) diet, targeting short-chain carbohydrates, can also be tried to identify foods to avoid, although it may be challenging to stick to.

Postinfectious IBS is a frequent cause of rapid intestinal transit diarrhea. It generally follows an episode of acute infectious diarrhea. “Symptoms may come on suddenly, sometimes after taking antibiotics, and may result in misdiagnosis,” said Dr. Hammoudi. This type of IBS often resolves spontaneously within 6 months.
 

Consider the possibility of SIBO

Another cause of rapid intestinal transit diarrhea is small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). It is difficult to distinguish between IBS and SIBO. Often, affected patients are diabetic, overweight, or have had bowel surgery.

The only way to diagnose SIBO is by conducting a breath test to measure the production of hydrogen and methane by the microbiota after ingesting sugar. However, the test is difficult to access and not fully covered by social security plans in France, said Dr. Hammoudi.

In cases of suspected SIBO and severe symptoms, a 7- to 10-day course of antibiotics can be attempted to provide relief, although a diagnosis should be confirmed before considering this option, Dr. Hammoudi said.
 

Malabsorption diarrhea

Another major cause of chronic diarrhea is malabsorption, characterized by large, fatty stools that are difficult to flush. Despite a normal diet, this type of diarrhea is associated with weight loss and nutritional deficiencies.

Its diagnosis involves measuring fat in the stools (steatorrhea) and possibly testing fecal elastase, an enzyme produced by the pancreas that is involved in digestion.

The most important causes of malabsorption diarrhea are pancreatic insufficiency, celiac disease, and Crohn’s disease. Generally, any lesion in the small intestine can lead to malabsorption-related diarrhea.

Celiac disease, or gluten intolerance, is an autoimmune condition triggered by a reaction to gluten proteins. Several antibodies can be produced in the presence of gluten proteins. Diagnosis is confirmed by positive antitransglutaminase antibodies and a duodenal biopsy through esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

The only treatment for celiac disease is a lifelong gluten-free diet. Celiac disease is increasingly diagnosed in adults, said Dr. Hammoudi, and should be considered as a possibility. This condition must be distinguished from gluten sensitivity, which can cause digestive issues, possibly leading to rapid intestinal transit diarrhea. “The only treatment for celiac disease is a lifelong gluten-free diet,” Dr. Hammoudi added.

Crohn’s disease, a type of inflammatory bowel disease, affects the entire digestive tract, particularly the terminal small intestine, which promotes malabsorption. In ulcerative colitis, another IBD affecting the rectum, any associated rectal syndrome can result in false diarrhea with stools containing blood and mucus.

Osmotic diarrhea, on the other hand, is linked to the presence of highly osmotic agents in the digestive tract. This type of diarrhea is watery and short-lived, stopping once the agents are no longer absorbed. The main culprits are lactose (in cases of lactose intolerance) and laxatives.
 

Drug-induced microscopic colitis

Secretory diarrhea is characterized by excessive secretions by the digestive tract, leading to significant potassium loss. This type of diarrhea is not related to food intake and is resistant to fasting.

Major causes of secretory diarrhea include microscopic colitis, parasitic infections, and endocrine tumors. Between 10% and 15% of patients with chronic diarrhea and apparently normal colonoscopy have microscopic colitis.

Dr. Hammoudi advised specialists seeking to determine the cause of chronic diarrhea to routinely collect multilevel bowel biopsies during colonoscopies from macroscopically normal mucosa to rule out microscopic colitis.

Microscopic colitis is mainly linked to the use of medications like PPIs and NSAIDs. These drugs can induce malabsorption-related diarrhea by damaging the intestinal wall.

In addition to discontinuing the implicated medication, the treatment for microscopic colitis includes low-dose budesonide (multiple brands). Biologics used in IBD may also be considered in cases of recurrent colitis.

Finally, exudative enteropathy can be a distinct cause of chronic diarrhea. It is characterized by albumin leakage (Waldmann’s disease) and manifests with edema, malnutrition, and significant hypoalbuminemia.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – Most diarrhea that leads patients to seek medical advice is actually a false alarm, said gastroenterologist Nassim Hammoudi, MD, PhD, of the Lariboisière Hospital in Paris, during France’s annual general medicine conference (JNMG 2023). He said that doctors need to understand the characteristics of chronic diarrhea and adapt its management accordingly. In his presentation, Dr. Hammoudi highlighted the clinical signs that should be considered.

Mechanisms of chronic diarrhea

Chronic diarrhea can result from different mechanisms, such as motility disorders related to accelerated intestinal transit, malabsorption, osmotic diarrhea, and secretory diarrhea, which are often interlinked. When an endoscopy is performed, it is recommended to conduct multilevel biopsies to detect microscopic colitis, which Dr. Hammoudi believes is “probably underdiagnosed.”

Diarrhea is defined as the passage of frequent stools (more than three a day), soft to liquid in consistency, and a daily weight exceeding 300 g. It is considered chronic when it persists for more than a month.
 

Identifying false diarrhea

Practitioners must first distinguish between genuine and false diarrhea, with the latter presenting in most consultations. “Thorough questioning is fundamental,” Dr. Hammoudi emphasized. It is essential to determine the daily stool count, the presence of nocturnal stools, and stool consistency. “A soft stool passed once a day is not diarrhea,” he said.

The most challenging form of false diarrhea to identify is what he called “constipated person’s diarrhea.” These patients, who are typically elderly, reside in care homes, and are bed-bound and taking morphine, have daily liquid stools but are actually constipated. “Taking antidiarrheal medications makes the situation worse,” said Dr. Hammoudi.

Another type of false diarrhea is tenesmus, in which patients feel like they have a full rectum, even though it is physiologically empty. The recurring urge to defecate results in mucus discharges that resemble diarrhea. Inflammatory rectal involvement could be the cause, necessitating a gastroenterology consultation.

Anal incontinence can also cause false diarrhea. It is more common in elderly people residing in care homes and in women in the postpartum period. This condition is difficult to manage and requires referral to a gastroenterologist.
 

Chronic diarrhea: Could cancer be the culprit?

After ruling out false diarrhea, clinicians should be vigilant for warning signs. The first question to consider, said Dr. Hammoudi, is whether the chronic diarrhea is associated with a lesion. Several criteria should prompt a colonoscopy, especially to search for colorectal cancer lesions:

• Age greater than 50 years
• Personal or family history of colorectal cancer
• Recent changes in bowel habits
• Rectal bleeding
• Nighttime stools
• Unexplained weight loss
• Iron-deficiency anemia

Obvious causes of chronic diarrhea should be prioritized in the management plan. Medications top the list, with more than 500 treatments – for example, ACE inhibitors, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), antidiabetic drugs, colchicine, magnesium, laxatives – known to have diarrhea as a side effect.

Certain dietary habits can also exacerbate diarrhea, such as milk consumption in cases of lactose intolerance, or excessive sugar intake, which can lead to osmotic diarrhea.
 

IBS is often at play

Once these causes have been ruled out, several etiological pathways should be investigated. The first relates to motility issues, which are the most common diarrhea-related problem, said Dr. Hammoudi.

This type of diarrhea is linked to rapid intestinal transit time and is characterized by postprandial bowel movements (occurring shortly after a meal). Here, patients experience urgency and notice identifiable food debris in their stools. It tends to stop when fasting and can be treated effectively with antidiarrheals.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is the main cause of rapid intestinal transit diarrhea. It is defined as recurrent abdominal pain (at least 1 day/week) over a period of 3 months, associated with two of the following criteria: pain eases or worsens on passing feces, change in frequency of bowel movements, change in the consistency of stools.

Symptoms may come on suddenly, sometimes after taking antibiotics, and may result in misdiagnosis.

IBS medications treat the symptoms. Antispasmodics, such as trimebutine, phloroglucinol (Spasfon), or pinaverium bromide (Dicetel) are recommended, even there can be a placebo effect. The antidiarrheal medication loperamide (Imodium) can also be used. Probiotics may be beneficial, as an imbalanced intestinal microbiota is often implicated.

Dietary changes can also have a positive impact. Encouraging a diet rich in fruit and vegetables to enhance fiber intake is advised. A low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols) diet, targeting short-chain carbohydrates, can also be tried to identify foods to avoid, although it may be challenging to stick to.

Postinfectious IBS is a frequent cause of rapid intestinal transit diarrhea. It generally follows an episode of acute infectious diarrhea. “Symptoms may come on suddenly, sometimes after taking antibiotics, and may result in misdiagnosis,” said Dr. Hammoudi. This type of IBS often resolves spontaneously within 6 months.
 

Consider the possibility of SIBO

Another cause of rapid intestinal transit diarrhea is small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). It is difficult to distinguish between IBS and SIBO. Often, affected patients are diabetic, overweight, or have had bowel surgery.

The only way to diagnose SIBO is by conducting a breath test to measure the production of hydrogen and methane by the microbiota after ingesting sugar. However, the test is difficult to access and not fully covered by social security plans in France, said Dr. Hammoudi.

In cases of suspected SIBO and severe symptoms, a 7- to 10-day course of antibiotics can be attempted to provide relief, although a diagnosis should be confirmed before considering this option, Dr. Hammoudi said.
 

Malabsorption diarrhea

Another major cause of chronic diarrhea is malabsorption, characterized by large, fatty stools that are difficult to flush. Despite a normal diet, this type of diarrhea is associated with weight loss and nutritional deficiencies.

Its diagnosis involves measuring fat in the stools (steatorrhea) and possibly testing fecal elastase, an enzyme produced by the pancreas that is involved in digestion.

The most important causes of malabsorption diarrhea are pancreatic insufficiency, celiac disease, and Crohn’s disease. Generally, any lesion in the small intestine can lead to malabsorption-related diarrhea.

Celiac disease, or gluten intolerance, is an autoimmune condition triggered by a reaction to gluten proteins. Several antibodies can be produced in the presence of gluten proteins. Diagnosis is confirmed by positive antitransglutaminase antibodies and a duodenal biopsy through esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

The only treatment for celiac disease is a lifelong gluten-free diet. Celiac disease is increasingly diagnosed in adults, said Dr. Hammoudi, and should be considered as a possibility. This condition must be distinguished from gluten sensitivity, which can cause digestive issues, possibly leading to rapid intestinal transit diarrhea. “The only treatment for celiac disease is a lifelong gluten-free diet,” Dr. Hammoudi added.

Crohn’s disease, a type of inflammatory bowel disease, affects the entire digestive tract, particularly the terminal small intestine, which promotes malabsorption. In ulcerative colitis, another IBD affecting the rectum, any associated rectal syndrome can result in false diarrhea with stools containing blood and mucus.

Osmotic diarrhea, on the other hand, is linked to the presence of highly osmotic agents in the digestive tract. This type of diarrhea is watery and short-lived, stopping once the agents are no longer absorbed. The main culprits are lactose (in cases of lactose intolerance) and laxatives.
 

Drug-induced microscopic colitis

Secretory diarrhea is characterized by excessive secretions by the digestive tract, leading to significant potassium loss. This type of diarrhea is not related to food intake and is resistant to fasting.

Major causes of secretory diarrhea include microscopic colitis, parasitic infections, and endocrine tumors. Between 10% and 15% of patients with chronic diarrhea and apparently normal colonoscopy have microscopic colitis.

Dr. Hammoudi advised specialists seeking to determine the cause of chronic diarrhea to routinely collect multilevel bowel biopsies during colonoscopies from macroscopically normal mucosa to rule out microscopic colitis.

Microscopic colitis is mainly linked to the use of medications like PPIs and NSAIDs. These drugs can induce malabsorption-related diarrhea by damaging the intestinal wall.

In addition to discontinuing the implicated medication, the treatment for microscopic colitis includes low-dose budesonide (multiple brands). Biologics used in IBD may also be considered in cases of recurrent colitis.

Finally, exudative enteropathy can be a distinct cause of chronic diarrhea. It is characterized by albumin leakage (Waldmann’s disease) and manifests with edema, malnutrition, and significant hypoalbuminemia.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – Most diarrhea that leads patients to seek medical advice is actually a false alarm, said gastroenterologist Nassim Hammoudi, MD, PhD, of the Lariboisière Hospital in Paris, during France’s annual general medicine conference (JNMG 2023). He said that doctors need to understand the characteristics of chronic diarrhea and adapt its management accordingly. In his presentation, Dr. Hammoudi highlighted the clinical signs that should be considered.

Mechanisms of chronic diarrhea

Chronic diarrhea can result from different mechanisms, such as motility disorders related to accelerated intestinal transit, malabsorption, osmotic diarrhea, and secretory diarrhea, which are often interlinked. When an endoscopy is performed, it is recommended to conduct multilevel biopsies to detect microscopic colitis, which Dr. Hammoudi believes is “probably underdiagnosed.”

Diarrhea is defined as the passage of frequent stools (more than three a day), soft to liquid in consistency, and a daily weight exceeding 300 g. It is considered chronic when it persists for more than a month.
 

Identifying false diarrhea

Practitioners must first distinguish between genuine and false diarrhea, with the latter presenting in most consultations. “Thorough questioning is fundamental,” Dr. Hammoudi emphasized. It is essential to determine the daily stool count, the presence of nocturnal stools, and stool consistency. “A soft stool passed once a day is not diarrhea,” he said.

The most challenging form of false diarrhea to identify is what he called “constipated person’s diarrhea.” These patients, who are typically elderly, reside in care homes, and are bed-bound and taking morphine, have daily liquid stools but are actually constipated. “Taking antidiarrheal medications makes the situation worse,” said Dr. Hammoudi.

Another type of false diarrhea is tenesmus, in which patients feel like they have a full rectum, even though it is physiologically empty. The recurring urge to defecate results in mucus discharges that resemble diarrhea. Inflammatory rectal involvement could be the cause, necessitating a gastroenterology consultation.

Anal incontinence can also cause false diarrhea. It is more common in elderly people residing in care homes and in women in the postpartum period. This condition is difficult to manage and requires referral to a gastroenterologist.
 

Chronic diarrhea: Could cancer be the culprit?

After ruling out false diarrhea, clinicians should be vigilant for warning signs. The first question to consider, said Dr. Hammoudi, is whether the chronic diarrhea is associated with a lesion. Several criteria should prompt a colonoscopy, especially to search for colorectal cancer lesions:

• Age greater than 50 years
• Personal or family history of colorectal cancer
• Recent changes in bowel habits
• Rectal bleeding
• Nighttime stools
• Unexplained weight loss
• Iron-deficiency anemia

Obvious causes of chronic diarrhea should be prioritized in the management plan. Medications top the list, with more than 500 treatments – for example, ACE inhibitors, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), antidiabetic drugs, colchicine, magnesium, laxatives – known to have diarrhea as a side effect.

Certain dietary habits can also exacerbate diarrhea, such as milk consumption in cases of lactose intolerance, or excessive sugar intake, which can lead to osmotic diarrhea.
 

IBS is often at play

Once these causes have been ruled out, several etiological pathways should be investigated. The first relates to motility issues, which are the most common diarrhea-related problem, said Dr. Hammoudi.

This type of diarrhea is linked to rapid intestinal transit time and is characterized by postprandial bowel movements (occurring shortly after a meal). Here, patients experience urgency and notice identifiable food debris in their stools. It tends to stop when fasting and can be treated effectively with antidiarrheals.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is the main cause of rapid intestinal transit diarrhea. It is defined as recurrent abdominal pain (at least 1 day/week) over a period of 3 months, associated with two of the following criteria: pain eases or worsens on passing feces, change in frequency of bowel movements, change in the consistency of stools.

Symptoms may come on suddenly, sometimes after taking antibiotics, and may result in misdiagnosis.

IBS medications treat the symptoms. Antispasmodics, such as trimebutine, phloroglucinol (Spasfon), or pinaverium bromide (Dicetel) are recommended, even there can be a placebo effect. The antidiarrheal medication loperamide (Imodium) can also be used. Probiotics may be beneficial, as an imbalanced intestinal microbiota is often implicated.

Dietary changes can also have a positive impact. Encouraging a diet rich in fruit and vegetables to enhance fiber intake is advised. A low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols) diet, targeting short-chain carbohydrates, can also be tried to identify foods to avoid, although it may be challenging to stick to.

Postinfectious IBS is a frequent cause of rapid intestinal transit diarrhea. It generally follows an episode of acute infectious diarrhea. “Symptoms may come on suddenly, sometimes after taking antibiotics, and may result in misdiagnosis,” said Dr. Hammoudi. This type of IBS often resolves spontaneously within 6 months.
 

Consider the possibility of SIBO

Another cause of rapid intestinal transit diarrhea is small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). It is difficult to distinguish between IBS and SIBO. Often, affected patients are diabetic, overweight, or have had bowel surgery.

The only way to diagnose SIBO is by conducting a breath test to measure the production of hydrogen and methane by the microbiota after ingesting sugar. However, the test is difficult to access and not fully covered by social security plans in France, said Dr. Hammoudi.

In cases of suspected SIBO and severe symptoms, a 7- to 10-day course of antibiotics can be attempted to provide relief, although a diagnosis should be confirmed before considering this option, Dr. Hammoudi said.
 

Malabsorption diarrhea

Another major cause of chronic diarrhea is malabsorption, characterized by large, fatty stools that are difficult to flush. Despite a normal diet, this type of diarrhea is associated with weight loss and nutritional deficiencies.

Its diagnosis involves measuring fat in the stools (steatorrhea) and possibly testing fecal elastase, an enzyme produced by the pancreas that is involved in digestion.

The most important causes of malabsorption diarrhea are pancreatic insufficiency, celiac disease, and Crohn’s disease. Generally, any lesion in the small intestine can lead to malabsorption-related diarrhea.

Celiac disease, or gluten intolerance, is an autoimmune condition triggered by a reaction to gluten proteins. Several antibodies can be produced in the presence of gluten proteins. Diagnosis is confirmed by positive antitransglutaminase antibodies and a duodenal biopsy through esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

The only treatment for celiac disease is a lifelong gluten-free diet. Celiac disease is increasingly diagnosed in adults, said Dr. Hammoudi, and should be considered as a possibility. This condition must be distinguished from gluten sensitivity, which can cause digestive issues, possibly leading to rapid intestinal transit diarrhea. “The only treatment for celiac disease is a lifelong gluten-free diet,” Dr. Hammoudi added.

Crohn’s disease, a type of inflammatory bowel disease, affects the entire digestive tract, particularly the terminal small intestine, which promotes malabsorption. In ulcerative colitis, another IBD affecting the rectum, any associated rectal syndrome can result in false diarrhea with stools containing blood and mucus.

Osmotic diarrhea, on the other hand, is linked to the presence of highly osmotic agents in the digestive tract. This type of diarrhea is watery and short-lived, stopping once the agents are no longer absorbed. The main culprits are lactose (in cases of lactose intolerance) and laxatives.
 

Drug-induced microscopic colitis

Secretory diarrhea is characterized by excessive secretions by the digestive tract, leading to significant potassium loss. This type of diarrhea is not related to food intake and is resistant to fasting.

Major causes of secretory diarrhea include microscopic colitis, parasitic infections, and endocrine tumors. Between 10% and 15% of patients with chronic diarrhea and apparently normal colonoscopy have microscopic colitis.

Dr. Hammoudi advised specialists seeking to determine the cause of chronic diarrhea to routinely collect multilevel bowel biopsies during colonoscopies from macroscopically normal mucosa to rule out microscopic colitis.

Microscopic colitis is mainly linked to the use of medications like PPIs and NSAIDs. These drugs can induce malabsorption-related diarrhea by damaging the intestinal wall.

In addition to discontinuing the implicated medication, the treatment for microscopic colitis includes low-dose budesonide (multiple brands). Biologics used in IBD may also be considered in cases of recurrent colitis.

Finally, exudative enteropathy can be a distinct cause of chronic diarrhea. It is characterized by albumin leakage (Waldmann’s disease) and manifests with edema, malnutrition, and significant hypoalbuminemia.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Can green tea lower your risk of colorectal cancer? It depends on who – and what research – you believe. 

Evidence that links green tea and a lower risk of colorectal cancer goes both ways. Some researchers have found little or no significant risk from drinking the popular tea, while others point to a potential benefit. Now add two more studies – one that found no reduced risk and another that seems to strengthen the link between green tea and a lower risk of colon cancer. 

Randomized controlled trials – where some people get randomly assigned to drink green tea and others do not – are considered the gold standard of medical research. Combine the findings from several of these trials, the thinking goes, and the findings get even stronger. 

Combining random trials so far shows no advantage from green tea. But there may still be a benefit, said lead researcher Vishal Chandel, MD, who is affiliated with Suburban Community Hospital in Norristown, Pa. It could be that there are just not enough randomized controlled trials yet to show green tea has a protective effect.

“Many, many factors contribute to colorectal cancer, and one of them is diet. One thing which struck me was tea, because tea is something that people consume all over the world, and it has shown some stronger effects in Japan and in China,” said Dr. Chandel. 
 

Comparing hundreds of people 

Dr. Chandel and colleagues found three randomized controlled trials that looked at the link between green tea and colorectal cancer risk. Combined, the data included 451 people with colorectal cancer and 460 others without cancer who made up a control, or comparison, group. 

They found green tea consumption did not reduce the risk of colorectal cancer in a statically significant way. 

“There are only three randomized controlled trials from anywhere concerning green tea and colon cancer,” Dr. Chandel said. “We really need more. If we had 7, 8, or 10 … I’m very positive we will have a much stronger association to say that green tea can have a positive effect.”
 

Comparing thousands of people 

Dr. Chandel and colleagues also performed another study where they looked at less rigorous evidence – 10 cohort studies and 15 prospective case-control studies. These studies included 198,488 cancer cases and 581,556 controls. This time, they found a stronger link between green tea and a reduced risk of colorectal cancer. 

The “meta-analysis results indicate a lower tendency to develop colorectal cancer with green tea consumption, with reduced risk of colorectal cancer more pronounced in Asia than America or Europe,” the authors note. “Although there is insufficient epidemiological data to conclude at present that green tea can have protective effects in human beings.”

Dr. Chandel presented the findings of both studies in Vancouver at the American College of Gastroenterology annual scientific meeting.
 

Why green tea?

Dr. Chandel said he studied colorectal cancer because it is the third most diagnosed cancer worldwide, accounting for about 10% of all new cancer cases in 2020, according to the World Health Organization’s Global Cancer Observatory data. It is also a common cause of cancer death globally, second only to lung cancer. 

Green tea contains high level of polyphenols known as catechins. The main catechin in green tea believed to provide cancer protective effects is epigallocatechin-3 gallate (EGCG). EGCG “has been shown in some studies to inhibit or prevent colon cancer,” Dr. Chandel said. 

EGCG is present in higher amounts in green tea, compared with black or oolong tea, because green tea is made from unfermented, unoxidized tea leaves.
 

Difficult to read the tea leaves

These studies “add to the literature, which remains undefined regarding the role of green tea in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer,” Catherine Eng, MD, a spokesperson for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said when asked to comment.

Although combining three trials did not reveal a significant benefit, looking at a greater number of studies did in some populations, said Dr. Eng, codirector of gastrointestinal oncology and chair of surgical and medical oncology at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville. 

“Potential benefit for green tea in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer was noted in the Asian cases but was not found to be statistically significant in the European or U.S. studies,” she said. “Currently, the role of dietary consumption of green tea on reducing the risk of colorectal cancer is not well established and requires further investigation.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Can green tea lower your risk of colorectal cancer? It depends on who – and what research – you believe. 

Evidence that links green tea and a lower risk of colorectal cancer goes both ways. Some researchers have found little or no significant risk from drinking the popular tea, while others point to a potential benefit. Now add two more studies – one that found no reduced risk and another that seems to strengthen the link between green tea and a lower risk of colon cancer. 

Randomized controlled trials – where some people get randomly assigned to drink green tea and others do not – are considered the gold standard of medical research. Combine the findings from several of these trials, the thinking goes, and the findings get even stronger. 

Combining random trials so far shows no advantage from green tea. But there may still be a benefit, said lead researcher Vishal Chandel, MD, who is affiliated with Suburban Community Hospital in Norristown, Pa. It could be that there are just not enough randomized controlled trials yet to show green tea has a protective effect.

“Many, many factors contribute to colorectal cancer, and one of them is diet. One thing which struck me was tea, because tea is something that people consume all over the world, and it has shown some stronger effects in Japan and in China,” said Dr. Chandel. 
 

Comparing hundreds of people 

Dr. Chandel and colleagues found three randomized controlled trials that looked at the link between green tea and colorectal cancer risk. Combined, the data included 451 people with colorectal cancer and 460 others without cancer who made up a control, or comparison, group. 

They found green tea consumption did not reduce the risk of colorectal cancer in a statically significant way. 

“There are only three randomized controlled trials from anywhere concerning green tea and colon cancer,” Dr. Chandel said. “We really need more. If we had 7, 8, or 10 … I’m very positive we will have a much stronger association to say that green tea can have a positive effect.”
 

Comparing thousands of people 

Dr. Chandel and colleagues also performed another study where they looked at less rigorous evidence – 10 cohort studies and 15 prospective case-control studies. These studies included 198,488 cancer cases and 581,556 controls. This time, they found a stronger link between green tea and a reduced risk of colorectal cancer. 

The “meta-analysis results indicate a lower tendency to develop colorectal cancer with green tea consumption, with reduced risk of colorectal cancer more pronounced in Asia than America or Europe,” the authors note. “Although there is insufficient epidemiological data to conclude at present that green tea can have protective effects in human beings.”

Dr. Chandel presented the findings of both studies in Vancouver at the American College of Gastroenterology annual scientific meeting.
 

Why green tea?

Dr. Chandel said he studied colorectal cancer because it is the third most diagnosed cancer worldwide, accounting for about 10% of all new cancer cases in 2020, according to the World Health Organization’s Global Cancer Observatory data. It is also a common cause of cancer death globally, second only to lung cancer. 

Green tea contains high level of polyphenols known as catechins. The main catechin in green tea believed to provide cancer protective effects is epigallocatechin-3 gallate (EGCG). EGCG “has been shown in some studies to inhibit or prevent colon cancer,” Dr. Chandel said. 

EGCG is present in higher amounts in green tea, compared with black or oolong tea, because green tea is made from unfermented, unoxidized tea leaves.
 

Difficult to read the tea leaves

These studies “add to the literature, which remains undefined regarding the role of green tea in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer,” Catherine Eng, MD, a spokesperson for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said when asked to comment.

Although combining three trials did not reveal a significant benefit, looking at a greater number of studies did in some populations, said Dr. Eng, codirector of gastrointestinal oncology and chair of surgical and medical oncology at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville. 

“Potential benefit for green tea in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer was noted in the Asian cases but was not found to be statistically significant in the European or U.S. studies,” she said. “Currently, the role of dietary consumption of green tea on reducing the risk of colorectal cancer is not well established and requires further investigation.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Can green tea lower your risk of colorectal cancer? It depends on who – and what research – you believe. 

Evidence that links green tea and a lower risk of colorectal cancer goes both ways. Some researchers have found little or no significant risk from drinking the popular tea, while others point to a potential benefit. Now add two more studies – one that found no reduced risk and another that seems to strengthen the link between green tea and a lower risk of colon cancer. 

Randomized controlled trials – where some people get randomly assigned to drink green tea and others do not – are considered the gold standard of medical research. Combine the findings from several of these trials, the thinking goes, and the findings get even stronger. 

Combining random trials so far shows no advantage from green tea. But there may still be a benefit, said lead researcher Vishal Chandel, MD, who is affiliated with Suburban Community Hospital in Norristown, Pa. It could be that there are just not enough randomized controlled trials yet to show green tea has a protective effect.

“Many, many factors contribute to colorectal cancer, and one of them is diet. One thing which struck me was tea, because tea is something that people consume all over the world, and it has shown some stronger effects in Japan and in China,” said Dr. Chandel. 
 

Comparing hundreds of people 

Dr. Chandel and colleagues found three randomized controlled trials that looked at the link between green tea and colorectal cancer risk. Combined, the data included 451 people with colorectal cancer and 460 others without cancer who made up a control, or comparison, group. 

They found green tea consumption did not reduce the risk of colorectal cancer in a statically significant way. 

“There are only three randomized controlled trials from anywhere concerning green tea and colon cancer,” Dr. Chandel said. “We really need more. If we had 7, 8, or 10 … I’m very positive we will have a much stronger association to say that green tea can have a positive effect.”
 

Comparing thousands of people 

Dr. Chandel and colleagues also performed another study where they looked at less rigorous evidence – 10 cohort studies and 15 prospective case-control studies. These studies included 198,488 cancer cases and 581,556 controls. This time, they found a stronger link between green tea and a reduced risk of colorectal cancer. 

The “meta-analysis results indicate a lower tendency to develop colorectal cancer with green tea consumption, with reduced risk of colorectal cancer more pronounced in Asia than America or Europe,” the authors note. “Although there is insufficient epidemiological data to conclude at present that green tea can have protective effects in human beings.”

Dr. Chandel presented the findings of both studies in Vancouver at the American College of Gastroenterology annual scientific meeting.
 

Why green tea?

Dr. Chandel said he studied colorectal cancer because it is the third most diagnosed cancer worldwide, accounting for about 10% of all new cancer cases in 2020, according to the World Health Organization’s Global Cancer Observatory data. It is also a common cause of cancer death globally, second only to lung cancer. 

Green tea contains high level of polyphenols known as catechins. The main catechin in green tea believed to provide cancer protective effects is epigallocatechin-3 gallate (EGCG). EGCG “has been shown in some studies to inhibit or prevent colon cancer,” Dr. Chandel said. 

EGCG is present in higher amounts in green tea, compared with black or oolong tea, because green tea is made from unfermented, unoxidized tea leaves.
 

Difficult to read the tea leaves

These studies “add to the literature, which remains undefined regarding the role of green tea in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer,” Catherine Eng, MD, a spokesperson for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said when asked to comment.

Although combining three trials did not reveal a significant benefit, looking at a greater number of studies did in some populations, said Dr. Eng, codirector of gastrointestinal oncology and chair of surgical and medical oncology at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville. 

“Potential benefit for green tea in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer was noted in the Asian cases but was not found to be statistically significant in the European or U.S. studies,” she said. “Currently, the role of dietary consumption of green tea on reducing the risk of colorectal cancer is not well established and requires further investigation.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Patients often come to us with questions about vitamin and mineral supplements. Sometimes they come to us with bags full of the things they are taking. The Internet is full of the wonders these nutritional supplements can do, from turmeric curing cancer to vitamin D curing COVID. It is hard to keep up with medicine itself without learning a whole new field of nutritional supplements.

However, for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer prevention, the answer is pretty easy according to USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Task Force) guidelines. They evaluated 17,459 unique citations as well as 379 full-text articles that included randomized clinical trials and observational cohort studies. The conclusions of their research showed that there was little to no benefit in taking vitamin or mineral supplements to prevent CVD, cancer, or death. In fact, beta-carotene supplementation was associated with increased risk of lung cancer and other adverse outcomes in patients at increased risk of lung cancer.

Although they are often marketed like drugs, nutritional supplements are regulated as foods, with less stringent standards.* Our current medical culture pushes us to practice evidence-based medicine. Without evidence, we simply cannot counsel patients about supplements because there is little evidence to support their use.

Additionally, many patients assume that they are safe. While this may be true for many of them, some of them can be harmful in several ways. They can interact with medications the patient may be taking for medical conditions. Some of them have been shown to cause liver and other organ damage. When they are used to replace traditional medicine, they can also lead to harm by delaying appropriate medical care. For example, a patient who believes a supplement can treat cancer when it does nothing is delaying care that might save their life. By the time they realize it is not working, the cancer may have advanced too far to be treatable.

While there may be a few studies that do show some efficacy for vitamins and minerals in certain diseases, these guidelines are looking only at use in terms of preventing cancer and CVD. As primary care physicians, we all know the screening guidelines for cancer prevention. We are better off recommending screening mammograms and colon cancer screening tests. And we all know the risk factors for CVD and how to mitigate these risks.

What can we do when patients come to us with false claims regarding supplements?

• Hear what they are saying. They don’t know who to trust. We will never become their trusted source of medical information if we don’t listen to their concerns.
• Answer their questions, no matter how ridiculous they may seem to us. Many people who sell supplements sound convincing. That is how they sell their products. Our advice may seem just as ridiculous to them. We need to explain the facts clearly and be sure the patient understands.
• Give the patient resources. Know what websites to direct them to so that they can get accurate information.
• Know what’s out there. I was once surprised when a patient told me she was going to try turmeric as a treatment for uterine cancer. We cannot combat misinformation when we don’t know what’s being said.
• Become a voice for medical information. There is so much misinformation being spread. We need more doctors to speak up about the right medical information.

Currently, patients often look for medical information online. We do them a disservice when we brush aside their questions regarding supplements, no matter how trivial they seem. We need to take a firm stand and tell them the evidence regarding these supplements: They are neither FDA approved nor studied for safety and efficacy. Anyone can sell a supplement and make any claim regarding it that they want. It is much better to eat a healthy, balanced diet to get the vitamins and minerals that you need. Not only do we need to show them the evidence, we need to convince them that it is true.

*Correction, 12/4: An earlier version of this article misstated the regulatory requirements for nutritional supplements.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

Patients often come to us with questions about vitamin and mineral supplements. Sometimes they come to us with bags full of the things they are taking. The Internet is full of the wonders these nutritional supplements can do, from turmeric curing cancer to vitamin D curing COVID. It is hard to keep up with medicine itself without learning a whole new field of nutritional supplements.

However, for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer prevention, the answer is pretty easy according to USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Task Force) guidelines. They evaluated 17,459 unique citations as well as 379 full-text articles that included randomized clinical trials and observational cohort studies. The conclusions of their research showed that there was little to no benefit in taking vitamin or mineral supplements to prevent CVD, cancer, or death. In fact, beta-carotene supplementation was associated with increased risk of lung cancer and other adverse outcomes in patients at increased risk of lung cancer.

Although they are often marketed like drugs, nutritional supplements are regulated as foods, with less stringent standards.* Our current medical culture pushes us to practice evidence-based medicine. Without evidence, we simply cannot counsel patients about supplements because there is little evidence to support their use.

Additionally, many patients assume that they are safe. While this may be true for many of them, some of them can be harmful in several ways. They can interact with medications the patient may be taking for medical conditions. Some of them have been shown to cause liver and other organ damage. When they are used to replace traditional medicine, they can also lead to harm by delaying appropriate medical care. For example, a patient who believes a supplement can treat cancer when it does nothing is delaying care that might save their life. By the time they realize it is not working, the cancer may have advanced too far to be treatable.

While there may be a few studies that do show some efficacy for vitamins and minerals in certain diseases, these guidelines are looking only at use in terms of preventing cancer and CVD. As primary care physicians, we all know the screening guidelines for cancer prevention. We are better off recommending screening mammograms and colon cancer screening tests. And we all know the risk factors for CVD and how to mitigate these risks.

What can we do when patients come to us with false claims regarding supplements?

• Hear what they are saying. They don’t know who to trust. We will never become their trusted source of medical information if we don’t listen to their concerns.
• Answer their questions, no matter how ridiculous they may seem to us. Many people who sell supplements sound convincing. That is how they sell their products. Our advice may seem just as ridiculous to them. We need to explain the facts clearly and be sure the patient understands.
• Give the patient resources. Know what websites to direct them to so that they can get accurate information.
• Know what’s out there. I was once surprised when a patient told me she was going to try turmeric as a treatment for uterine cancer. We cannot combat misinformation when we don’t know what’s being said.
• Become a voice for medical information. There is so much misinformation being spread. We need more doctors to speak up about the right medical information.

Currently, patients often look for medical information online. We do them a disservice when we brush aside their questions regarding supplements, no matter how trivial they seem. We need to take a firm stand and tell them the evidence regarding these supplements: They are neither FDA approved nor studied for safety and efficacy. Anyone can sell a supplement and make any claim regarding it that they want. It is much better to eat a healthy, balanced diet to get the vitamins and minerals that you need. Not only do we need to show them the evidence, we need to convince them that it is true.

*Correction, 12/4: An earlier version of this article misstated the regulatory requirements for nutritional supplements.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

Patients often come to us with questions about vitamin and mineral supplements. Sometimes they come to us with bags full of the things they are taking. The Internet is full of the wonders these nutritional supplements can do, from turmeric curing cancer to vitamin D curing COVID. It is hard to keep up with medicine itself without learning a whole new field of nutritional supplements.

However, for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer prevention, the answer is pretty easy according to USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Task Force) guidelines. They evaluated 17,459 unique citations as well as 379 full-text articles that included randomized clinical trials and observational cohort studies. The conclusions of their research showed that there was little to no benefit in taking vitamin or mineral supplements to prevent CVD, cancer, or death. In fact, beta-carotene supplementation was associated with increased risk of lung cancer and other adverse outcomes in patients at increased risk of lung cancer.

Although they are often marketed like drugs, nutritional supplements are regulated as foods, with less stringent standards.* Our current medical culture pushes us to practice evidence-based medicine. Without evidence, we simply cannot counsel patients about supplements because there is little evidence to support their use.

Additionally, many patients assume that they are safe. While this may be true for many of them, some of them can be harmful in several ways. They can interact with medications the patient may be taking for medical conditions. Some of them have been shown to cause liver and other organ damage. When they are used to replace traditional medicine, they can also lead to harm by delaying appropriate medical care. For example, a patient who believes a supplement can treat cancer when it does nothing is delaying care that might save their life. By the time they realize it is not working, the cancer may have advanced too far to be treatable.

While there may be a few studies that do show some efficacy for vitamins and minerals in certain diseases, these guidelines are looking only at use in terms of preventing cancer and CVD. As primary care physicians, we all know the screening guidelines for cancer prevention. We are better off recommending screening mammograms and colon cancer screening tests. And we all know the risk factors for CVD and how to mitigate these risks.

What can we do when patients come to us with false claims regarding supplements?

• Hear what they are saying. They don’t know who to trust. We will never become their trusted source of medical information if we don’t listen to their concerns.
• Answer their questions, no matter how ridiculous they may seem to us. Many people who sell supplements sound convincing. That is how they sell their products. Our advice may seem just as ridiculous to them. We need to explain the facts clearly and be sure the patient understands.
• Give the patient resources. Know what websites to direct them to so that they can get accurate information.
• Know what’s out there. I was once surprised when a patient told me she was going to try turmeric as a treatment for uterine cancer. We cannot combat misinformation when we don’t know what’s being said.
• Become a voice for medical information. There is so much misinformation being spread. We need more doctors to speak up about the right medical information.

Currently, patients often look for medical information online. We do them a disservice when we brush aside their questions regarding supplements, no matter how trivial they seem. We need to take a firm stand and tell them the evidence regarding these supplements: They are neither FDA approved nor studied for safety and efficacy. Anyone can sell a supplement and make any claim regarding it that they want. It is much better to eat a healthy, balanced diet to get the vitamins and minerals that you need. Not only do we need to show them the evidence, we need to convince them that it is true.

*Correction, 12/4: An earlier version of this article misstated the regulatory requirements for nutritional supplements.

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. She was paid by Pfizer as a consultant on Paxlovid and is the editor in chief of Physician’s Weekly.

SAN DIEGO – The Food and Drug Administration has launched Project Optimus to dramatically overhaul how oncology therapies are developed in clinical trials, with investigational blood cancer drugs taking center stage in this effort.

The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.

Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”

The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
 

Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?

Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.

Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?

Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.

Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?

Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.

Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?

Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.

Q: How will all this affect drug development?

Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.

Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?

Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.

Q: What do you think the future holds?

Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.

SAN DIEGO – The Food and Drug Administration has launched Project Optimus to dramatically overhaul how oncology therapies are developed in clinical trials, with investigational blood cancer drugs taking center stage in this effort.

The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.

Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”

The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
 

Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?

Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.

Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?

Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.

Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?

Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.

Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?

Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.

Q: How will all this affect drug development?

Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.

Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?

Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.

Q: What do you think the future holds?

Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.

SAN DIEGO – The Food and Drug Administration has launched Project Optimus to dramatically overhaul how oncology therapies are developed in clinical trials, with investigational blood cancer drugs taking center stage in this effort.

The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.

Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”

The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
 

Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?

Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.

Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?

Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.

Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?

Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.

Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?

Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.

Q: How will all this affect drug development?

Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.

Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?

Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.

Q: What do you think the future holds?

Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with actinic keratoses (AKs) have a higher risk for skin cancers, including squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and melanoma.

METHODOLOGY:

• AKs have been associated with a small risk for cutaneous SCC, but associations with risk for other skin cancers have not been well studied.
• AKs may be a marker of overall skin cancer risk, but guidelines for AK management lack recommendations for follow-up cancer surveillance.
• The researchers reviewed data from a random sample of 5 million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries treated for AKs from 2009 through 2018 in the United States. Patients with seborrheic keratoses (SKs) were included as comparators, and patients with a history of skin cancer were excluded.
• The primary outcome was the first surgically treated skin cancer, including SCC, BCC, and melanoma.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 555,945 adults with AKs and 481,024 with SKs were included. The mean age was approximately 74.0 years. More than half were female. Most were non-Hispanic White.
• Among patients with AKs, the absolute risk for any skin cancer after the first AK was 6.3%, 18.4%, and 28.5% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively.
• Patients with AKs had a significantly increased relative risk for any skin cancer compared with those with SKs (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.17) and separately for keratinocyte carcinoma (aHR, 2.20), SCC (aHR, 2.63), BCC (aHR, 1.85), and melanoma (aHR, 1.67).
• Although AKs are not considered a biological precursor of melanoma or BCC, the results suggest that AKs may be clinical indicators of increased UV exposure that subsequently increases the risk for skin cancer.

IN PRACTICE:

“The present results highlight the importance of developing evidence-based guidelines for follow-up skin cancer surveillance in patients with AKs, optimally including measures of AK burden,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Cassandra Mohr, BS, with corresponding author Mackenzie R. Wehner, MD, MPhil, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology .

LIMITATIONS:

The study population of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older may not be a nationally representative sample, and surveillance bias may contribute to the increased risk for skin cancer in patients with AKs. The use of both ICD and CPT codes may underestimate the number of skin cancers because of cases that were treated nonsurgically.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, and The University of Texas Rising STARS program. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with actinic keratoses (AKs) have a higher risk for skin cancers, including squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and melanoma.

METHODOLOGY:

• AKs have been associated with a small risk for cutaneous SCC, but associations with risk for other skin cancers have not been well studied.
• AKs may be a marker of overall skin cancer risk, but guidelines for AK management lack recommendations for follow-up cancer surveillance.
• The researchers reviewed data from a random sample of 5 million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries treated for AKs from 2009 through 2018 in the United States. Patients with seborrheic keratoses (SKs) were included as comparators, and patients with a history of skin cancer were excluded.
• The primary outcome was the first surgically treated skin cancer, including SCC, BCC, and melanoma.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 555,945 adults with AKs and 481,024 with SKs were included. The mean age was approximately 74.0 years. More than half were female. Most were non-Hispanic White.
• Among patients with AKs, the absolute risk for any skin cancer after the first AK was 6.3%, 18.4%, and 28.5% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively.
• Patients with AKs had a significantly increased relative risk for any skin cancer compared with those with SKs (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.17) and separately for keratinocyte carcinoma (aHR, 2.20), SCC (aHR, 2.63), BCC (aHR, 1.85), and melanoma (aHR, 1.67).
• Although AKs are not considered a biological precursor of melanoma or BCC, the results suggest that AKs may be clinical indicators of increased UV exposure that subsequently increases the risk for skin cancer.

IN PRACTICE:

“The present results highlight the importance of developing evidence-based guidelines for follow-up skin cancer surveillance in patients with AKs, optimally including measures of AK burden,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Cassandra Mohr, BS, with corresponding author Mackenzie R. Wehner, MD, MPhil, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology .

LIMITATIONS:

The study population of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older may not be a nationally representative sample, and surveillance bias may contribute to the increased risk for skin cancer in patients with AKs. The use of both ICD and CPT codes may underestimate the number of skin cancers because of cases that were treated nonsurgically.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, and The University of Texas Rising STARS program. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with actinic keratoses (AKs) have a higher risk for skin cancers, including squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and melanoma.

METHODOLOGY:

• AKs have been associated with a small risk for cutaneous SCC, but associations with risk for other skin cancers have not been well studied.
• AKs may be a marker of overall skin cancer risk, but guidelines for AK management lack recommendations for follow-up cancer surveillance.
• The researchers reviewed data from a random sample of 5 million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries treated for AKs from 2009 through 2018 in the United States. Patients with seborrheic keratoses (SKs) were included as comparators, and patients with a history of skin cancer were excluded.
• The primary outcome was the first surgically treated skin cancer, including SCC, BCC, and melanoma.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 555,945 adults with AKs and 481,024 with SKs were included. The mean age was approximately 74.0 years. More than half were female. Most were non-Hispanic White.
• Among patients with AKs, the absolute risk for any skin cancer after the first AK was 6.3%, 18.4%, and 28.5% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively.
• Patients with AKs had a significantly increased relative risk for any skin cancer compared with those with SKs (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.17) and separately for keratinocyte carcinoma (aHR, 2.20), SCC (aHR, 2.63), BCC (aHR, 1.85), and melanoma (aHR, 1.67).
• Although AKs are not considered a biological precursor of melanoma or BCC, the results suggest that AKs may be clinical indicators of increased UV exposure that subsequently increases the risk for skin cancer.

IN PRACTICE:

“The present results highlight the importance of developing evidence-based guidelines for follow-up skin cancer surveillance in patients with AKs, optimally including measures of AK burden,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Cassandra Mohr, BS, with corresponding author Mackenzie R. Wehner, MD, MPhil, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology .

LIMITATIONS:

The study population of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older may not be a nationally representative sample, and surveillance bias may contribute to the increased risk for skin cancer in patients with AKs. The use of both ICD and CPT codes may underestimate the number of skin cancers because of cases that were treated nonsurgically.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, and The University of Texas Rising STARS program. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Incipient ulceration in primary cutaneous melanoma may represent a more biologically aggressive disease population than truly nonulcerated tumors.

METHODOLOGY:

• The final cohort included 40 cases of incipient ulceration that were matched 1:2 with 80 nonulcerated controls and 80 ulcerated controls.
• The prognostic significance of incipient ulceration in cutaneous melanoma is unclear.
• Current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) guidelines classify incipient ulceration as nonulcerated.
• In a retrospective case-control study, researchers drew from the Melanoma Institute Australia database to identify resected primary cutaneous melanomas diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 that had slides available at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney and a Breslow thickness greater than 0 mm.
• Clinical outcomes compared between cases and controls were recurrence-free survival (RFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and overall survival (OS).

TAKEAWAY:

• The median Breslow depth was 2.8 mm for incipient cases, compared with 1.0 mm for nonulcerated melanomas and 5.3 mm for ulcerated melanomas, while the median tumor mitotic rate was 5.0 per mm² for incipient cases, compared with 1 per mm² in nonulcerated controls and 9 per mm² in ulcerated controls.
• On univariable analyses, compared with patients with incipiently ulcerated cases, patients with nonulcerated tumors had significantly better OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49) and RFS (HR, 0.37), while patients with ulcerated tumors showed worse RFS (HR, 1.67).
• On multivariable analyses, no differences in survival outcomes were observed, perhaps due to the moderate number of incipient ulceration cases included in the study, the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future editions of the AJCC staging system should consider acknowledging this interpretive challenge and provide guidance on how primary melanomas with incipient ulceration should be classified,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Richard A. Scolyer, MD, a pathologist at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia, is the senior author on the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations of the study include its retrospective design and the relatively small number of cases that met criteria for inclusion.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Scolyer disclosed that he has received grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and personal fees from MetaOptima, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Evaxion, Provectus, QBiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline, all outside the submitted work. Four coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Incipient ulceration in primary cutaneous melanoma may represent a more biologically aggressive disease population than truly nonulcerated tumors.

METHODOLOGY:

• The final cohort included 40 cases of incipient ulceration that were matched 1:2 with 80 nonulcerated controls and 80 ulcerated controls.
• The prognostic significance of incipient ulceration in cutaneous melanoma is unclear.
• Current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) guidelines classify incipient ulceration as nonulcerated.
• In a retrospective case-control study, researchers drew from the Melanoma Institute Australia database to identify resected primary cutaneous melanomas diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 that had slides available at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney and a Breslow thickness greater than 0 mm.
• Clinical outcomes compared between cases and controls were recurrence-free survival (RFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and overall survival (OS).

TAKEAWAY:

• The median Breslow depth was 2.8 mm for incipient cases, compared with 1.0 mm for nonulcerated melanomas and 5.3 mm for ulcerated melanomas, while the median tumor mitotic rate was 5.0 per mm² for incipient cases, compared with 1 per mm² in nonulcerated controls and 9 per mm² in ulcerated controls.
• On univariable analyses, compared with patients with incipiently ulcerated cases, patients with nonulcerated tumors had significantly better OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49) and RFS (HR, 0.37), while patients with ulcerated tumors showed worse RFS (HR, 1.67).
• On multivariable analyses, no differences in survival outcomes were observed, perhaps due to the moderate number of incipient ulceration cases included in the study, the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future editions of the AJCC staging system should consider acknowledging this interpretive challenge and provide guidance on how primary melanomas with incipient ulceration should be classified,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Richard A. Scolyer, MD, a pathologist at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia, is the senior author on the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations of the study include its retrospective design and the relatively small number of cases that met criteria for inclusion.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Scolyer disclosed that he has received grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and personal fees from MetaOptima, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Evaxion, Provectus, QBiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline, all outside the submitted work. Four coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Incipient ulceration in primary cutaneous melanoma may represent a more biologically aggressive disease population than truly nonulcerated tumors.

METHODOLOGY:

• The final cohort included 40 cases of incipient ulceration that were matched 1:2 with 80 nonulcerated controls and 80 ulcerated controls.
• The prognostic significance of incipient ulceration in cutaneous melanoma is unclear.
• Current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) guidelines classify incipient ulceration as nonulcerated.
• In a retrospective case-control study, researchers drew from the Melanoma Institute Australia database to identify resected primary cutaneous melanomas diagnosed between 2005 and 2015 that had slides available at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney and a Breslow thickness greater than 0 mm.
• Clinical outcomes compared between cases and controls were recurrence-free survival (RFS), melanoma-specific survival (MSS), and overall survival (OS).

TAKEAWAY:

• The median Breslow depth was 2.8 mm for incipient cases, compared with 1.0 mm for nonulcerated melanomas and 5.3 mm for ulcerated melanomas, while the median tumor mitotic rate was 5.0 per mm² for incipient cases, compared with 1 per mm² in nonulcerated controls and 9 per mm² in ulcerated controls.
• On univariable analyses, compared with patients with incipiently ulcerated cases, patients with nonulcerated tumors had significantly better OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49) and RFS (HR, 0.37), while patients with ulcerated tumors showed worse RFS (HR, 1.67).
• On multivariable analyses, no differences in survival outcomes were observed, perhaps due to the moderate number of incipient ulceration cases included in the study, the authors wrote.

IN PRACTICE:

“Future editions of the AJCC staging system should consider acknowledging this interpretive challenge and provide guidance on how primary melanomas with incipient ulceration should be classified,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

Richard A. Scolyer, MD, a pathologist at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia, is the senior author on the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations of the study include its retrospective design and the relatively small number of cases that met criteria for inclusion.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Scolyer disclosed that he has received grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and personal fees from MetaOptima, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Evaxion, Provectus, QBiotics, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, NeraCare, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Myriad Genetics, and GlaxoSmithKline, all outside the submitted work. Four coauthors reported having received financial support outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Developments in early breast cancer reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 Congress are discussed by Dr Lisa Carey of University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 

Dr Carey begins with 5-year results from the KEYNOTE-522 study in patients with early triple-negative breast cancer in which the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab was incorporated into combination therapy both pre- and postoperatively. The new findings were consistent with earlier results, showing that pembrolizumab improved pathologic complete response (pCR) and event-free survival. 

Turning to human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) disease, Dr Carey discusses the PHERGain trial's use of a genomic assay to define risk and predict pCR. She suggests that such assays could lead to tailored therapy for HER2+ patients. 

On estrogen receptor–positive (ER+)/HER2- disease, Dr Carey reports first on KEYNOTE-756, which examined the addition of pembrolizumab to combination therapy for high-risk patients in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. Pembrolizumab improved pCR compared with placebo. 

Dr Carey closes by discussing another study in high-risk ER+/HER2- disease. Similar in design to KEYNOTE-756, CheckMate 7FL found that nivolumab added to combination therapy again augmented pCR results. 

--

Lisa A. Carey, MD, Distinguished Professor or Breast Cancer Research, University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; Professor, Division of Medical Oncology, Bassnight North Carolina Cancer Hospital, Chapel Hill, North Carolina  

Lisa A. Carey, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Developments in early breast cancer reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 Congress are discussed by Dr Lisa Carey of University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 

Dr Carey begins with 5-year results from the KEYNOTE-522 study in patients with early triple-negative breast cancer in which the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab was incorporated into combination therapy both pre- and postoperatively. The new findings were consistent with earlier results, showing that pembrolizumab improved pathologic complete response (pCR) and event-free survival. 

Turning to human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) disease, Dr Carey discusses the PHERGain trial's use of a genomic assay to define risk and predict pCR. She suggests that such assays could lead to tailored therapy for HER2+ patients. 

On estrogen receptor–positive (ER+)/HER2- disease, Dr Carey reports first on KEYNOTE-756, which examined the addition of pembrolizumab to combination therapy for high-risk patients in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. Pembrolizumab improved pCR compared with placebo. 

Dr Carey closes by discussing another study in high-risk ER+/HER2- disease. Similar in design to KEYNOTE-756, CheckMate 7FL found that nivolumab added to combination therapy again augmented pCR results. 

--

Lisa A. Carey, MD, Distinguished Professor or Breast Cancer Research, University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; Professor, Division of Medical Oncology, Bassnight North Carolina Cancer Hospital, Chapel Hill, North Carolina  

Lisa A. Carey, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Developments in early breast cancer reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 Congress are discussed by Dr Lisa Carey of University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 

Dr Carey begins with 5-year results from the KEYNOTE-522 study in patients with early triple-negative breast cancer in which the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab was incorporated into combination therapy both pre- and postoperatively. The new findings were consistent with earlier results, showing that pembrolizumab improved pathologic complete response (pCR) and event-free survival. 

Turning to human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) disease, Dr Carey discusses the PHERGain trial's use of a genomic assay to define risk and predict pCR. She suggests that such assays could lead to tailored therapy for HER2+ patients. 

On estrogen receptor–positive (ER+)/HER2- disease, Dr Carey reports first on KEYNOTE-756, which examined the addition of pembrolizumab to combination therapy for high-risk patients in both the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. Pembrolizumab improved pCR compared with placebo. 

Dr Carey closes by discussing another study in high-risk ER+/HER2- disease. Similar in design to KEYNOTE-756, CheckMate 7FL found that nivolumab added to combination therapy again augmented pCR results. 

--

Lisa A. Carey, MD, Distinguished Professor or Breast Cancer Research, University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; Professor, Division of Medical Oncology, Bassnight North Carolina Cancer Hospital, Chapel Hill, North Carolina  

Lisa A. Carey, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the biologic Adzynma (ADAMTS13, recombinant-krhn, Takeda Pharmaceuticals) to treat adults and children who have a rare and life-threatening blood clotting disorder called congenital thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). Adzynma is the first recombinant protein product for preventive or on-demand enzyme replacement therapy for people with the blood clotting condition.

Congenital TTP affects fewer than 1,000 people in the United States and is caused by a mutation in the ADAMTS13 gene, which makes an enzyme that regulates blood clotting. Patients with the congenital TTP typically receive prophylactic plasma-based therapy to replenish the ADAMTS13 enzyme and reduce the risk for clotting and bleeding. The condition, however, can be fatal if left untreated.

The new agent is a purified recombinant form of the ADAMTS13 enzyme that works by replacing low levels of the deficient enzyme in patients with congenital TTP. Adzynma is given prophylactically to reduce the risk for disease symptoms and on demand when a patient is experiencing an acute event, according to the FDA approval announcement.

The approval was based on a global randomized phase 3 study comparing the product with plasma-based therapies in 46 patients with congenital TTP. Patients in the trial were randomized to receive 6 months of treatment with either intravenous Adzynma — given once every other week as prophylactic enzyme replacement therapy or once daily as on-demand enzyme replacement therapy — or plasma-based therapies. The patients then crossed over to the other treatment for 6 months.

Interim findings from the study showed that Adzynma reduced the incidence of thrombocytopenia — the most common symptom of congenital TTP — by 60% compared with plasma-based therapy (rate ratio, 0.40). No patients experienced an acute TTP event during Adzynma prophylaxis, Takeda said.

Significantly more patients receiving plasma-based therapies experienced treatment-emergent adverse events compared with those receiving the biologic.

The most common side effects associated with the biologic were headache (31.3%), diarrhea (16.7%), migraine (14.6%), abdominal pain (12.5%), nausea (12.5%), upper respiratory tract infection (12.5%), dizziness (10.4%), and vomiting (10.4%). No treatment-related adverse events, including allergic reactions, were observed during administration.

“The FDA remains deeply committed in our efforts to help facilitate the development and approval of safe and effective therapies for patients with rare diseases,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, stated. The “approval reflects important progress in the development of much-needed treatment options for patients affected by this life-threatening disorder.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the biologic Adzynma (ADAMTS13, recombinant-krhn, Takeda Pharmaceuticals) to treat adults and children who have a rare and life-threatening blood clotting disorder called congenital thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). Adzynma is the first recombinant protein product for preventive or on-demand enzyme replacement therapy for people with the blood clotting condition.

Congenital TTP affects fewer than 1,000 people in the United States and is caused by a mutation in the ADAMTS13 gene, which makes an enzyme that regulates blood clotting. Patients with the congenital TTP typically receive prophylactic plasma-based therapy to replenish the ADAMTS13 enzyme and reduce the risk for clotting and bleeding. The condition, however, can be fatal if left untreated.

The new agent is a purified recombinant form of the ADAMTS13 enzyme that works by replacing low levels of the deficient enzyme in patients with congenital TTP. Adzynma is given prophylactically to reduce the risk for disease symptoms and on demand when a patient is experiencing an acute event, according to the FDA approval announcement.

The approval was based on a global randomized phase 3 study comparing the product with plasma-based therapies in 46 patients with congenital TTP. Patients in the trial were randomized to receive 6 months of treatment with either intravenous Adzynma — given once every other week as prophylactic enzyme replacement therapy or once daily as on-demand enzyme replacement therapy — or plasma-based therapies. The patients then crossed over to the other treatment for 6 months.

Interim findings from the study showed that Adzynma reduced the incidence of thrombocytopenia — the most common symptom of congenital TTP — by 60% compared with plasma-based therapy (rate ratio, 0.40). No patients experienced an acute TTP event during Adzynma prophylaxis, Takeda said.

Significantly more patients receiving plasma-based therapies experienced treatment-emergent adverse events compared with those receiving the biologic.

The most common side effects associated with the biologic were headache (31.3%), diarrhea (16.7%), migraine (14.6%), abdominal pain (12.5%), nausea (12.5%), upper respiratory tract infection (12.5%), dizziness (10.4%), and vomiting (10.4%). No treatment-related adverse events, including allergic reactions, were observed during administration.

“The FDA remains deeply committed in our efforts to help facilitate the development and approval of safe and effective therapies for patients with rare diseases,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, stated. The “approval reflects important progress in the development of much-needed treatment options for patients affected by this life-threatening disorder.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the biologic Adzynma (ADAMTS13, recombinant-krhn, Takeda Pharmaceuticals) to treat adults and children who have a rare and life-threatening blood clotting disorder called congenital thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). Adzynma is the first recombinant protein product for preventive or on-demand enzyme replacement therapy for people with the blood clotting condition.

Congenital TTP affects fewer than 1,000 people in the United States and is caused by a mutation in the ADAMTS13 gene, which makes an enzyme that regulates blood clotting. Patients with the congenital TTP typically receive prophylactic plasma-based therapy to replenish the ADAMTS13 enzyme and reduce the risk for clotting and bleeding. The condition, however, can be fatal if left untreated.

The new agent is a purified recombinant form of the ADAMTS13 enzyme that works by replacing low levels of the deficient enzyme in patients with congenital TTP. Adzynma is given prophylactically to reduce the risk for disease symptoms and on demand when a patient is experiencing an acute event, according to the FDA approval announcement.

The approval was based on a global randomized phase 3 study comparing the product with plasma-based therapies in 46 patients with congenital TTP. Patients in the trial were randomized to receive 6 months of treatment with either intravenous Adzynma — given once every other week as prophylactic enzyme replacement therapy or once daily as on-demand enzyme replacement therapy — or plasma-based therapies. The patients then crossed over to the other treatment for 6 months.

Interim findings from the study showed that Adzynma reduced the incidence of thrombocytopenia — the most common symptom of congenital TTP — by 60% compared with plasma-based therapy (rate ratio, 0.40). No patients experienced an acute TTP event during Adzynma prophylaxis, Takeda said.

Significantly more patients receiving plasma-based therapies experienced treatment-emergent adverse events compared with those receiving the biologic.

The most common side effects associated with the biologic were headache (31.3%), diarrhea (16.7%), migraine (14.6%), abdominal pain (12.5%), nausea (12.5%), upper respiratory tract infection (12.5%), dizziness (10.4%), and vomiting (10.4%). No treatment-related adverse events, including allergic reactions, were observed during administration.

“The FDA remains deeply committed in our efforts to help facilitate the development and approval of safe and effective therapies for patients with rare diseases,” Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, stated. The “approval reflects important progress in the development of much-needed treatment options for patients affected by this life-threatening disorder.”

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

Developments in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) were reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 Congress and are discussed by Dr Ann Partridge of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. 

To begin, Dr Partridge highlights a late-breaking abstract showing that use of the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) datopotamab deruxtecan in hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) MBC results in improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy. 

Next, Dr Partridge turns to two studies on another ADC, trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), in MBC. The first study showed positive PFS and overall survival results among patients with either estrogen receptor–positive (ER+)/HER2-low or triple-negative/HER2-low breast cancer. The second T-DXd study examined the ADC's impact on brain metastases in patients with HER2+ disease and reported favorable results. 

She then highlights promising phase 2 results for a novel agent called OP-1250, or palazestrant, studied in patients with ER+/HER2- MBC. 

Finally, Dr Partridge points to a study of a supportive-care program called MOATT, designed for patients on oral MBC therapy, which aims to improve home management. Compared with local standard of care, patients in the program show higher rates of persistence in therapy management and, importantly, concomitant improvements in PFS. 

--

Ann H. Partridge, MD, Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Vice Chair of Clinical Oncology, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 

Ann H. Partridge, MD, MPH, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Developments in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) were reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 Congress and are discussed by Dr Ann Partridge of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. 

To begin, Dr Partridge highlights a late-breaking abstract showing that use of the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) datopotamab deruxtecan in hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) MBC results in improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy. 

Next, Dr Partridge turns to two studies on another ADC, trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), in MBC. The first study showed positive PFS and overall survival results among patients with either estrogen receptor–positive (ER+)/HER2-low or triple-negative/HER2-low breast cancer. The second T-DXd study examined the ADC's impact on brain metastases in patients with HER2+ disease and reported favorable results. 

She then highlights promising phase 2 results for a novel agent called OP-1250, or palazestrant, studied in patients with ER+/HER2- MBC. 

Finally, Dr Partridge points to a study of a supportive-care program called MOATT, designed for patients on oral MBC therapy, which aims to improve home management. Compared with local standard of care, patients in the program show higher rates of persistence in therapy management and, importantly, concomitant improvements in PFS. 

--

Ann H. Partridge, MD, Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Vice Chair of Clinical Oncology, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 

Ann H. Partridge, MD, MPH, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

Developments in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) were reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2023 Congress and are discussed by Dr Ann Partridge of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. 

To begin, Dr Partridge highlights a late-breaking abstract showing that use of the antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) datopotamab deruxtecan in hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2-) MBC results in improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with chemotherapy. 

Next, Dr Partridge turns to two studies on another ADC, trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd), in MBC. The first study showed positive PFS and overall survival results among patients with either estrogen receptor–positive (ER+)/HER2-low or triple-negative/HER2-low breast cancer. The second T-DXd study examined the ADC's impact on brain metastases in patients with HER2+ disease and reported favorable results. 

She then highlights promising phase 2 results for a novel agent called OP-1250, or palazestrant, studied in patients with ER+/HER2- MBC. 

Finally, Dr Partridge points to a study of a supportive-care program called MOATT, designed for patients on oral MBC therapy, which aims to improve home management. Compared with local standard of care, patients in the program show higher rates of persistence in therapy management and, importantly, concomitant improvements in PFS. 

--

Ann H. Partridge, MD, Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Vice Chair of Clinical Oncology, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts 

Ann H. Partridge, MD, MPH, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.