AVAHO

Concizumab (Novo Nordisk), a subcutaneous monoclonal antibody administered once daily, shows significant reductions in annualized bleeding rates in patients with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors, potentially representing the first subcutaneous treatment option for patients with hemophilia B with inhibitors.

“These results demonstrate the potential of concizumab as an efficacious treatment option for people living with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors – the latter a population with severely limited treatment options,” first author Tadashi Matsushita, MD, PhD, of the department of transfusion medicine, Nagoya (Japan) University Hospital, said in an interview regarding the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results are from the prospective, multicenter, phase 3 explorer7 trial, involving 133 patients, including 80 with hemophilia A and 53 had hemophilia B, all with inhibitors, a complication of hemophilia therapy in which antibodies ‘inhibit’ clot formation and complicate standard treatment.

The patients, aged 12 or older and all receiving on-demand treatment with bypassing agents, were randomized to receive no prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (n = 19) or concizumab prophylaxis for at least 32 weeks (n = 33), with the remaining patients nonrandomly assigned to two groups receiving concizumab prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (n = 81).

For the primary endpoint of the estimated mean annualized bleeding rate, the rate in the no-prophylaxis group was 11.8 episodes versus just 1.7 episodes in the concizumab prophylaxis 32-week group (rate ratio, 0.14; P < .001).

The overall median annualized bleeding rate for patients in all three groups receiving concizumab was zero episodes.

Annualized rates of treated spontaneous, joint, and target joint bleeding episodes were also lower in the concizumab groups versus the no-prophylaxis group, with annualized rate ratios that were similar to the annualized rate ratio for the primary endpoint.

While similar annualized bleeding rates were observed in hemophilia subtypes, the study wasn’t powered to show superiority according the hemophilia A or B, the authors noted.

Plasma concentrations of concizumab remained stable over the course of the study.

There were no significant differences in terms of key secondary endpoints of change in bodily pain and physical functioning scores from the start of treatment to week 24.
 

Pause for safety

Treatment in the study was paused for 6 months from March 2020 to August 2020 following nonfatal thromboembolic events occurring in three patients receiving concizumab, including one in the explorer7 trial and two in the concurrent explorer8 trial, evaluating the drug in patients with hemophilia without inhibitors.

The authors wrote that the three patients had all received concomitant treatment for bleeding and had thrombotic risk factors including obesity and other comorbidities.

The trial resumed following mitigation measures that included revising the dosing regimen to include a 1–mg/kg concizumab loading dose, followed by a subcutaneous once-daily dose of 0.2 mg/kg concizumab. No further thromboembolic events were reported after the pause. Otherwise, adverse events were mainly low grade, with serious events being rare.
 

Option for hemophilia B important

Of the two disease types, hemophilia A is much more common, with an estimated prevalence in the United States of 12 cases per 100,000 males versus hemophilia B, which has a rate of only 3.7 cases per 100,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Women make up only about 1% of cases with moderate to severe hemophilia.

A standard treatment of hemophilia A or B is prophylaxis with factor replacement therapies allow for improved clotting and reduced bleeding. However, one caveat is the need for intravenous injections, as often as once daily in some cases.

The development of inhibitors in response to replacement therapy may further necessitate the need for treatment with bypassing agents for breakthrough bleeding.

As an alternative, non–factor replacement therapies can promote coagulation, notably the factor VIII mimetic emicizumab, given by subcutaneous injection, and approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for patients with and without inhibitors.

Emicizumab is recommended by the World Federation on Hemophilia over bypassing agents as prophylaxis for patients with hemophilia A and persistent inhibitors.

Importantly, however, there are no effective prophylactic treatments or easily administered subcutaneous therapies available for hemophilia B with inhibitors, underscoring the potential importance of concizumab, which targets the tissue factor pathway inhibitor protein, linked to coagulation.

“Concizumab has the potential to become the first subcutaneous and first-in-class treatment for hemophilia B with inhibitors,” Dr. Matsushita said. “There are other therapies investigated for hemophilia B with and without inhibitors still in clinical development,” he noted.
 

FDA resubmission planned

In May, Novo Nordisk announced that the FDA had rejected its application for concizumab, requesting more information on the drug’s manufacturing process and its system for the monitoring and dosing of patients to ensure proper drug administration. In a statement, Novo Nordisk reported its plans to move ahead.

“Novo Nordisk has begun addressing the FDA’s feedback and is working closely with the FDA as plans for resubmission continue,” the company reported. “We are confident in the potential of concizumab to address a significant unmet need, particularly for people with hemophilia B with inhibitors who currently have limited prophylactic options and are committed to bringing this important treatment to people with hemophilia with inhibitors living in the U.S.A.”

Meanwhile in Canada, concizumab was approved in March 2023 for the treatment of adolescent and adult patients with hemophilia B with inhibitors and who require routine prophylaxis to prevent or reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes.

The authors wrote that concizumab continues to be investigated across all hemophilia subtypes, including in the explorer10 study, which is evaluating the drug in children living with hemophilia A or B, with and without inhibitors.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Matsushita reported speaking for and participating on a scientific advisory board of Novo Nordisk.

Concizumab (Novo Nordisk), a subcutaneous monoclonal antibody administered once daily, shows significant reductions in annualized bleeding rates in patients with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors, potentially representing the first subcutaneous treatment option for patients with hemophilia B with inhibitors.

“These results demonstrate the potential of concizumab as an efficacious treatment option for people living with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors – the latter a population with severely limited treatment options,” first author Tadashi Matsushita, MD, PhD, of the department of transfusion medicine, Nagoya (Japan) University Hospital, said in an interview regarding the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results are from the prospective, multicenter, phase 3 explorer7 trial, involving 133 patients, including 80 with hemophilia A and 53 had hemophilia B, all with inhibitors, a complication of hemophilia therapy in which antibodies ‘inhibit’ clot formation and complicate standard treatment.

The patients, aged 12 or older and all receiving on-demand treatment with bypassing agents, were randomized to receive no prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (n = 19) or concizumab prophylaxis for at least 32 weeks (n = 33), with the remaining patients nonrandomly assigned to two groups receiving concizumab prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (n = 81).

For the primary endpoint of the estimated mean annualized bleeding rate, the rate in the no-prophylaxis group was 11.8 episodes versus just 1.7 episodes in the concizumab prophylaxis 32-week group (rate ratio, 0.14; P < .001).

The overall median annualized bleeding rate for patients in all three groups receiving concizumab was zero episodes.

Annualized rates of treated spontaneous, joint, and target joint bleeding episodes were also lower in the concizumab groups versus the no-prophylaxis group, with annualized rate ratios that were similar to the annualized rate ratio for the primary endpoint.

While similar annualized bleeding rates were observed in hemophilia subtypes, the study wasn’t powered to show superiority according the hemophilia A or B, the authors noted.

Plasma concentrations of concizumab remained stable over the course of the study.

There were no significant differences in terms of key secondary endpoints of change in bodily pain and physical functioning scores from the start of treatment to week 24.
 

Pause for safety

Treatment in the study was paused for 6 months from March 2020 to August 2020 following nonfatal thromboembolic events occurring in three patients receiving concizumab, including one in the explorer7 trial and two in the concurrent explorer8 trial, evaluating the drug in patients with hemophilia without inhibitors.

The authors wrote that the three patients had all received concomitant treatment for bleeding and had thrombotic risk factors including obesity and other comorbidities.

The trial resumed following mitigation measures that included revising the dosing regimen to include a 1–mg/kg concizumab loading dose, followed by a subcutaneous once-daily dose of 0.2 mg/kg concizumab. No further thromboembolic events were reported after the pause. Otherwise, adverse events were mainly low grade, with serious events being rare.
 

Option for hemophilia B important

Of the two disease types, hemophilia A is much more common, with an estimated prevalence in the United States of 12 cases per 100,000 males versus hemophilia B, which has a rate of only 3.7 cases per 100,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Women make up only about 1% of cases with moderate to severe hemophilia.

A standard treatment of hemophilia A or B is prophylaxis with factor replacement therapies allow for improved clotting and reduced bleeding. However, one caveat is the need for intravenous injections, as often as once daily in some cases.

The development of inhibitors in response to replacement therapy may further necessitate the need for treatment with bypassing agents for breakthrough bleeding.

As an alternative, non–factor replacement therapies can promote coagulation, notably the factor VIII mimetic emicizumab, given by subcutaneous injection, and approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for patients with and without inhibitors.

Emicizumab is recommended by the World Federation on Hemophilia over bypassing agents as prophylaxis for patients with hemophilia A and persistent inhibitors.

Importantly, however, there are no effective prophylactic treatments or easily administered subcutaneous therapies available for hemophilia B with inhibitors, underscoring the potential importance of concizumab, which targets the tissue factor pathway inhibitor protein, linked to coagulation.

“Concizumab has the potential to become the first subcutaneous and first-in-class treatment for hemophilia B with inhibitors,” Dr. Matsushita said. “There are other therapies investigated for hemophilia B with and without inhibitors still in clinical development,” he noted.
 

FDA resubmission planned

In May, Novo Nordisk announced that the FDA had rejected its application for concizumab, requesting more information on the drug’s manufacturing process and its system for the monitoring and dosing of patients to ensure proper drug administration. In a statement, Novo Nordisk reported its plans to move ahead.

“Novo Nordisk has begun addressing the FDA’s feedback and is working closely with the FDA as plans for resubmission continue,” the company reported. “We are confident in the potential of concizumab to address a significant unmet need, particularly for people with hemophilia B with inhibitors who currently have limited prophylactic options and are committed to bringing this important treatment to people with hemophilia with inhibitors living in the U.S.A.”

Meanwhile in Canada, concizumab was approved in March 2023 for the treatment of adolescent and adult patients with hemophilia B with inhibitors and who require routine prophylaxis to prevent or reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes.

The authors wrote that concizumab continues to be investigated across all hemophilia subtypes, including in the explorer10 study, which is evaluating the drug in children living with hemophilia A or B, with and without inhibitors.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Matsushita reported speaking for and participating on a scientific advisory board of Novo Nordisk.

Concizumab (Novo Nordisk), a subcutaneous monoclonal antibody administered once daily, shows significant reductions in annualized bleeding rates in patients with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors, potentially representing the first subcutaneous treatment option for patients with hemophilia B with inhibitors.

“These results demonstrate the potential of concizumab as an efficacious treatment option for people living with hemophilia A or B with inhibitors – the latter a population with severely limited treatment options,” first author Tadashi Matsushita, MD, PhD, of the department of transfusion medicine, Nagoya (Japan) University Hospital, said in an interview regarding the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results are from the prospective, multicenter, phase 3 explorer7 trial, involving 133 patients, including 80 with hemophilia A and 53 had hemophilia B, all with inhibitors, a complication of hemophilia therapy in which antibodies ‘inhibit’ clot formation and complicate standard treatment.

The patients, aged 12 or older and all receiving on-demand treatment with bypassing agents, were randomized to receive no prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (n = 19) or concizumab prophylaxis for at least 32 weeks (n = 33), with the remaining patients nonrandomly assigned to two groups receiving concizumab prophylaxis for at least 24 weeks (n = 81).

For the primary endpoint of the estimated mean annualized bleeding rate, the rate in the no-prophylaxis group was 11.8 episodes versus just 1.7 episodes in the concizumab prophylaxis 32-week group (rate ratio, 0.14; P < .001).

The overall median annualized bleeding rate for patients in all three groups receiving concizumab was zero episodes.

Annualized rates of treated spontaneous, joint, and target joint bleeding episodes were also lower in the concizumab groups versus the no-prophylaxis group, with annualized rate ratios that were similar to the annualized rate ratio for the primary endpoint.

While similar annualized bleeding rates were observed in hemophilia subtypes, the study wasn’t powered to show superiority according the hemophilia A or B, the authors noted.

Plasma concentrations of concizumab remained stable over the course of the study.

There were no significant differences in terms of key secondary endpoints of change in bodily pain and physical functioning scores from the start of treatment to week 24.
 

Pause for safety

Treatment in the study was paused for 6 months from March 2020 to August 2020 following nonfatal thromboembolic events occurring in three patients receiving concizumab, including one in the explorer7 trial and two in the concurrent explorer8 trial, evaluating the drug in patients with hemophilia without inhibitors.

The authors wrote that the three patients had all received concomitant treatment for bleeding and had thrombotic risk factors including obesity and other comorbidities.

The trial resumed following mitigation measures that included revising the dosing regimen to include a 1–mg/kg concizumab loading dose, followed by a subcutaneous once-daily dose of 0.2 mg/kg concizumab. No further thromboembolic events were reported after the pause. Otherwise, adverse events were mainly low grade, with serious events being rare.
 

Option for hemophilia B important

Of the two disease types, hemophilia A is much more common, with an estimated prevalence in the United States of 12 cases per 100,000 males versus hemophilia B, which has a rate of only 3.7 cases per 100,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Women make up only about 1% of cases with moderate to severe hemophilia.

A standard treatment of hemophilia A or B is prophylaxis with factor replacement therapies allow for improved clotting and reduced bleeding. However, one caveat is the need for intravenous injections, as often as once daily in some cases.

The development of inhibitors in response to replacement therapy may further necessitate the need for treatment with bypassing agents for breakthrough bleeding.

As an alternative, non–factor replacement therapies can promote coagulation, notably the factor VIII mimetic emicizumab, given by subcutaneous injection, and approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for patients with and without inhibitors.

Emicizumab is recommended by the World Federation on Hemophilia over bypassing agents as prophylaxis for patients with hemophilia A and persistent inhibitors.

Importantly, however, there are no effective prophylactic treatments or easily administered subcutaneous therapies available for hemophilia B with inhibitors, underscoring the potential importance of concizumab, which targets the tissue factor pathway inhibitor protein, linked to coagulation.

“Concizumab has the potential to become the first subcutaneous and first-in-class treatment for hemophilia B with inhibitors,” Dr. Matsushita said. “There are other therapies investigated for hemophilia B with and without inhibitors still in clinical development,” he noted.
 

FDA resubmission planned

In May, Novo Nordisk announced that the FDA had rejected its application for concizumab, requesting more information on the drug’s manufacturing process and its system for the monitoring and dosing of patients to ensure proper drug administration. In a statement, Novo Nordisk reported its plans to move ahead.

“Novo Nordisk has begun addressing the FDA’s feedback and is working closely with the FDA as plans for resubmission continue,” the company reported. “We are confident in the potential of concizumab to address a significant unmet need, particularly for people with hemophilia B with inhibitors who currently have limited prophylactic options and are committed to bringing this important treatment to people with hemophilia with inhibitors living in the U.S.A.”

Meanwhile in Canada, concizumab was approved in March 2023 for the treatment of adolescent and adult patients with hemophilia B with inhibitors and who require routine prophylaxis to prevent or reduce the frequency of bleeding episodes.

The authors wrote that concizumab continues to be investigated across all hemophilia subtypes, including in the explorer10 study, which is evaluating the drug in children living with hemophilia A or B, with and without inhibitors.

The study was supported by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Matsushita reported speaking for and participating on a scientific advisory board of Novo Nordisk.

A simple urine test can accurately diagnose urothelial carcinoma as well as predict the risk for recurrence for those under surveillance, according to findings from a recent validation study.

The urinary comprehensive genomic profiling (uCGP) assay (UroAmp, Convergent Genomics) had a specificity of 95% and sensitivity of 90% for an initial diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma in patients with hematuria – identifying 95 of 100 people with urothelial carcinoma and 90 of 100 patients without the disease.

For patients under surveillance for urothelial cancer recurrence, the test was six times more accurate than traditional clinical risk factors for predicting recurrence.

“Considering its performance in multiple areas of urothelial carcinoma diagnosis and monitoring, uCGP shows great promise to enhance delivery of risk-stratified care,” Keyan Salari, MD, PhD, director of the prostate cancer genetics program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues wrote in a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.

“The idea is that this could be used as kind of a first-pass screening tool for patients with hematuria that could potentially obviate the need for undergoing imaging such as CT scans or cystoscopy,” Dr. Salari said in an interview.

The uCGP test is a next-generation sequencing assay that identifies mutations in 60 genes associated with bladder cancer. An earlier analysis evaluating the test as a potential screening tool focused on 10 key genes covered in the assay. The study found the test accurately predicted future bladder cancer in 66% of urine samples, including some that had been collected more than a decade prior to being tested.

In the current case-control study, Dr. Salari and colleagues used a total of 581 samples – 333 samples for classifying disease and developing algorithms for initial diagnosis, surveillance, and molecular-grade prediction, as well as 248 samples for blinded validation. The test’s performance was evaluated by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.

Overall, the test demonstrated a specificity of 95% and sensitivity of 90% for an initial urothelial carcinoma diagnosis, but performed even better for the most aggressive tumors, with 100% sensitivity for diagnosing high-grade urothelial carcinoma and muscle-invasive tumors.

On the diagnosis front, the test had a positive predictive value of 88% and a negative predictive value of 99%.

Among patients under surveillance, the test predicted the risk of recurrence significantly better than standard clinical risk factors (hazard ratio, 6.2). The test demonstrated a positive predictive value similar to that observed for cytology (45% vs. 42%) but a much higher sensitivity (79% vs. 25%). The test also demonstrated a negative predictive value of 91% for recurrence.

The molecular-grade algorithm performed well, with a positive predictive value for high-grade disease of 88% and a specificity of 95% in the validation cohort.

Overall, “uCGP enables noninvasive, accurate urothelial carcinoma diagnosis and risk stratification in both hematuria and urothelial carcinoma surveillance patients,” the authors concluded. The test is not currently reimbursed by Medicare, but negotiations with third-party payers are reportedly underway.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Salari reported grants from Convergent Genomics during the conduct of the study as well as grants from Urology Care Foundation and Prostate Cancer Foundation, and personal fees from OrigiMed outside the submitted work. Several coauthors are employees and stockholders of Convergent Genomics.

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

A simple urine test can accurately diagnose urothelial carcinoma as well as predict the risk for recurrence for those under surveillance, according to findings from a recent validation study.

The urinary comprehensive genomic profiling (uCGP) assay (UroAmp, Convergent Genomics) had a specificity of 95% and sensitivity of 90% for an initial diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma in patients with hematuria – identifying 95 of 100 people with urothelial carcinoma and 90 of 100 patients without the disease.

For patients under surveillance for urothelial cancer recurrence, the test was six times more accurate than traditional clinical risk factors for predicting recurrence.

“Considering its performance in multiple areas of urothelial carcinoma diagnosis and monitoring, uCGP shows great promise to enhance delivery of risk-stratified care,” Keyan Salari, MD, PhD, director of the prostate cancer genetics program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues wrote in a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.

“The idea is that this could be used as kind of a first-pass screening tool for patients with hematuria that could potentially obviate the need for undergoing imaging such as CT scans or cystoscopy,” Dr. Salari said in an interview.

The uCGP test is a next-generation sequencing assay that identifies mutations in 60 genes associated with bladder cancer. An earlier analysis evaluating the test as a potential screening tool focused on 10 key genes covered in the assay. The study found the test accurately predicted future bladder cancer in 66% of urine samples, including some that had been collected more than a decade prior to being tested.

In the current case-control study, Dr. Salari and colleagues used a total of 581 samples – 333 samples for classifying disease and developing algorithms for initial diagnosis, surveillance, and molecular-grade prediction, as well as 248 samples for blinded validation. The test’s performance was evaluated by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.

Overall, the test demonstrated a specificity of 95% and sensitivity of 90% for an initial urothelial carcinoma diagnosis, but performed even better for the most aggressive tumors, with 100% sensitivity for diagnosing high-grade urothelial carcinoma and muscle-invasive tumors.

On the diagnosis front, the test had a positive predictive value of 88% and a negative predictive value of 99%.

Among patients under surveillance, the test predicted the risk of recurrence significantly better than standard clinical risk factors (hazard ratio, 6.2). The test demonstrated a positive predictive value similar to that observed for cytology (45% vs. 42%) but a much higher sensitivity (79% vs. 25%). The test also demonstrated a negative predictive value of 91% for recurrence.

The molecular-grade algorithm performed well, with a positive predictive value for high-grade disease of 88% and a specificity of 95% in the validation cohort.

Overall, “uCGP enables noninvasive, accurate urothelial carcinoma diagnosis and risk stratification in both hematuria and urothelial carcinoma surveillance patients,” the authors concluded. The test is not currently reimbursed by Medicare, but negotiations with third-party payers are reportedly underway.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Salari reported grants from Convergent Genomics during the conduct of the study as well as grants from Urology Care Foundation and Prostate Cancer Foundation, and personal fees from OrigiMed outside the submitted work. Several coauthors are employees and stockholders of Convergent Genomics.

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

A simple urine test can accurately diagnose urothelial carcinoma as well as predict the risk for recurrence for those under surveillance, according to findings from a recent validation study.

The urinary comprehensive genomic profiling (uCGP) assay (UroAmp, Convergent Genomics) had a specificity of 95% and sensitivity of 90% for an initial diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma in patients with hematuria – identifying 95 of 100 people with urothelial carcinoma and 90 of 100 patients without the disease.

For patients under surveillance for urothelial cancer recurrence, the test was six times more accurate than traditional clinical risk factors for predicting recurrence.

“Considering its performance in multiple areas of urothelial carcinoma diagnosis and monitoring, uCGP shows great promise to enhance delivery of risk-stratified care,” Keyan Salari, MD, PhD, director of the prostate cancer genetics program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues wrote in a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.

“The idea is that this could be used as kind of a first-pass screening tool for patients with hematuria that could potentially obviate the need for undergoing imaging such as CT scans or cystoscopy,” Dr. Salari said in an interview.

The uCGP test is a next-generation sequencing assay that identifies mutations in 60 genes associated with bladder cancer. An earlier analysis evaluating the test as a potential screening tool focused on 10 key genes covered in the assay. The study found the test accurately predicted future bladder cancer in 66% of urine samples, including some that had been collected more than a decade prior to being tested.

In the current case-control study, Dr. Salari and colleagues used a total of 581 samples – 333 samples for classifying disease and developing algorithms for initial diagnosis, surveillance, and molecular-grade prediction, as well as 248 samples for blinded validation. The test’s performance was evaluated by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.

Overall, the test demonstrated a specificity of 95% and sensitivity of 90% for an initial urothelial carcinoma diagnosis, but performed even better for the most aggressive tumors, with 100% sensitivity for diagnosing high-grade urothelial carcinoma and muscle-invasive tumors.

On the diagnosis front, the test had a positive predictive value of 88% and a negative predictive value of 99%.

Among patients under surveillance, the test predicted the risk of recurrence significantly better than standard clinical risk factors (hazard ratio, 6.2). The test demonstrated a positive predictive value similar to that observed for cytology (45% vs. 42%) but a much higher sensitivity (79% vs. 25%). The test also demonstrated a negative predictive value of 91% for recurrence.

The molecular-grade algorithm performed well, with a positive predictive value for high-grade disease of 88% and a specificity of 95% in the validation cohort.

Overall, “uCGP enables noninvasive, accurate urothelial carcinoma diagnosis and risk stratification in both hematuria and urothelial carcinoma surveillance patients,” the authors concluded. The test is not currently reimbursed by Medicare, but negotiations with third-party payers are reportedly underway.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Salari reported grants from Convergent Genomics during the conduct of the study as well as grants from Urology Care Foundation and Prostate Cancer Foundation, and personal fees from OrigiMed outside the submitted work. Several coauthors are employees and stockholders of Convergent Genomics.

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

This transcript from Impact Factor has been edited for clarity.

If you are my age or older, and like me, you are something of a rule follower, then you’re getting screened for various cancers.

Colonoscopies, mammograms, cervical cancer screening, chest CTs for people with a significant smoking history. The tests are done and usually, but not always, they are negative. And if positive, usually, but not always, follow-up tests are negative, and if they aren’t and a new cancer is diagnosed you tell yourself, Well, at least we caught it early. Isn’t it good that I’m a rule follower? My life was just saved.

But it turns out, proving that cancer screening actually saves lives is quite difficult. Is it possible that all this screening is for nothing?

The benefits, risks, or perhaps futility of cancer screening is in the news this week because of this article, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine.

It’s a meta-analysis of very specific randomized trials of cancer screening modalities and concludes that, with the exception of sigmoidoscopy for colon cancer screening, none of them meaningfully change life expectancy.

Now – a bit of inside baseball here – I almost never choose to discuss meta-analyses on Impact Factor. It’s hard enough to dig deep into the methodology of a single study, but with a meta-analysis, you’re sort of obligated to review all the included studies, and, what’s worse, the studies that were not included but might bear on the central question.

In this case, though, the topic is important enough to think about a bit more, and the conclusions have large enough implications for public health that we should question them a bit.

First, let’s run down the study as presented.

The authors searched for randomized trials of cancer screening modalities. This is important, and I think appropriate. They wanted studies that took some people and assigned them to screening, and some people to no screening – avoiding the confounding that would come from observational data (rule followers like me tend to live longer owing to a variety of healthful behaviors, not just cancer screening).

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

JAMA Internal Medicine

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript from Impact Factor has been edited for clarity.

If you are my age or older, and like me, you are something of a rule follower, then you’re getting screened for various cancers.

Colonoscopies, mammograms, cervical cancer screening, chest CTs for people with a significant smoking history. The tests are done and usually, but not always, they are negative. And if positive, usually, but not always, follow-up tests are negative, and if they aren’t and a new cancer is diagnosed you tell yourself, Well, at least we caught it early. Isn’t it good that I’m a rule follower? My life was just saved.

But it turns out, proving that cancer screening actually saves lives is quite difficult. Is it possible that all this screening is for nothing?

The benefits, risks, or perhaps futility of cancer screening is in the news this week because of this article, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine.

It’s a meta-analysis of very specific randomized trials of cancer screening modalities and concludes that, with the exception of sigmoidoscopy for colon cancer screening, none of them meaningfully change life expectancy.

Now – a bit of inside baseball here – I almost never choose to discuss meta-analyses on Impact Factor. It’s hard enough to dig deep into the methodology of a single study, but with a meta-analysis, you’re sort of obligated to review all the included studies, and, what’s worse, the studies that were not included but might bear on the central question.

In this case, though, the topic is important enough to think about a bit more, and the conclusions have large enough implications for public health that we should question them a bit.

First, let’s run down the study as presented.

The authors searched for randomized trials of cancer screening modalities. This is important, and I think appropriate. They wanted studies that took some people and assigned them to screening, and some people to no screening – avoiding the confounding that would come from observational data (rule followers like me tend to live longer owing to a variety of healthful behaviors, not just cancer screening).

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

JAMA Internal Medicine

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript from Impact Factor has been edited for clarity.

If you are my age or older, and like me, you are something of a rule follower, then you’re getting screened for various cancers.

Colonoscopies, mammograms, cervical cancer screening, chest CTs for people with a significant smoking history. The tests are done and usually, but not always, they are negative. And if positive, usually, but not always, follow-up tests are negative, and if they aren’t and a new cancer is diagnosed you tell yourself, Well, at least we caught it early. Isn’t it good that I’m a rule follower? My life was just saved.

But it turns out, proving that cancer screening actually saves lives is quite difficult. Is it possible that all this screening is for nothing?

The benefits, risks, or perhaps futility of cancer screening is in the news this week because of this article, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine.

It’s a meta-analysis of very specific randomized trials of cancer screening modalities and concludes that, with the exception of sigmoidoscopy for colon cancer screening, none of them meaningfully change life expectancy.

Now – a bit of inside baseball here – I almost never choose to discuss meta-analyses on Impact Factor. It’s hard enough to dig deep into the methodology of a single study, but with a meta-analysis, you’re sort of obligated to review all the included studies, and, what’s worse, the studies that were not included but might bear on the central question.

In this case, though, the topic is important enough to think about a bit more, and the conclusions have large enough implications for public health that we should question them a bit.

First, let’s run down the study as presented.

The authors searched for randomized trials of cancer screening modalities. This is important, and I think appropriate. They wanted studies that took some people and assigned them to screening, and some people to no screening – avoiding the confounding that would come from observational data (rule followers like me tend to live longer owing to a variety of healthful behaviors, not just cancer screening).

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

JAMA Internal Medicine

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his new book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

Depression and anxiety were not associated with outcomes for most cancer types, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, and alcohol-related cancer, according to findings from a large, individual participant data meta-analysis.

An exception was for lung and smoking-related cancers, but key covariates appeared to explain the relationship between depression, anxiety, and these cancer types, the investigators reported.

The findings challenge a common theory that depression and anxiety increase cancer risk and should “change current thinking,” they argue.

“Our results may come as a relief to many patients with cancer who believe their diagnosis is attributed to previous anxiety or depression,” first author Lonneke A. van Tuijl, PhD, of the University of Groningen and Utrecht University, the Netherlands, noted in a press release.

Analyses included data from up to nearly 320,000 individuals from the 18 prospective cohorts included in the international Psychosocial Factors and Cancer Incidence (PSY-CA) consortium. The cohorts are from studies conducted in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada, and included 25,803 patients with cancer. During follow-up of up to 26 years and more than 3.2 million person-years, depression and anxiety symptoms and diagnoses showed no association with overall breast, prostate, colorectal, and alcohol-related cancers (hazard ratios, 0.98-1.05).

For the specific cancer types, the investigators “found no evidence for an association between depression or anxiety and the incidence of colorectal cancer (HRs, 0.88-1.13), prostate cancer (HRs, 0.97-1.17), or alcohol-related cancers (HRs, 0.97-1.06).”

“For breast cancer, all pooled HRs were consistently negative but mean pooled HRs were close to 1 (HRs, 0.92-0.98) and the upper limit of the 95% confidence intervals all exceeded 1 (with the exception of anxiety symptoms),” they noted.

An increase in risk observed between depression and anxiety symptoms and diagnoses and lung cancer (HRs, 1.12-1.60) and smoking-related cancers (HRs, 1.06-1.60), in minimally adjusted models, was substantially attenuated after adjusting for known risk factors such as smoking, alcohol use, and body mass index (HRs, 1.04-1.08), the investigators reported.

The findings were published online in Cancer.

“Depression and anxiety have long been hypothesized to increase the risk for cancer. It is thought that the increased cancer risk can occur via several pathways, including health behaviors, or by influencing mutation, viral oncogenes, cell proliferation, or DNA repair,” the authors explained, noting that “[c]onclusions drawn in meta-analyses vary greatly, with some supporting an association between depression, anxiety, and cancer incidence and others finding no or a negligible association.”

The current findings “may help health professionals to alleviate feelings of guilt and self-blame in patients with cancer who attribute their diagnosis to previous depression or anxiety,” they said, noting that the findings “also underscore the importance of addressing tobacco smoking and other unhealthy behaviors – including those that may develop as a result of anxiety or depression.”

“However, further research is needed to understand exactly how depression, anxiety, health behaviors, and lung cancer are related,” said Dr. Tuijl.

Dr. Tuijl has received grants and travel support from the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF).
 

Depression and anxiety were not associated with outcomes for most cancer types, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, and alcohol-related cancer, according to findings from a large, individual participant data meta-analysis.

An exception was for lung and smoking-related cancers, but key covariates appeared to explain the relationship between depression, anxiety, and these cancer types, the investigators reported.

The findings challenge a common theory that depression and anxiety increase cancer risk and should “change current thinking,” they argue.

“Our results may come as a relief to many patients with cancer who believe their diagnosis is attributed to previous anxiety or depression,” first author Lonneke A. van Tuijl, PhD, of the University of Groningen and Utrecht University, the Netherlands, noted in a press release.

Analyses included data from up to nearly 320,000 individuals from the 18 prospective cohorts included in the international Psychosocial Factors and Cancer Incidence (PSY-CA) consortium. The cohorts are from studies conducted in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada, and included 25,803 patients with cancer. During follow-up of up to 26 years and more than 3.2 million person-years, depression and anxiety symptoms and diagnoses showed no association with overall breast, prostate, colorectal, and alcohol-related cancers (hazard ratios, 0.98-1.05).

For the specific cancer types, the investigators “found no evidence for an association between depression or anxiety and the incidence of colorectal cancer (HRs, 0.88-1.13), prostate cancer (HRs, 0.97-1.17), or alcohol-related cancers (HRs, 0.97-1.06).”

“For breast cancer, all pooled HRs were consistently negative but mean pooled HRs were close to 1 (HRs, 0.92-0.98) and the upper limit of the 95% confidence intervals all exceeded 1 (with the exception of anxiety symptoms),” they noted.

An increase in risk observed between depression and anxiety symptoms and diagnoses and lung cancer (HRs, 1.12-1.60) and smoking-related cancers (HRs, 1.06-1.60), in minimally adjusted models, was substantially attenuated after adjusting for known risk factors such as smoking, alcohol use, and body mass index (HRs, 1.04-1.08), the investigators reported.

The findings were published online in Cancer.

“Depression and anxiety have long been hypothesized to increase the risk for cancer. It is thought that the increased cancer risk can occur via several pathways, including health behaviors, or by influencing mutation, viral oncogenes, cell proliferation, or DNA repair,” the authors explained, noting that “[c]onclusions drawn in meta-analyses vary greatly, with some supporting an association between depression, anxiety, and cancer incidence and others finding no or a negligible association.”

The current findings “may help health professionals to alleviate feelings of guilt and self-blame in patients with cancer who attribute their diagnosis to previous depression or anxiety,” they said, noting that the findings “also underscore the importance of addressing tobacco smoking and other unhealthy behaviors – including those that may develop as a result of anxiety or depression.”

“However, further research is needed to understand exactly how depression, anxiety, health behaviors, and lung cancer are related,” said Dr. Tuijl.

Dr. Tuijl has received grants and travel support from the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF).
 

Depression and anxiety were not associated with outcomes for most cancer types, including breast cancer, prostate cancer, and alcohol-related cancer, according to findings from a large, individual participant data meta-analysis.

An exception was for lung and smoking-related cancers, but key covariates appeared to explain the relationship between depression, anxiety, and these cancer types, the investigators reported.

The findings challenge a common theory that depression and anxiety increase cancer risk and should “change current thinking,” they argue.

“Our results may come as a relief to many patients with cancer who believe their diagnosis is attributed to previous anxiety or depression,” first author Lonneke A. van Tuijl, PhD, of the University of Groningen and Utrecht University, the Netherlands, noted in a press release.

Analyses included data from up to nearly 320,000 individuals from the 18 prospective cohorts included in the international Psychosocial Factors and Cancer Incidence (PSY-CA) consortium. The cohorts are from studies conducted in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Norway, and Canada, and included 25,803 patients with cancer. During follow-up of up to 26 years and more than 3.2 million person-years, depression and anxiety symptoms and diagnoses showed no association with overall breast, prostate, colorectal, and alcohol-related cancers (hazard ratios, 0.98-1.05).

For the specific cancer types, the investigators “found no evidence for an association between depression or anxiety and the incidence of colorectal cancer (HRs, 0.88-1.13), prostate cancer (HRs, 0.97-1.17), or alcohol-related cancers (HRs, 0.97-1.06).”

“For breast cancer, all pooled HRs were consistently negative but mean pooled HRs were close to 1 (HRs, 0.92-0.98) and the upper limit of the 95% confidence intervals all exceeded 1 (with the exception of anxiety symptoms),” they noted.

An increase in risk observed between depression and anxiety symptoms and diagnoses and lung cancer (HRs, 1.12-1.60) and smoking-related cancers (HRs, 1.06-1.60), in minimally adjusted models, was substantially attenuated after adjusting for known risk factors such as smoking, alcohol use, and body mass index (HRs, 1.04-1.08), the investigators reported.

The findings were published online in Cancer.

“Depression and anxiety have long been hypothesized to increase the risk for cancer. It is thought that the increased cancer risk can occur via several pathways, including health behaviors, or by influencing mutation, viral oncogenes, cell proliferation, or DNA repair,” the authors explained, noting that “[c]onclusions drawn in meta-analyses vary greatly, with some supporting an association between depression, anxiety, and cancer incidence and others finding no or a negligible association.”

The current findings “may help health professionals to alleviate feelings of guilt and self-blame in patients with cancer who attribute their diagnosis to previous depression or anxiety,” they said, noting that the findings “also underscore the importance of addressing tobacco smoking and other unhealthy behaviors – including those that may develop as a result of anxiety or depression.”

“However, further research is needed to understand exactly how depression, anxiety, health behaviors, and lung cancer are related,” said Dr. Tuijl.

Dr. Tuijl has received grants and travel support from the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF).
 

Vitamin D supplementation significantly reduced the risk of relapse or death in a subgroup of patients with digestive tract cancer who were p53-immunoreactive, a recent analysis found.

In the p53-immunoreactive subgroup, daily vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of relapse or death by 73%. Overall, the 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) among those receiving vitamin D was 81% vs. almost 31% in the placebo group.

Vitamin D supplementation, however, had no effect on survival outcomes in the non–p53-immunoreactive subgroup.

©Kaspri/Fotolia.com

These findings represent a “game changer” for vitamin D and cancer, Michael Holick, PhD, MD, with Boston University, said in an editorial accompanying the study, published online in JAMA Network Open. The AMATERASU trial “provides an additional variable in our understanding of whether improving vitamin D status has any benefit for reducing risk of developing cancer as well as improving relapse-free and mortality outcomes.”

A growing body of research suggests that vitamin D supplementation may reduce the risk of cancer mortality, but the evidence remains mixed and efficacy may hinge on a patient’s tumor biology, specifically the p53 protein, the authors of the current analysis explained.

A 2019 randomized controlled trial from the research team found vitamin D supplements of 2000 IU/day did not improve RFS at 5 years in patients with digestive tract cancers. However, a post hoc analysis of the AMATERASU trial published in 2020 suggested that vitamin D supplementation improved RFS in a subgroup of patients with p53-positive digestive tract cancers, as seen using immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining (79% vs. 57% in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.52; P = .02).

In the current post hoc analysis of the AMATERASU trial, the research team explored whether vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of relapse or death in the subgroup of patients who were p53 immunoreactive, defined as positivity for both nuclear accumulation of the p53 protein in more than 99% of cancer cells, as seen on IHC staining, as well as anti-p53 antibodies in serum.

In the trial, patients with stage I-III luminal gastrointestinal cancer who had undergone complete tumor resection were randomly assigned to receive placebo or oral vitamin D supplements of 2,000 IU/day from their first postoperative visit through the end of the trial, up to 8 years.

The current post hoc analysis by p53-immunoreactive status included 392 patients, of whom 47% had colorectal cancer, 43% had gastric cancer, 9% had esophageal cancer, and 0.5% had small-bowel cancer.

The post hoc analysis found that, among the p53-immunoreactive subgroup of 80 patients, relapse or death occurred in 9 of 54 patients (17%) in the vitamin D group and 14 of 26 patients (54%) in the placebo group. The 5-year RFS was significantly higher in the vitamin D group than the placebo group (81% vs. 31%; HR, 0.27; P = .002).

This was not the case in the 272 patients in the non–p53-immunoreactive subgroup. In this group, vitamin D supplementation had no apparent effect on 5-year RFS, compared with placebo (22% vs. 21%; HR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.84).

The main findings of this study were that daily supplementation of 2000 IU of vitamin D reduced the risk of relapse or death, compared with placebo, in the p53-immunoreactive subgroup, and they “suggest the importance of developing cancer immunotherapy targeting mutated p53 proteins,” study investigator Mitsuyoshi Urashima, MD, PhD, MPH, with Jikei University, Tokyo, and colleagues concluded.

Support for the study was provided by the Japan-Supported Program for the Strategic Research Foundation at Private Universities and a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology. The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Holick reported grants from Carbogen Amcis and Solius; personal fees from Biogena, Sanofi, Faes Farma, Eric Anthony Nepute, and others; nonfinancial support from Ontometrics outside the submitted work; and had a patent for Novel Use of 25 hydroxy vitamin D pending for Carbogen Amcis BV and Aamanya AG.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Vitamin D supplementation significantly reduced the risk of relapse or death in a subgroup of patients with digestive tract cancer who were p53-immunoreactive, a recent analysis found.

In the p53-immunoreactive subgroup, daily vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of relapse or death by 73%. Overall, the 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) among those receiving vitamin D was 81% vs. almost 31% in the placebo group.

Vitamin D supplementation, however, had no effect on survival outcomes in the non–p53-immunoreactive subgroup.

©Kaspri/Fotolia.com

These findings represent a “game changer” for vitamin D and cancer, Michael Holick, PhD, MD, with Boston University, said in an editorial accompanying the study, published online in JAMA Network Open. The AMATERASU trial “provides an additional variable in our understanding of whether improving vitamin D status has any benefit for reducing risk of developing cancer as well as improving relapse-free and mortality outcomes.”

A growing body of research suggests that vitamin D supplementation may reduce the risk of cancer mortality, but the evidence remains mixed and efficacy may hinge on a patient’s tumor biology, specifically the p53 protein, the authors of the current analysis explained.

A 2019 randomized controlled trial from the research team found vitamin D supplements of 2000 IU/day did not improve RFS at 5 years in patients with digestive tract cancers. However, a post hoc analysis of the AMATERASU trial published in 2020 suggested that vitamin D supplementation improved RFS in a subgroup of patients with p53-positive digestive tract cancers, as seen using immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining (79% vs. 57% in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.52; P = .02).

In the current post hoc analysis of the AMATERASU trial, the research team explored whether vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of relapse or death in the subgroup of patients who were p53 immunoreactive, defined as positivity for both nuclear accumulation of the p53 protein in more than 99% of cancer cells, as seen on IHC staining, as well as anti-p53 antibodies in serum.

In the trial, patients with stage I-III luminal gastrointestinal cancer who had undergone complete tumor resection were randomly assigned to receive placebo or oral vitamin D supplements of 2,000 IU/day from their first postoperative visit through the end of the trial, up to 8 years.

The current post hoc analysis by p53-immunoreactive status included 392 patients, of whom 47% had colorectal cancer, 43% had gastric cancer, 9% had esophageal cancer, and 0.5% had small-bowel cancer.

The post hoc analysis found that, among the p53-immunoreactive subgroup of 80 patients, relapse or death occurred in 9 of 54 patients (17%) in the vitamin D group and 14 of 26 patients (54%) in the placebo group. The 5-year RFS was significantly higher in the vitamin D group than the placebo group (81% vs. 31%; HR, 0.27; P = .002).

This was not the case in the 272 patients in the non–p53-immunoreactive subgroup. In this group, vitamin D supplementation had no apparent effect on 5-year RFS, compared with placebo (22% vs. 21%; HR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.84).

The main findings of this study were that daily supplementation of 2000 IU of vitamin D reduced the risk of relapse or death, compared with placebo, in the p53-immunoreactive subgroup, and they “suggest the importance of developing cancer immunotherapy targeting mutated p53 proteins,” study investigator Mitsuyoshi Urashima, MD, PhD, MPH, with Jikei University, Tokyo, and colleagues concluded.

Support for the study was provided by the Japan-Supported Program for the Strategic Research Foundation at Private Universities and a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology. The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Holick reported grants from Carbogen Amcis and Solius; personal fees from Biogena, Sanofi, Faes Farma, Eric Anthony Nepute, and others; nonfinancial support from Ontometrics outside the submitted work; and had a patent for Novel Use of 25 hydroxy vitamin D pending for Carbogen Amcis BV and Aamanya AG.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Vitamin D supplementation significantly reduced the risk of relapse or death in a subgroup of patients with digestive tract cancer who were p53-immunoreactive, a recent analysis found.

In the p53-immunoreactive subgroup, daily vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of relapse or death by 73%. Overall, the 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) among those receiving vitamin D was 81% vs. almost 31% in the placebo group.

Vitamin D supplementation, however, had no effect on survival outcomes in the non–p53-immunoreactive subgroup.

©Kaspri/Fotolia.com

These findings represent a “game changer” for vitamin D and cancer, Michael Holick, PhD, MD, with Boston University, said in an editorial accompanying the study, published online in JAMA Network Open. The AMATERASU trial “provides an additional variable in our understanding of whether improving vitamin D status has any benefit for reducing risk of developing cancer as well as improving relapse-free and mortality outcomes.”

A growing body of research suggests that vitamin D supplementation may reduce the risk of cancer mortality, but the evidence remains mixed and efficacy may hinge on a patient’s tumor biology, specifically the p53 protein, the authors of the current analysis explained.

A 2019 randomized controlled trial from the research team found vitamin D supplements of 2000 IU/day did not improve RFS at 5 years in patients with digestive tract cancers. However, a post hoc analysis of the AMATERASU trial published in 2020 suggested that vitamin D supplementation improved RFS in a subgroup of patients with p53-positive digestive tract cancers, as seen using immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining (79% vs. 57% in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.52; P = .02).

In the current post hoc analysis of the AMATERASU trial, the research team explored whether vitamin D supplementation reduced the risk of relapse or death in the subgroup of patients who were p53 immunoreactive, defined as positivity for both nuclear accumulation of the p53 protein in more than 99% of cancer cells, as seen on IHC staining, as well as anti-p53 antibodies in serum.

In the trial, patients with stage I-III luminal gastrointestinal cancer who had undergone complete tumor resection were randomly assigned to receive placebo or oral vitamin D supplements of 2,000 IU/day from their first postoperative visit through the end of the trial, up to 8 years.

The current post hoc analysis by p53-immunoreactive status included 392 patients, of whom 47% had colorectal cancer, 43% had gastric cancer, 9% had esophageal cancer, and 0.5% had small-bowel cancer.

The post hoc analysis found that, among the p53-immunoreactive subgroup of 80 patients, relapse or death occurred in 9 of 54 patients (17%) in the vitamin D group and 14 of 26 patients (54%) in the placebo group. The 5-year RFS was significantly higher in the vitamin D group than the placebo group (81% vs. 31%; HR, 0.27; P = .002).

This was not the case in the 272 patients in the non–p53-immunoreactive subgroup. In this group, vitamin D supplementation had no apparent effect on 5-year RFS, compared with placebo (22% vs. 21%; HR, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.84).

The main findings of this study were that daily supplementation of 2000 IU of vitamin D reduced the risk of relapse or death, compared with placebo, in the p53-immunoreactive subgroup, and they “suggest the importance of developing cancer immunotherapy targeting mutated p53 proteins,” study investigator Mitsuyoshi Urashima, MD, PhD, MPH, with Jikei University, Tokyo, and colleagues concluded.

Support for the study was provided by the Japan-Supported Program for the Strategic Research Foundation at Private Universities and a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology. The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Holick reported grants from Carbogen Amcis and Solius; personal fees from Biogena, Sanofi, Faes Farma, Eric Anthony Nepute, and others; nonfinancial support from Ontometrics outside the submitted work; and had a patent for Novel Use of 25 hydroxy vitamin D pending for Carbogen Amcis BV and Aamanya AG.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A team at Lyon’s Cancer Research Center (CRCL) has revealed the role of an enzyme, PRMT5, in the response to tamoxifen, a drug used to prevent relapse in premenopausal women with breast cancer. The protein could become the first predictive marker of response to tamoxifen.

Muriel Le Romancer, MD, director of research at France’s Institute of Health and Medical Research, explained the issues involved in this discovery in an interview. She jointly led this research along with Olivier Trédan, MD, PhD, oncologist at Lyon’s Léon Bérard Clinic. The research concluded with the publication of a study in EMBO Molecular Medicine. The researchers both head up the CRCL’s hormone resistance, methylation, and breast cancer team.

Although the enzyme’s involvement in the mode of action of tamoxifen has been observed in close to 900 patients with breast cancer, these results need to be validated in other at-risk patient cohorts before the biomarker can be considered for routine use, said Dr. Le Romancer. She estimated that 2 more years of research are needed.

Can you tell us which cases involve the use of tamoxifen and what its mode of action is?

Dr. Le Romancer: Tamoxifen is a hormone therapy used to reduce the risk of breast cancer relapse. It is prescribed to premenopausal women with hormone-sensitive cancer, which equates to roughly 25% of women with breast cancer: 15,000 women each year. The drug, which is taken every day via oral administration, is an estrogen antagonist. By binding to these receptors, it blocks estrogen from mediating its biological effect in the breasts. Aromatase inhibitors are the preferred choice in postmenopausal women, as they have been shown to be more effective. These also have an antiestrogenic effect, but by inhibiting estrogen production.

Tamoxifen therapy is prescribed for a minimum period of 5 years. Despite this, 25% of women treated with tamoxifen relapse. Tamoxifen resistance is unique in that it occurs very late on, generally 10-15 years after starting treatment. This means that it’s really important for us to identify predictive markers of the response to hormone therapy to adapt treatment as best we can. For the moment, the only criteria used to prescribe tamoxifen are patient age and the presence of estrogen receptors within the tumor.

Exactly how would treatment be improved if a decisive predictive marker of response to tamoxifen could be identified?

Dr. Le Romancer: Currently, when a patient’s breast cancer relapses after several years of treatment with tamoxifen, we don’t know if the relapse is linked to tamoxifen resistance or not. This makes it difficult to choose the right treatment to manage such relapses, which remain complicated to treat. Lots of patients die because of metastases.

By predicting the response to tamoxifen using a marker, we will be able to either use another hormone therapy to prevent the relapse or prescribe tamoxifen alongside a molecule that stops resistance from developing. We hope that this will significantly reduce the rate of relapse.

You put forward PRMT5 as a potential predictive marker of response to tamoxifen. What makes you think it could be used in this way?

Dr. Le Romancer: Our research has allowed us to demonstrate that PRMT5, when present in the nuclei of tumor cells, is involved in the mechanisms of action of tamoxifen. Remember that estrogen receptors are located in cell nuclei. For tamoxifen to exert its antitumoral action, PRMT5, an enzyme, needs to enter the nucleus to modify the estrogen receptor. It’s this modification that allows tamoxifen to inhibit tumor growth. The proliferative effect induced by the estrogens is also blocked.

The results of our study showed that high nuclear expression of PRMT5, specifically in the nuclei of breast cancer cells, is associated with a prolonged survival of tamoxifen-treated patients. Until now, we thought this enzyme had an oncogenic role when present in the cytoplasm. It turns out that it also has the opposite effect when acting within the nucleus, at least in this patient cohort: women with hormone-sensitive breast cancer treated with tamoxifen.

What are the next steps in your research before we can begin to think about its use in clinical practice?

Dr. Le Romancer: Our next research will focus on understanding the circumstances surrounding PRMT5 entering and leaving the nucleus. We have also shown that in some patients, tamoxifen causes PRMT5 to enter the cell nucleus. This translocation is only seen in women who respond to tamoxifen, not in those who are resistant to treatment with the drug. All that remains is for us to work out how tamoxifen facilitates this translocation.

Once the elements promoting this translocation have been identified, we will be able to propose a treatment aimed at forcing the enzyme to enter the nucleus and stay there. Eventually, the idea is to combine treatment with antiestrogens with a medicinal product that promotes localization of PRMT5 in the nucleus to guarantee response to tamoxifen. It will be a few years of research before we can apply our findings to clinical practice.

Could we use this biomarker as is just to identify tamoxifen resistance?

Dr. Le Romancer: In the short term, yes, we could use this biomarker to better guide treatment choices at time of diagnosis. We have demonstrated the role of PRMT5 in response to tamoxifen by studying two cohorts of 900 patients with breast cancer receiving treatment at the Léon Bérard Center, Lyon. Before moving on to routine testing, we need to replicate these results in other cohorts, especially in high-risk patients with, for example, greater cell proliferation or those who experience relapse.

The use of this biomarker is based on histological examination of cancer tissue. Single antibody tissue staining targeting PRMT5 reveals the localization of the enzyme in the cells and provides a score evaluating its presence in the nucleus. Using this score, it would be possible to determine the level of response to tamoxifen and decide whether the treatment should be used. This biomarker is the first of its kind undergoing validation as part of the examination of resistance to hormone therapy. We should be able to confirm the findings within the next 2 years.

If clinical tests using this biomarker predict tamoxifen resistance, what alternative treatments are available to these patients?

Dr. Le Romancer: We could give them an aromatase inhibitor or one of the new estrogen antagonists that are currently in development. In a phase 3 study, fulvestrant (Faslodex), for example, demonstrated a significant benefit in treating women with hormone-sensitive advanced breast cancer when administered via injection. The same goes for oral treatment, elacestrant (Orserdu), which has recently been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. These treatments are usually deemed second line after tamoxifen, but they could certainly be used as first-line therapy in resistant patients.

The results obtained from research into novel estrogen antagonists are certainly encouraging. Can tamoxifen retain its prominent position while still ensuring its efficacy?

Dr. Le Romancer: Keeping in mind the current trend for personalized medicine, we should keep as many treatment options open as possible. When a patient relapses, there need to be other treatments available to them. Tamoxifen has been ousted in favor of aromatase inhibitors for postmenopausal women, but it’s still the gold standard for premenopausal women and has been for over 20 years. Despite having been replaced by a novel estrogen antagonist, it will still have a prominent place in the therapeutic arsenal of premenopausal women with breast cancer.

With the development of PRMT5 as a predictive biomarker, we could even see tamoxifen being proposed as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women in whom high levels of PRMT5 are found in the nuclei of their cancer cells. By predicting their response, we could achieve greater efficacy of tamoxifen, compared with aromatase inhibitors. For now, this remains a hypothesis and must be verified in further clinical studies.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

A team at Lyon’s Cancer Research Center (CRCL) has revealed the role of an enzyme, PRMT5, in the response to tamoxifen, a drug used to prevent relapse in premenopausal women with breast cancer. The protein could become the first predictive marker of response to tamoxifen.

Muriel Le Romancer, MD, director of research at France’s Institute of Health and Medical Research, explained the issues involved in this discovery in an interview. She jointly led this research along with Olivier Trédan, MD, PhD, oncologist at Lyon’s Léon Bérard Clinic. The research concluded with the publication of a study in EMBO Molecular Medicine. The researchers both head up the CRCL’s hormone resistance, methylation, and breast cancer team.

Although the enzyme’s involvement in the mode of action of tamoxifen has been observed in close to 900 patients with breast cancer, these results need to be validated in other at-risk patient cohorts before the biomarker can be considered for routine use, said Dr. Le Romancer. She estimated that 2 more years of research are needed.

Can you tell us which cases involve the use of tamoxifen and what its mode of action is?

Dr. Le Romancer: Tamoxifen is a hormone therapy used to reduce the risk of breast cancer relapse. It is prescribed to premenopausal women with hormone-sensitive cancer, which equates to roughly 25% of women with breast cancer: 15,000 women each year. The drug, which is taken every day via oral administration, is an estrogen antagonist. By binding to these receptors, it blocks estrogen from mediating its biological effect in the breasts. Aromatase inhibitors are the preferred choice in postmenopausal women, as they have been shown to be more effective. These also have an antiestrogenic effect, but by inhibiting estrogen production.

Tamoxifen therapy is prescribed for a minimum period of 5 years. Despite this, 25% of women treated with tamoxifen relapse. Tamoxifen resistance is unique in that it occurs very late on, generally 10-15 years after starting treatment. This means that it’s really important for us to identify predictive markers of the response to hormone therapy to adapt treatment as best we can. For the moment, the only criteria used to prescribe tamoxifen are patient age and the presence of estrogen receptors within the tumor.

Exactly how would treatment be improved if a decisive predictive marker of response to tamoxifen could be identified?

Dr. Le Romancer: Currently, when a patient’s breast cancer relapses after several years of treatment with tamoxifen, we don’t know if the relapse is linked to tamoxifen resistance or not. This makes it difficult to choose the right treatment to manage such relapses, which remain complicated to treat. Lots of patients die because of metastases.

By predicting the response to tamoxifen using a marker, we will be able to either use another hormone therapy to prevent the relapse or prescribe tamoxifen alongside a molecule that stops resistance from developing. We hope that this will significantly reduce the rate of relapse.

You put forward PRMT5 as a potential predictive marker of response to tamoxifen. What makes you think it could be used in this way?

Dr. Le Romancer: Our research has allowed us to demonstrate that PRMT5, when present in the nuclei of tumor cells, is involved in the mechanisms of action of tamoxifen. Remember that estrogen receptors are located in cell nuclei. For tamoxifen to exert its antitumoral action, PRMT5, an enzyme, needs to enter the nucleus to modify the estrogen receptor. It’s this modification that allows tamoxifen to inhibit tumor growth. The proliferative effect induced by the estrogens is also blocked.

The results of our study showed that high nuclear expression of PRMT5, specifically in the nuclei of breast cancer cells, is associated with a prolonged survival of tamoxifen-treated patients. Until now, we thought this enzyme had an oncogenic role when present in the cytoplasm. It turns out that it also has the opposite effect when acting within the nucleus, at least in this patient cohort: women with hormone-sensitive breast cancer treated with tamoxifen.

What are the next steps in your research before we can begin to think about its use in clinical practice?

Dr. Le Romancer: Our next research will focus on understanding the circumstances surrounding PRMT5 entering and leaving the nucleus. We have also shown that in some patients, tamoxifen causes PRMT5 to enter the cell nucleus. This translocation is only seen in women who respond to tamoxifen, not in those who are resistant to treatment with the drug. All that remains is for us to work out how tamoxifen facilitates this translocation.

Once the elements promoting this translocation have been identified, we will be able to propose a treatment aimed at forcing the enzyme to enter the nucleus and stay there. Eventually, the idea is to combine treatment with antiestrogens with a medicinal product that promotes localization of PRMT5 in the nucleus to guarantee response to tamoxifen. It will be a few years of research before we can apply our findings to clinical practice.

Could we use this biomarker as is just to identify tamoxifen resistance?

Dr. Le Romancer: In the short term, yes, we could use this biomarker to better guide treatment choices at time of diagnosis. We have demonstrated the role of PRMT5 in response to tamoxifen by studying two cohorts of 900 patients with breast cancer receiving treatment at the Léon Bérard Center, Lyon. Before moving on to routine testing, we need to replicate these results in other cohorts, especially in high-risk patients with, for example, greater cell proliferation or those who experience relapse.

The use of this biomarker is based on histological examination of cancer tissue. Single antibody tissue staining targeting PRMT5 reveals the localization of the enzyme in the cells and provides a score evaluating its presence in the nucleus. Using this score, it would be possible to determine the level of response to tamoxifen and decide whether the treatment should be used. This biomarker is the first of its kind undergoing validation as part of the examination of resistance to hormone therapy. We should be able to confirm the findings within the next 2 years.

If clinical tests using this biomarker predict tamoxifen resistance, what alternative treatments are available to these patients?

Dr. Le Romancer: We could give them an aromatase inhibitor or one of the new estrogen antagonists that are currently in development. In a phase 3 study, fulvestrant (Faslodex), for example, demonstrated a significant benefit in treating women with hormone-sensitive advanced breast cancer when administered via injection. The same goes for oral treatment, elacestrant (Orserdu), which has recently been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. These treatments are usually deemed second line after tamoxifen, but they could certainly be used as first-line therapy in resistant patients.

The results obtained from research into novel estrogen antagonists are certainly encouraging. Can tamoxifen retain its prominent position while still ensuring its efficacy?

Dr. Le Romancer: Keeping in mind the current trend for personalized medicine, we should keep as many treatment options open as possible. When a patient relapses, there need to be other treatments available to them. Tamoxifen has been ousted in favor of aromatase inhibitors for postmenopausal women, but it’s still the gold standard for premenopausal women and has been for over 20 years. Despite having been replaced by a novel estrogen antagonist, it will still have a prominent place in the therapeutic arsenal of premenopausal women with breast cancer.

With the development of PRMT5 as a predictive biomarker, we could even see tamoxifen being proposed as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women in whom high levels of PRMT5 are found in the nuclei of their cancer cells. By predicting their response, we could achieve greater efficacy of tamoxifen, compared with aromatase inhibitors. For now, this remains a hypothesis and must be verified in further clinical studies.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

A team at Lyon’s Cancer Research Center (CRCL) has revealed the role of an enzyme, PRMT5, in the response to tamoxifen, a drug used to prevent relapse in premenopausal women with breast cancer. The protein could become the first predictive marker of response to tamoxifen.

Muriel Le Romancer, MD, director of research at France’s Institute of Health and Medical Research, explained the issues involved in this discovery in an interview. She jointly led this research along with Olivier Trédan, MD, PhD, oncologist at Lyon’s Léon Bérard Clinic. The research concluded with the publication of a study in EMBO Molecular Medicine. The researchers both head up the CRCL’s hormone resistance, methylation, and breast cancer team.

Although the enzyme’s involvement in the mode of action of tamoxifen has been observed in close to 900 patients with breast cancer, these results need to be validated in other at-risk patient cohorts before the biomarker can be considered for routine use, said Dr. Le Romancer. She estimated that 2 more years of research are needed.

Can you tell us which cases involve the use of tamoxifen and what its mode of action is?

Dr. Le Romancer: Tamoxifen is a hormone therapy used to reduce the risk of breast cancer relapse. It is prescribed to premenopausal women with hormone-sensitive cancer, which equates to roughly 25% of women with breast cancer: 15,000 women each year. The drug, which is taken every day via oral administration, is an estrogen antagonist. By binding to these receptors, it blocks estrogen from mediating its biological effect in the breasts. Aromatase inhibitors are the preferred choice in postmenopausal women, as they have been shown to be more effective. These also have an antiestrogenic effect, but by inhibiting estrogen production.

Tamoxifen therapy is prescribed for a minimum period of 5 years. Despite this, 25% of women treated with tamoxifen relapse. Tamoxifen resistance is unique in that it occurs very late on, generally 10-15 years after starting treatment. This means that it’s really important for us to identify predictive markers of the response to hormone therapy to adapt treatment as best we can. For the moment, the only criteria used to prescribe tamoxifen are patient age and the presence of estrogen receptors within the tumor.

Exactly how would treatment be improved if a decisive predictive marker of response to tamoxifen could be identified?

Dr. Le Romancer: Currently, when a patient’s breast cancer relapses after several years of treatment with tamoxifen, we don’t know if the relapse is linked to tamoxifen resistance or not. This makes it difficult to choose the right treatment to manage such relapses, which remain complicated to treat. Lots of patients die because of metastases.

By predicting the response to tamoxifen using a marker, we will be able to either use another hormone therapy to prevent the relapse or prescribe tamoxifen alongside a molecule that stops resistance from developing. We hope that this will significantly reduce the rate of relapse.

You put forward PRMT5 as a potential predictive marker of response to tamoxifen. What makes you think it could be used in this way?

Dr. Le Romancer: Our research has allowed us to demonstrate that PRMT5, when present in the nuclei of tumor cells, is involved in the mechanisms of action of tamoxifen. Remember that estrogen receptors are located in cell nuclei. For tamoxifen to exert its antitumoral action, PRMT5, an enzyme, needs to enter the nucleus to modify the estrogen receptor. It’s this modification that allows tamoxifen to inhibit tumor growth. The proliferative effect induced by the estrogens is also blocked.

The results of our study showed that high nuclear expression of PRMT5, specifically in the nuclei of breast cancer cells, is associated with a prolonged survival of tamoxifen-treated patients. Until now, we thought this enzyme had an oncogenic role when present in the cytoplasm. It turns out that it also has the opposite effect when acting within the nucleus, at least in this patient cohort: women with hormone-sensitive breast cancer treated with tamoxifen.

What are the next steps in your research before we can begin to think about its use in clinical practice?

Dr. Le Romancer: Our next research will focus on understanding the circumstances surrounding PRMT5 entering and leaving the nucleus. We have also shown that in some patients, tamoxifen causes PRMT5 to enter the cell nucleus. This translocation is only seen in women who respond to tamoxifen, not in those who are resistant to treatment with the drug. All that remains is for us to work out how tamoxifen facilitates this translocation.

Once the elements promoting this translocation have been identified, we will be able to propose a treatment aimed at forcing the enzyme to enter the nucleus and stay there. Eventually, the idea is to combine treatment with antiestrogens with a medicinal product that promotes localization of PRMT5 in the nucleus to guarantee response to tamoxifen. It will be a few years of research before we can apply our findings to clinical practice.

Could we use this biomarker as is just to identify tamoxifen resistance?

Dr. Le Romancer: In the short term, yes, we could use this biomarker to better guide treatment choices at time of diagnosis. We have demonstrated the role of PRMT5 in response to tamoxifen by studying two cohorts of 900 patients with breast cancer receiving treatment at the Léon Bérard Center, Lyon. Before moving on to routine testing, we need to replicate these results in other cohorts, especially in high-risk patients with, for example, greater cell proliferation or those who experience relapse.

The use of this biomarker is based on histological examination of cancer tissue. Single antibody tissue staining targeting PRMT5 reveals the localization of the enzyme in the cells and provides a score evaluating its presence in the nucleus. Using this score, it would be possible to determine the level of response to tamoxifen and decide whether the treatment should be used. This biomarker is the first of its kind undergoing validation as part of the examination of resistance to hormone therapy. We should be able to confirm the findings within the next 2 years.

If clinical tests using this biomarker predict tamoxifen resistance, what alternative treatments are available to these patients?

Dr. Le Romancer: We could give them an aromatase inhibitor or one of the new estrogen antagonists that are currently in development. In a phase 3 study, fulvestrant (Faslodex), for example, demonstrated a significant benefit in treating women with hormone-sensitive advanced breast cancer when administered via injection. The same goes for oral treatment, elacestrant (Orserdu), which has recently been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. These treatments are usually deemed second line after tamoxifen, but they could certainly be used as first-line therapy in resistant patients.

The results obtained from research into novel estrogen antagonists are certainly encouraging. Can tamoxifen retain its prominent position while still ensuring its efficacy?

Dr. Le Romancer: Keeping in mind the current trend for personalized medicine, we should keep as many treatment options open as possible. When a patient relapses, there need to be other treatments available to them. Tamoxifen has been ousted in favor of aromatase inhibitors for postmenopausal women, but it’s still the gold standard for premenopausal women and has been for over 20 years. Despite having been replaced by a novel estrogen antagonist, it will still have a prominent place in the therapeutic arsenal of premenopausal women with breast cancer.

With the development of PRMT5 as a predictive biomarker, we could even see tamoxifen being proposed as first-line therapy for postmenopausal women in whom high levels of PRMT5 are found in the nuclei of their cancer cells. By predicting their response, we could achieve greater efficacy of tamoxifen, compared with aromatase inhibitors. For now, this remains a hypothesis and must be verified in further clinical studies.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Pediatric patients receiving donor stem cell transplantion with healthier pretransplant gut microbiota diversity show improved rates of survival and a lower risk of developing acute graft versus host disease (GvHD), similar to the patterns reported in adults.

“To the best of our knowledge, we present the first evidence of an association between pretransplantation lower gut microbiota diversity and poorer outcome in children undergoing allo-HSCT,” the authors report, in research published in the journal Blood. “Our findings underscore the importance of pre-transplant gut microbiota diversity and compositional structure in influencing allo-HSCT-related clinical outcomes in the pediatric setting.”

While allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) can be potentially curative of hematologic malignancies, the stem cell transplantation process can wreak havoc on gut microbiota, because of factors including the conditioning regimen, antibiotic exposure, and dietary changes.

Specifically, the process can cause a substantial decrease in necessary alpha diversity and a potential expansion of possibly pathogenic bacteria.

While poor gut microbiota diversity has been linked to higher mortality in adult patients receiving allo-HSCT, research on the effects in pediatric patients is lacking.

“The gut microbiota of children differs from adults’ one, and this accounts for the need for specific pediatric studies on the gut microbiota-to–allo-HSCT relationship,” the authors write.

For the multicenter study, first author Riccardo Masetti, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatric oncology and hematology at the University of Bologna, Italy, and colleagues analyzed the gut microbiota diversity of 90 pediatric allo-HSCT recipients at four centers in Italy and one in Poland, stratifying the patients into groups of higher and lower diversity pretransplantation and again at the time of neutrophil engraftment.

Overall, gut microbiota diversity significantly declined from before allo-HSCT to afterward, at the time of neutrophil engraftment (P < .0001), with lower diversity observed in patients 3 years of age or younger.

With a median follow-up of 52 months, compared with the lower diversity group, those with higher diversity prior to transplantation had a significantly higher probability of overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.26; P = .011), after adjustment for age, graft source, donor type, intensity of conditioning regimen, center, and type of disease, with estimated overall survival at 52 months after allo-HSCT of 88.9% for the higher diversity group and 62.7% for the lower diversity group.

The cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GvHD was significantly lower for the higher diversity group versus lower diversity (20.0 versus 44.4, respectively; P = .017), as were the incidence rates of grade III-IV acute GvHD (2.2 versus 20.0; P = .007).

There were, however, no significant differences between the low and high diversity gut microbiota groups in relapse-free survival (P = .091).

The higher diversity group notably had higher relative abundances of potentially health-related bacterial families, including Ruminococcaceae and Oscillospiraceae, while the lower diversity group showed an overabundance of Enterococcaceae and Enterobacteriaceae.

Of note, the results differ from those observed in adults, among whom gut microbiota diversity before as well as after transplantation has been significantly associated with transplant outcomes, whereas with children, the association was limited to diversity prior to transplant.

In general, children have significantly lower diversity of gut microbiota than adults, with varying functional properties, and microbiota that is more easily modified by environmental factors, with larger changes occurring upon exposure to external stressors, the authors explain.

“Considering these different ecological properties compared to adults, we hypothesize that allo-HSCT–induced dysbiosis in the pediatric setting may imply loss of age-related gut microbiota signatures, including alpha diversity, with high interpatient variability,” they say.

Characteristics that were associated with higher or lower gut microbiota diversity prior to allo-HSCT included the treating center, suggesting that the geographical region may affect the diversity and the type of antibiotic exposure prior to the transplant.

Limitations included that “we didn’t assess other pretransplant characteristics such as the type of chemotherapy received, or the lifestyle, and this should be addressed in future studies on larger cohorts,” Dr. Masetti said in an interview.

While lengthy delays in screening of samples are barriers in the use of the gut microbiome as a tool in clinical practice, he noted that clinicians can take key measures to improve the microbiota.

“[Preventive measures] include the avoidance of unnecessary antibiotic treatment, which has a detrimental effect on the microbiota,” he said. “Moreover, some dietary changes may promote microbiota health.”

In addition, key measures can be taken during the allo-HSCT to preserve the microbiota, he added.

“In our center, we use enteral nutrition with a nasogastric tube rather than parenteral nutrition, which helps the microbiota to recover faster,” Dr. Masetti explained. “Moreover, other interventional measures such as fecal microbiota transplantation or the use of probiotics are under testing.”

“In particular, our data emphasize the importance of an overall healthy network, rather than the abundance of specific families or genera, in preventing complications and unfavorable outcomes.”

Commenting on the study, Robert Jenq, MD, an assistant professor in the departments of genomic medicine and stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, noted that with the growing evidence of the effects of poor gut microbiota diversity on clinical outcomes, multiple early-phase clinical trials are being conducted to test various strategies to prevent or treat gut injury.

“I’m not aware of any one approach that has shown enough promise to warrant being tested in multicenter studies yet, but it’s still a bit early,” Dr. Jenq said.“In the meantime, discontinuing or de-escalating antibiotics when medically safe, and encouraging patients to eat as much as they’re able to is a reasonable recommendation.”

Dr. Jenq added that, with most of the data on the issue being retrospective, a causative role has not been established, and “the finding of an association between the gut microbiota composition and survival, while interesting and provocative, does not provide evidence that intervening on the gut microbiota will lead to a clinical benefit.”

“I’m hopeful that randomized clinical trials will eventually demonstrate that we can protect or restore the gut microbiota, and this will lead to substantial clinical benefits, but this remains to be seen,” he said.

The authors had no disclosures to report. Dr. Jenq is an advisor for Seres Therapeutics, Prolacta Biosciences, and MaaT Pharma.

Pediatric patients receiving donor stem cell transplantion with healthier pretransplant gut microbiota diversity show improved rates of survival and a lower risk of developing acute graft versus host disease (GvHD), similar to the patterns reported in adults.

“To the best of our knowledge, we present the first evidence of an association between pretransplantation lower gut microbiota diversity and poorer outcome in children undergoing allo-HSCT,” the authors report, in research published in the journal Blood. “Our findings underscore the importance of pre-transplant gut microbiota diversity and compositional structure in influencing allo-HSCT-related clinical outcomes in the pediatric setting.”

While allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) can be potentially curative of hematologic malignancies, the stem cell transplantation process can wreak havoc on gut microbiota, because of factors including the conditioning regimen, antibiotic exposure, and dietary changes.

Specifically, the process can cause a substantial decrease in necessary alpha diversity and a potential expansion of possibly pathogenic bacteria.

While poor gut microbiota diversity has been linked to higher mortality in adult patients receiving allo-HSCT, research on the effects in pediatric patients is lacking.

“The gut microbiota of children differs from adults’ one, and this accounts for the need for specific pediatric studies on the gut microbiota-to–allo-HSCT relationship,” the authors write.

For the multicenter study, first author Riccardo Masetti, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatric oncology and hematology at the University of Bologna, Italy, and colleagues analyzed the gut microbiota diversity of 90 pediatric allo-HSCT recipients at four centers in Italy and one in Poland, stratifying the patients into groups of higher and lower diversity pretransplantation and again at the time of neutrophil engraftment.

Overall, gut microbiota diversity significantly declined from before allo-HSCT to afterward, at the time of neutrophil engraftment (P < .0001), with lower diversity observed in patients 3 years of age or younger.

With a median follow-up of 52 months, compared with the lower diversity group, those with higher diversity prior to transplantation had a significantly higher probability of overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.26; P = .011), after adjustment for age, graft source, donor type, intensity of conditioning regimen, center, and type of disease, with estimated overall survival at 52 months after allo-HSCT of 88.9% for the higher diversity group and 62.7% for the lower diversity group.

The cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GvHD was significantly lower for the higher diversity group versus lower diversity (20.0 versus 44.4, respectively; P = .017), as were the incidence rates of grade III-IV acute GvHD (2.2 versus 20.0; P = .007).

There were, however, no significant differences between the low and high diversity gut microbiota groups in relapse-free survival (P = .091).

The higher diversity group notably had higher relative abundances of potentially health-related bacterial families, including Ruminococcaceae and Oscillospiraceae, while the lower diversity group showed an overabundance of Enterococcaceae and Enterobacteriaceae.

Of note, the results differ from those observed in adults, among whom gut microbiota diversity before as well as after transplantation has been significantly associated with transplant outcomes, whereas with children, the association was limited to diversity prior to transplant.

In general, children have significantly lower diversity of gut microbiota than adults, with varying functional properties, and microbiota that is more easily modified by environmental factors, with larger changes occurring upon exposure to external stressors, the authors explain.

“Considering these different ecological properties compared to adults, we hypothesize that allo-HSCT–induced dysbiosis in the pediatric setting may imply loss of age-related gut microbiota signatures, including alpha diversity, with high interpatient variability,” they say.

Characteristics that were associated with higher or lower gut microbiota diversity prior to allo-HSCT included the treating center, suggesting that the geographical region may affect the diversity and the type of antibiotic exposure prior to the transplant.

Limitations included that “we didn’t assess other pretransplant characteristics such as the type of chemotherapy received, or the lifestyle, and this should be addressed in future studies on larger cohorts,” Dr. Masetti said in an interview.

While lengthy delays in screening of samples are barriers in the use of the gut microbiome as a tool in clinical practice, he noted that clinicians can take key measures to improve the microbiota.

“[Preventive measures] include the avoidance of unnecessary antibiotic treatment, which has a detrimental effect on the microbiota,” he said. “Moreover, some dietary changes may promote microbiota health.”

In addition, key measures can be taken during the allo-HSCT to preserve the microbiota, he added.

“In our center, we use enteral nutrition with a nasogastric tube rather than parenteral nutrition, which helps the microbiota to recover faster,” Dr. Masetti explained. “Moreover, other interventional measures such as fecal microbiota transplantation or the use of probiotics are under testing.”

“In particular, our data emphasize the importance of an overall healthy network, rather than the abundance of specific families or genera, in preventing complications and unfavorable outcomes.”

Commenting on the study, Robert Jenq, MD, an assistant professor in the departments of genomic medicine and stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, noted that with the growing evidence of the effects of poor gut microbiota diversity on clinical outcomes, multiple early-phase clinical trials are being conducted to test various strategies to prevent or treat gut injury.

“I’m not aware of any one approach that has shown enough promise to warrant being tested in multicenter studies yet, but it’s still a bit early,” Dr. Jenq said.“In the meantime, discontinuing or de-escalating antibiotics when medically safe, and encouraging patients to eat as much as they’re able to is a reasonable recommendation.”

Dr. Jenq added that, with most of the data on the issue being retrospective, a causative role has not been established, and “the finding of an association between the gut microbiota composition and survival, while interesting and provocative, does not provide evidence that intervening on the gut microbiota will lead to a clinical benefit.”

“I’m hopeful that randomized clinical trials will eventually demonstrate that we can protect or restore the gut microbiota, and this will lead to substantial clinical benefits, but this remains to be seen,” he said.

The authors had no disclosures to report. Dr. Jenq is an advisor for Seres Therapeutics, Prolacta Biosciences, and MaaT Pharma.

Pediatric patients receiving donor stem cell transplantion with healthier pretransplant gut microbiota diversity show improved rates of survival and a lower risk of developing acute graft versus host disease (GvHD), similar to the patterns reported in adults.

“To the best of our knowledge, we present the first evidence of an association between pretransplantation lower gut microbiota diversity and poorer outcome in children undergoing allo-HSCT,” the authors report, in research published in the journal Blood. “Our findings underscore the importance of pre-transplant gut microbiota diversity and compositional structure in influencing allo-HSCT-related clinical outcomes in the pediatric setting.”

While allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) can be potentially curative of hematologic malignancies, the stem cell transplantation process can wreak havoc on gut microbiota, because of factors including the conditioning regimen, antibiotic exposure, and dietary changes.

Specifically, the process can cause a substantial decrease in necessary alpha diversity and a potential expansion of possibly pathogenic bacteria.

While poor gut microbiota diversity has been linked to higher mortality in adult patients receiving allo-HSCT, research on the effects in pediatric patients is lacking.

“The gut microbiota of children differs from adults’ one, and this accounts for the need for specific pediatric studies on the gut microbiota-to–allo-HSCT relationship,” the authors write.

For the multicenter study, first author Riccardo Masetti, MD, PhD, of the department of pediatric oncology and hematology at the University of Bologna, Italy, and colleagues analyzed the gut microbiota diversity of 90 pediatric allo-HSCT recipients at four centers in Italy and one in Poland, stratifying the patients into groups of higher and lower diversity pretransplantation and again at the time of neutrophil engraftment.

Overall, gut microbiota diversity significantly declined from before allo-HSCT to afterward, at the time of neutrophil engraftment (P < .0001), with lower diversity observed in patients 3 years of age or younger.

With a median follow-up of 52 months, compared with the lower diversity group, those with higher diversity prior to transplantation had a significantly higher probability of overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.26; P = .011), after adjustment for age, graft source, donor type, intensity of conditioning regimen, center, and type of disease, with estimated overall survival at 52 months after allo-HSCT of 88.9% for the higher diversity group and 62.7% for the lower diversity group.

The cumulative incidence of grade II-IV acute GvHD was significantly lower for the higher diversity group versus lower diversity (20.0 versus 44.4, respectively; P = .017), as were the incidence rates of grade III-IV acute GvHD (2.2 versus 20.0; P = .007).

There were, however, no significant differences between the low and high diversity gut microbiota groups in relapse-free survival (P = .091).

The higher diversity group notably had higher relative abundances of potentially health-related bacterial families, including Ruminococcaceae and Oscillospiraceae, while the lower diversity group showed an overabundance of Enterococcaceae and Enterobacteriaceae.

Of note, the results differ from those observed in adults, among whom gut microbiota diversity before as well as after transplantation has been significantly associated with transplant outcomes, whereas with children, the association was limited to diversity prior to transplant.

In general, children have significantly lower diversity of gut microbiota than adults, with varying functional properties, and microbiota that is more easily modified by environmental factors, with larger changes occurring upon exposure to external stressors, the authors explain.

“Considering these different ecological properties compared to adults, we hypothesize that allo-HSCT–induced dysbiosis in the pediatric setting may imply loss of age-related gut microbiota signatures, including alpha diversity, with high interpatient variability,” they say.

Characteristics that were associated with higher or lower gut microbiota diversity prior to allo-HSCT included the treating center, suggesting that the geographical region may affect the diversity and the type of antibiotic exposure prior to the transplant.

Limitations included that “we didn’t assess other pretransplant characteristics such as the type of chemotherapy received, or the lifestyle, and this should be addressed in future studies on larger cohorts,” Dr. Masetti said in an interview.

While lengthy delays in screening of samples are barriers in the use of the gut microbiome as a tool in clinical practice, he noted that clinicians can take key measures to improve the microbiota.

“[Preventive measures] include the avoidance of unnecessary antibiotic treatment, which has a detrimental effect on the microbiota,” he said. “Moreover, some dietary changes may promote microbiota health.”

In addition, key measures can be taken during the allo-HSCT to preserve the microbiota, he added.

“In our center, we use enteral nutrition with a nasogastric tube rather than parenteral nutrition, which helps the microbiota to recover faster,” Dr. Masetti explained. “Moreover, other interventional measures such as fecal microbiota transplantation or the use of probiotics are under testing.”

“In particular, our data emphasize the importance of an overall healthy network, rather than the abundance of specific families or genera, in preventing complications and unfavorable outcomes.”

Commenting on the study, Robert Jenq, MD, an assistant professor in the departments of genomic medicine and stem cell transplantation and cellular therapy at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, noted that with the growing evidence of the effects of poor gut microbiota diversity on clinical outcomes, multiple early-phase clinical trials are being conducted to test various strategies to prevent or treat gut injury.

“I’m not aware of any one approach that has shown enough promise to warrant being tested in multicenter studies yet, but it’s still a bit early,” Dr. Jenq said.“In the meantime, discontinuing or de-escalating antibiotics when medically safe, and encouraging patients to eat as much as they’re able to is a reasonable recommendation.”

Dr. Jenq added that, with most of the data on the issue being retrospective, a causative role has not been established, and “the finding of an association between the gut microbiota composition and survival, while interesting and provocative, does not provide evidence that intervening on the gut microbiota will lead to a clinical benefit.”

“I’m hopeful that randomized clinical trials will eventually demonstrate that we can protect or restore the gut microbiota, and this will lead to substantial clinical benefits, but this remains to be seen,” he said.

The authors had no disclosures to report. Dr. Jenq is an advisor for Seres Therapeutics, Prolacta Biosciences, and MaaT Pharma.

Alcohol consumption, including risky drinking behaviors, is common among adult cancer survivors, even people currently receiving cancer treatment, new research shows.

An analysis of more than 15,000 adults with a cancer diagnosis revealed that nearly 80% were current drinkers. Among current drinkers, 13% consumed a moderate amount of alcohol in a typical day, while close to 40% engaged in hazardous drinking.

The numbers are “staggering,” Yin Cao, ScD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview. “Most concerning is that those on cancer treatment are engaged in a similar level of risky drinking.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Drinking alcohol can increase a person’s risk for a variety of cancers, including oral and pharyngeal cancer as well as esophageal, colorectal, liver, and female breast cancers.

Consuming alcohol is also associated with numerous risks among people diagnosed with cancer. In the short term, alcohol consumption can worsen postsurgical outcomes as well as impair cognition and amplify cardiotoxicity in patients undergoing chemotherapy. In the long term, drinking alcohol can elevate a person’s risk of recurrence, secondary tumors, and mortality.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently issued a statement reinforcing the need to prioritize alcohol consumption as a key modifiable behavioral factor in the cancer control research agenda.

The current American Cancer Society guidelines indicate that it’s best to avoid or, at least, minimize alcohol consumption. Men should limit their intake to no more than two drinks per day and women should have no more than one drink per day.

Despite this data and guidelines, alcohol drinking patterns among cancer survivors in the United States remain poorly understood.

To explore further, the researchers identified 15,199 adult cancer survivors enrolled in the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Program.

Overall, 78% of the cohort – more than 11,800 individuals – were current drinkers. In a typical day, 24% engaged in binge drinking – consuming six or more drinks on a single occasion – and 38% engaged in hazardous drinking. Using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Consumption, the researchers classified hazardous drinking as scores of 4 or higher in men and 3 or higher in women.

Drinking patterns looked similar in the subset of 1,839 patients undergoing cancer treatment. In this group, 76% were current drinkers. Among current drinkers, 12% exceeded moderate drinking levels, 23% reported binge drinking, and 38% engaged in hazardous drinking. In this group, men, Hispanics, people diagnosed with cancer before age 18, and smokers were more likely to engage in risky drinking behaviors.

“We know that many people who are diagnosed with cancer continue to drink alcohol, but this study provides much more detailed information about that,” said Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, senior scientific director for cancer disparity research at the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study.

Given the degree of drinking identified in this population, Dr. Cao highlighted the importance of talking to patients about alcohol.

“Our findings highlight an opportunity for enhanced support and intervention concerning risky drinking behaviors” in oncology, Dr. Cao said. “Given the societal norms surrounding alcohol and the general lack of awareness of alcohol’s short- and long-term impact on cancer outcomes, gently educating patients/survivors about potential risks while understanding the cultural and societal contexts of drinking can make a difference.”

Dr. Islami agreed that oncologists should talk to their patients about alcohol, “especially those going through active treatment because alcohol may affect the treatment or may be associated with more complications of the treatment.”

“Many people now know that smoking causes cancer, but unfortunately, many people do not know about the association of alcohol with cancer,” he said.

Outside of an awareness gap, there are numerous risk factors for substance abuse among cancer survivors, Marleen Meyers, MD, director of the cancer survivorship program at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, explained.

Alcohol can help some cancer survivors dull feelings of isolation, fear, stress, and poor pain management that may accompany their diagnosis and treatment, said Dr. Meyers, who was not involved in the research. That is why “it is important for patients to be honest with their providers and for providers to ask about substance use in a nonjudgmental way.”

In these conversations, oncologists should educate patients about the safety risks associated with alcohol intake during or after treatment and that there is no established “safe” amount of alcohol. Incorporating a mental health screening and questions about a family history of substance abuse can also help identify patients “most at risk so providers can be proactive,” she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the NIH. Dr. Cao, Dr. Islami, and Dr. Meyers report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alcohol consumption, including risky drinking behaviors, is common among adult cancer survivors, even people currently receiving cancer treatment, new research shows.

An analysis of more than 15,000 adults with a cancer diagnosis revealed that nearly 80% were current drinkers. Among current drinkers, 13% consumed a moderate amount of alcohol in a typical day, while close to 40% engaged in hazardous drinking.

The numbers are “staggering,” Yin Cao, ScD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview. “Most concerning is that those on cancer treatment are engaged in a similar level of risky drinking.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Drinking alcohol can increase a person’s risk for a variety of cancers, including oral and pharyngeal cancer as well as esophageal, colorectal, liver, and female breast cancers.

Consuming alcohol is also associated with numerous risks among people diagnosed with cancer. In the short term, alcohol consumption can worsen postsurgical outcomes as well as impair cognition and amplify cardiotoxicity in patients undergoing chemotherapy. In the long term, drinking alcohol can elevate a person’s risk of recurrence, secondary tumors, and mortality.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently issued a statement reinforcing the need to prioritize alcohol consumption as a key modifiable behavioral factor in the cancer control research agenda.

The current American Cancer Society guidelines indicate that it’s best to avoid or, at least, minimize alcohol consumption. Men should limit their intake to no more than two drinks per day and women should have no more than one drink per day.

Despite this data and guidelines, alcohol drinking patterns among cancer survivors in the United States remain poorly understood.

To explore further, the researchers identified 15,199 adult cancer survivors enrolled in the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Program.

Overall, 78% of the cohort – more than 11,800 individuals – were current drinkers. In a typical day, 24% engaged in binge drinking – consuming six or more drinks on a single occasion – and 38% engaged in hazardous drinking. Using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Consumption, the researchers classified hazardous drinking as scores of 4 or higher in men and 3 or higher in women.

Drinking patterns looked similar in the subset of 1,839 patients undergoing cancer treatment. In this group, 76% were current drinkers. Among current drinkers, 12% exceeded moderate drinking levels, 23% reported binge drinking, and 38% engaged in hazardous drinking. In this group, men, Hispanics, people diagnosed with cancer before age 18, and smokers were more likely to engage in risky drinking behaviors.

“We know that many people who are diagnosed with cancer continue to drink alcohol, but this study provides much more detailed information about that,” said Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, senior scientific director for cancer disparity research at the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study.

Given the degree of drinking identified in this population, Dr. Cao highlighted the importance of talking to patients about alcohol.

“Our findings highlight an opportunity for enhanced support and intervention concerning risky drinking behaviors” in oncology, Dr. Cao said. “Given the societal norms surrounding alcohol and the general lack of awareness of alcohol’s short- and long-term impact on cancer outcomes, gently educating patients/survivors about potential risks while understanding the cultural and societal contexts of drinking can make a difference.”

Dr. Islami agreed that oncologists should talk to their patients about alcohol, “especially those going through active treatment because alcohol may affect the treatment or may be associated with more complications of the treatment.”

“Many people now know that smoking causes cancer, but unfortunately, many people do not know about the association of alcohol with cancer,” he said.

Outside of an awareness gap, there are numerous risk factors for substance abuse among cancer survivors, Marleen Meyers, MD, director of the cancer survivorship program at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, explained.

Alcohol can help some cancer survivors dull feelings of isolation, fear, stress, and poor pain management that may accompany their diagnosis and treatment, said Dr. Meyers, who was not involved in the research. That is why “it is important for patients to be honest with their providers and for providers to ask about substance use in a nonjudgmental way.”

In these conversations, oncologists should educate patients about the safety risks associated with alcohol intake during or after treatment and that there is no established “safe” amount of alcohol. Incorporating a mental health screening and questions about a family history of substance abuse can also help identify patients “most at risk so providers can be proactive,” she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the NIH. Dr. Cao, Dr. Islami, and Dr. Meyers report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Alcohol consumption, including risky drinking behaviors, is common among adult cancer survivors, even people currently receiving cancer treatment, new research shows.

An analysis of more than 15,000 adults with a cancer diagnosis revealed that nearly 80% were current drinkers. Among current drinkers, 13% consumed a moderate amount of alcohol in a typical day, while close to 40% engaged in hazardous drinking.

The numbers are “staggering,” Yin Cao, ScD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview. “Most concerning is that those on cancer treatment are engaged in a similar level of risky drinking.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Drinking alcohol can increase a person’s risk for a variety of cancers, including oral and pharyngeal cancer as well as esophageal, colorectal, liver, and female breast cancers.

Consuming alcohol is also associated with numerous risks among people diagnosed with cancer. In the short term, alcohol consumption can worsen postsurgical outcomes as well as impair cognition and amplify cardiotoxicity in patients undergoing chemotherapy. In the long term, drinking alcohol can elevate a person’s risk of recurrence, secondary tumors, and mortality.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently issued a statement reinforcing the need to prioritize alcohol consumption as a key modifiable behavioral factor in the cancer control research agenda.

The current American Cancer Society guidelines indicate that it’s best to avoid or, at least, minimize alcohol consumption. Men should limit their intake to no more than two drinks per day and women should have no more than one drink per day.

Despite this data and guidelines, alcohol drinking patterns among cancer survivors in the United States remain poorly understood.

To explore further, the researchers identified 15,199 adult cancer survivors enrolled in the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Program.

Overall, 78% of the cohort – more than 11,800 individuals – were current drinkers. In a typical day, 24% engaged in binge drinking – consuming six or more drinks on a single occasion – and 38% engaged in hazardous drinking. Using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Consumption, the researchers classified hazardous drinking as scores of 4 or higher in men and 3 or higher in women.

Drinking patterns looked similar in the subset of 1,839 patients undergoing cancer treatment. In this group, 76% were current drinkers. Among current drinkers, 12% exceeded moderate drinking levels, 23% reported binge drinking, and 38% engaged in hazardous drinking. In this group, men, Hispanics, people diagnosed with cancer before age 18, and smokers were more likely to engage in risky drinking behaviors.

“We know that many people who are diagnosed with cancer continue to drink alcohol, but this study provides much more detailed information about that,” said Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, senior scientific director for cancer disparity research at the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study.

Given the degree of drinking identified in this population, Dr. Cao highlighted the importance of talking to patients about alcohol.

“Our findings highlight an opportunity for enhanced support and intervention concerning risky drinking behaviors” in oncology, Dr. Cao said. “Given the societal norms surrounding alcohol and the general lack of awareness of alcohol’s short- and long-term impact on cancer outcomes, gently educating patients/survivors about potential risks while understanding the cultural and societal contexts of drinking can make a difference.”

Dr. Islami agreed that oncologists should talk to their patients about alcohol, “especially those going through active treatment because alcohol may affect the treatment or may be associated with more complications of the treatment.”

“Many people now know that smoking causes cancer, but unfortunately, many people do not know about the association of alcohol with cancer,” he said.

Outside of an awareness gap, there are numerous risk factors for substance abuse among cancer survivors, Marleen Meyers, MD, director of the cancer survivorship program at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, explained.

Alcohol can help some cancer survivors dull feelings of isolation, fear, stress, and poor pain management that may accompany their diagnosis and treatment, said Dr. Meyers, who was not involved in the research. That is why “it is important for patients to be honest with their providers and for providers to ask about substance use in a nonjudgmental way.”

In these conversations, oncologists should educate patients about the safety risks associated with alcohol intake during or after treatment and that there is no established “safe” amount of alcohol. Incorporating a mental health screening and questions about a family history of substance abuse can also help identify patients “most at risk so providers can be proactive,” she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the NIH. Dr. Cao, Dr. Islami, and Dr. Meyers report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The results of a recent study in JAMA Oncology suggest that even short periods of intense, intermittent physical activity are associated with a lower risk for cancer. This activity could be a promising measure for cancer prevention in people who otherwise find it difficult to exercise regularly.

Periods of intense, intermittent physical activity are short phases of strenuous physical exercise that normally last for 1 or 2 minutes, such as a short sprint for the bus or walking up the stairs. In the prospective cohort study conducted in a large group of unathletic adults, researchers investigated a potential dose-effect relationship between intense and daily intermittent physical activity and the cancer incidence rate.

Using data gathered from wearable arm trackers, the researchers analyzed the physical activity of 22,398 people with an average age of 62 years from the UK Biobank. Of these participants, 54.8% were women. After a median follow-up of 6.7 years, corresponding to 149,650 person-years, they determined the general cancer incidence rate in this cohort and the incidence rate of 13 kinds of cancer associated with minimal physical activity (physical-activity related cancers).

Over the study period, 2,356 cancer events occurred, of which 1,084 could be attributed to kinds of cancer associated with minimal physical activity. Nearly all of the intense physical activity (92.3%) was achieved in bursts of up to 1 minute.
 

Four minutes

The daily duration of activity was almost linearly associated with the outcome, wrote Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, professor of physical activity, lifestyle, and population health at the University of Sydney. “The dose-effect curve was more vertical, and the extent of the risk reduction for kinds of cancer associated with minimal activity was larger than for the overall cancer incidence rate.”

For example, the lowest dose of intense, intermittent physical activity of up to 1 minute was generally 3.4 minutes per day for cancer in general and 3.7 minutes per day for cancer associated with minimal activity (hazard ratio, 0.83 and 0.72, respectively).

“The results of the study with an average follow-up time of almost 7 years suggest that people with a little less than 4 minutes per day of sporadic intense activity had an overall 17% lower risk of cancer,” wrote Yvonne Wengström, PhD, professor of nursing at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, in an accompanying editorial.

For kinds of cancer possibly associated with minimal activity, the researchers found the risk to be reduced by 28% through daily intermittent physical activity. “Even a few minutes of short, intense physical exercise in people with less leisure activity could lower their cancer risk,” wrote Dr. Wengström and colleagues.

Only at the end of 2022 did the data from Dr. Stamatakis and his colleagues suggest a correlation between a little more than 4 minutes of intense physical activity per day and a lower risk for cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and overall mortality in athletes and nonathletes.
 

Wearable arm trackers

The authors of the recent study used an existing cohort’s activity data from an earlier substudy of the UK Biobank that measured acceleration in the wrist. The movement behavior here was recorded over a period of 7 days in more than 90,000 people between 2013 and 2015.

Dr. Wengström and her colleagues rated the arm trackers to be more reliable than the questionnaires that were completed by the subjects. “One strength of the present study is that physical activity was evaluated with the help of wrist acceleration meters, even though nonathletes were defined using the questionnaire data.”

Information about the general lifestyle of healthy living people also had to be included. Dr. Wengström believes that the researchers succeeded in this, because they adjusted the analyses for the following important factors:

• Age.
• Sex.
• Body mass index.
• Level of education.
• Smoking status.
• Alcohol consumption.
• Duration of sleep.
• Fruit and vegetable consumption.
• Medication intake.
• Parental cancer history.

Clinical implications

According to Dr. Wengström, more studies are required to see whether the results of this study can also be transferred to patients who already have a cancer disease. This is because patients with cancer such as premenopausal and postmenopausal women with breast cancer diseases, who have different biologies and hormonal environments, are affected differently by physical activity.

However, physical activity does play a role in patients with cancer “since physical fitness improves muscle strength, cancer-related fatigue, and the survivors’ quality of life,” said Dr. Wengström. However, it is still important to find the correct amount of physical activity for each group of patients and for each patient. Nevertheless, “any physical activity is better than none,” wrote Dr. Wengström and her colleagues.

This article was translated from Medscape’s German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The results of a recent study in JAMA Oncology suggest that even short periods of intense, intermittent physical activity are associated with a lower risk for cancer. This activity could be a promising measure for cancer prevention in people who otherwise find it difficult to exercise regularly.

Periods of intense, intermittent physical activity are short phases of strenuous physical exercise that normally last for 1 or 2 minutes, such as a short sprint for the bus or walking up the stairs. In the prospective cohort study conducted in a large group of unathletic adults, researchers investigated a potential dose-effect relationship between intense and daily intermittent physical activity and the cancer incidence rate.

Using data gathered from wearable arm trackers, the researchers analyzed the physical activity of 22,398 people with an average age of 62 years from the UK Biobank. Of these participants, 54.8% were women. After a median follow-up of 6.7 years, corresponding to 149,650 person-years, they determined the general cancer incidence rate in this cohort and the incidence rate of 13 kinds of cancer associated with minimal physical activity (physical-activity related cancers).

Over the study period, 2,356 cancer events occurred, of which 1,084 could be attributed to kinds of cancer associated with minimal physical activity. Nearly all of the intense physical activity (92.3%) was achieved in bursts of up to 1 minute.
 

Four minutes

The daily duration of activity was almost linearly associated with the outcome, wrote Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, professor of physical activity, lifestyle, and population health at the University of Sydney. “The dose-effect curve was more vertical, and the extent of the risk reduction for kinds of cancer associated with minimal activity was larger than for the overall cancer incidence rate.”

For example, the lowest dose of intense, intermittent physical activity of up to 1 minute was generally 3.4 minutes per day for cancer in general and 3.7 minutes per day for cancer associated with minimal activity (hazard ratio, 0.83 and 0.72, respectively).

“The results of the study with an average follow-up time of almost 7 years suggest that people with a little less than 4 minutes per day of sporadic intense activity had an overall 17% lower risk of cancer,” wrote Yvonne Wengström, PhD, professor of nursing at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, in an accompanying editorial.

For kinds of cancer possibly associated with minimal activity, the researchers found the risk to be reduced by 28% through daily intermittent physical activity. “Even a few minutes of short, intense physical exercise in people with less leisure activity could lower their cancer risk,” wrote Dr. Wengström and colleagues.

Only at the end of 2022 did the data from Dr. Stamatakis and his colleagues suggest a correlation between a little more than 4 minutes of intense physical activity per day and a lower risk for cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and overall mortality in athletes and nonathletes.
 

Wearable arm trackers

The authors of the recent study used an existing cohort’s activity data from an earlier substudy of the UK Biobank that measured acceleration in the wrist. The movement behavior here was recorded over a period of 7 days in more than 90,000 people between 2013 and 2015.

Dr. Wengström and her colleagues rated the arm trackers to be more reliable than the questionnaires that were completed by the subjects. “One strength of the present study is that physical activity was evaluated with the help of wrist acceleration meters, even though nonathletes were defined using the questionnaire data.”

Information about the general lifestyle of healthy living people also had to be included. Dr. Wengström believes that the researchers succeeded in this, because they adjusted the analyses for the following important factors:

• Age.
• Sex.
• Body mass index.
• Level of education.
• Smoking status.
• Alcohol consumption.
• Duration of sleep.
• Fruit and vegetable consumption.
• Medication intake.
• Parental cancer history.

Clinical implications

According to Dr. Wengström, more studies are required to see whether the results of this study can also be transferred to patients who already have a cancer disease. This is because patients with cancer such as premenopausal and postmenopausal women with breast cancer diseases, who have different biologies and hormonal environments, are affected differently by physical activity.

However, physical activity does play a role in patients with cancer “since physical fitness improves muscle strength, cancer-related fatigue, and the survivors’ quality of life,” said Dr. Wengström. However, it is still important to find the correct amount of physical activity for each group of patients and for each patient. Nevertheless, “any physical activity is better than none,” wrote Dr. Wengström and her colleagues.

This article was translated from Medscape’s German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The results of a recent study in JAMA Oncology suggest that even short periods of intense, intermittent physical activity are associated with a lower risk for cancer. This activity could be a promising measure for cancer prevention in people who otherwise find it difficult to exercise regularly.

Periods of intense, intermittent physical activity are short phases of strenuous physical exercise that normally last for 1 or 2 minutes, such as a short sprint for the bus or walking up the stairs. In the prospective cohort study conducted in a large group of unathletic adults, researchers investigated a potential dose-effect relationship between intense and daily intermittent physical activity and the cancer incidence rate.

Using data gathered from wearable arm trackers, the researchers analyzed the physical activity of 22,398 people with an average age of 62 years from the UK Biobank. Of these participants, 54.8% were women. After a median follow-up of 6.7 years, corresponding to 149,650 person-years, they determined the general cancer incidence rate in this cohort and the incidence rate of 13 kinds of cancer associated with minimal physical activity (physical-activity related cancers).

Over the study period, 2,356 cancer events occurred, of which 1,084 could be attributed to kinds of cancer associated with minimal physical activity. Nearly all of the intense physical activity (92.3%) was achieved in bursts of up to 1 minute.
 

Four minutes

The daily duration of activity was almost linearly associated with the outcome, wrote Emmanuel Stamatakis, PhD, professor of physical activity, lifestyle, and population health at the University of Sydney. “The dose-effect curve was more vertical, and the extent of the risk reduction for kinds of cancer associated with minimal activity was larger than for the overall cancer incidence rate.”

For example, the lowest dose of intense, intermittent physical activity of up to 1 minute was generally 3.4 minutes per day for cancer in general and 3.7 minutes per day for cancer associated with minimal activity (hazard ratio, 0.83 and 0.72, respectively).

“The results of the study with an average follow-up time of almost 7 years suggest that people with a little less than 4 minutes per day of sporadic intense activity had an overall 17% lower risk of cancer,” wrote Yvonne Wengström, PhD, professor of nursing at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, in an accompanying editorial.

For kinds of cancer possibly associated with minimal activity, the researchers found the risk to be reduced by 28% through daily intermittent physical activity. “Even a few minutes of short, intense physical exercise in people with less leisure activity could lower their cancer risk,” wrote Dr. Wengström and colleagues.

Only at the end of 2022 did the data from Dr. Stamatakis and his colleagues suggest a correlation between a little more than 4 minutes of intense physical activity per day and a lower risk for cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and overall mortality in athletes and nonathletes.
 

Wearable arm trackers

The authors of the recent study used an existing cohort’s activity data from an earlier substudy of the UK Biobank that measured acceleration in the wrist. The movement behavior here was recorded over a period of 7 days in more than 90,000 people between 2013 and 2015.

Dr. Wengström and her colleagues rated the arm trackers to be more reliable than the questionnaires that were completed by the subjects. “One strength of the present study is that physical activity was evaluated with the help of wrist acceleration meters, even though nonathletes were defined using the questionnaire data.”

Information about the general lifestyle of healthy living people also had to be included. Dr. Wengström believes that the researchers succeeded in this, because they adjusted the analyses for the following important factors:

• Age.
• Sex.
• Body mass index.
• Level of education.
• Smoking status.
• Alcohol consumption.
• Duration of sleep.
• Fruit and vegetable consumption.
• Medication intake.
• Parental cancer history.

Clinical implications

According to Dr. Wengström, more studies are required to see whether the results of this study can also be transferred to patients who already have a cancer disease. This is because patients with cancer such as premenopausal and postmenopausal women with breast cancer diseases, who have different biologies and hormonal environments, are affected differently by physical activity.

However, physical activity does play a role in patients with cancer “since physical fitness improves muscle strength, cancer-related fatigue, and the survivors’ quality of life,” said Dr. Wengström. However, it is still important to find the correct amount of physical activity for each group of patients and for each patient. Nevertheless, “any physical activity is better than none,” wrote Dr. Wengström and her colleagues.

This article was translated from Medscape’s German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.