AVAHO

News of physicians accused or convicted of sexually inappropriate behavior toward patients during medical exams has been frequent recently. And patient advocates have brought up the fact that many patients are uncomfortable during sensitive exams.

As a result, more doctors and medical organizations are using chaperones to protect the patient and the physician.

For some institutions, the movement has been toward mandating chaperones. Chaperones can be present for any examination of what are often referred to as sensitive areas, such as breasts, genitalia, and the perianal area. For example, Yale University Health requires patients to use a medical staff member as a chaperone for all sensitive exams except in emergency situations. UCLA Health, on the other hand, allows any adult or child aged 12 years or older to decline a chaperone if they wish to do so. Michigan Medicine provides a chaperone on request, although a patient can opt out.

Many physicians fully support the concept. “If a patient requests a chaperone I think we all, as practitioners, should honor that request respectfully,” said Shieva Ghofrany, MD, an ob.gyn. practicing in Stamford, Conn., and cofounder of tribecalledv, a women’s health knowledge platform. “It’s a clear sign a patient wants to ensure that they feel safe and comfortable.”

However, using a chaperone can be challenging for many primary care physicians and specialists in terms of logistics. Should a chaperone’s job be purely observational? Or should the chaperone also be a medical professional who assists during the procedure? How, specifically, should a chaperone perform their duty during an exam? Where should the chaperone stand? What about legal and ethical ramifications?
 

Who should be a chaperone?

The role of a chaperone is sometimes vaguely defined. It’s logical that a chaperone should have sufficient medical knowledge. Could it be a medical student? Should it be a nurse or another doctor? Would a patient representative suffice even if they aren’t a direct-care clinician?

There are no set standards about who can assume the role. However, the American Medical Association recommends that a patient chaperone be an authorized member of a health care team. For many patients, this is vital.

“As a survivor of sexual assault by an ob.gyn. while I was pregnant, I can assure you that the heinous crime committed against me and hundreds of other women would have been prevented had there been another medical professional in the room,” said Laurie Kanyok, founder of a dance company in New York City, whose former doctor was recently convicted of federal sex abuse charges and is scheduled to be sentenced in July 2023. “The chaperone should be a physician assistant, nurse or medical professional. Qualified professionals better understand the nature and protocols of an exam.”

For children and adolescents, allowing a parent to be a chaperone might be a logical and comforting choice. However, a new British study found that it’s not appropriate.

Study authors Rebecca Jane Moon and Justin Huw Davies looked at pubertal staging–related exams and contend that a chaperone should always be impartial, and a parent’s presence could conceivably open up a physician to false charges of misconduct.

The solution: A parent should have the option be present during any physical exam of their child, with a medical professional additionally acting as chaperone. This can also work for any patient who wishes to bring a trusted friend or family member to their medical appointments.
 

How does a chaperoned exam work?

A research team from the Medical College of Wisconsin and Louisiana State University Health conducted a recent systematic review of patient and clinician perspectives on carrying out a chaperoned urology exam. The review found that the protocol could use improvement. For example, it was reported that over one-quarter of patients didn’t feel comfortable asking for a chaperone if they were not offered one. “Patients should not have to request this,” said Diana Londoño, MD, a board-certified urologist and assistant clinical professor at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

The researchers also found that 93% of female patients preferred a chaperone of the same gender, whereas male patients were split on this issue. Key duties of a chaperone should be to ensure privacy, help interpret instructions from doctor to patient, and continually clarify that consent is being requested as a sensitive exam proceeds, the researchers report. Although clinical practice standards for chaperones aren’t uniform, keeping these important points in mind can easily be adopted by any health care provider.

Many doctors do follow their own set guidelines. “Often, we have our medical assistants be our chaperones,” explained Dr. Ghofrany. “Ideally they ‘room’ the patient – take vitals and ask the patient what specific concerns they would like to address. This helps with exam set-up.

“For example, if a patient has a breast concern versus a concern about their genital area, this would change what drapes are used. The medical assistant would then stand near me if they are helping with a Pap smear or cultures, or they may stand by the patient’s head at the bedside and offer support if needed. Some patients want to hold someone’s hand during an uncomfortable exam.”

The issue of positioning is important. A patient may feel very uneasy if it appears that the chaperone is looking at their body from the doctor’s angle, negating the point of reassurance. The key is to explain before an exam exactly how a chaperone is needed during the exam itself and whether the chaperone is a medical assistant or nurse.

“Chaperones usually stand next to me on either side or on the side of the patient facing me, depending on if they are immediately assisting me or helping the patient,” said Dr. Londoño. If a chaperone will be moving back and forth during the exam, that should be conveyed as well. For virtual visits, a chaperone can act as a third party and be present on a split screen, a process Michigan Medicine uses.

It’s also important to inform patients that a chaperone can step in and stop an exam at any point, both at the patient’s request or because of any observation of inappropriate physician behavior. Understanding this can help reluctant patients feel less worry.

When Christian Miller was diagnosed with a sleep disorder, his doctor suggested having a chaperone present during his physical exams. At first, he was apprehensive but then found the experience to be very positive. “Having someone there with me gave me an extra measure of assurance that nothing untoward would happen,” he said. “I found that having a chaperone was reassuring. The chaperone was not intrusive but stood close enough to ensure everything went smoothly and respectfully.”
 

Do chaperones help protect physicians legally?

Some states mandate that chaperones be present by patient request during sensitive exams, such as Texas and Oregon. For the most part, though, physicians have no legal obligation to offer chaperones, although it could be in their best interest to do so.

Ob.gyn. is one of the most litigated specialties, for example, so these physicians may find chaperones can play a key role in averting lawsuits. According to data from Physicians’ Insurance, having a reliable witness in an exam room can mitigate claims, and doctors should follow a clear practice policy regarding chaperones for all patients to further reduce liability.

Another advantage to having a chaperone present: protection for a doctor against a problematic patient. The risk for assault or aggression during an exam can of course go both ways. It’s important to be able to prove any patient misconduct through a witness, and a chaperone can lessen the prospect of violence in any form. “Having a chaperone in an exam room is about protecting the doctors as well as the patient,” said Ms. Kanyok.

A chaperone can also defuse ethical dilemmas. Consider a patient who refuses to allow a chaperone in an exam, but a chaperone is required by the physician’s health care organization. Asking a patient to state their reasons for wanting privacy with the chaperone present before the actual exam can help document the patient’s wish respectfully as well as protect a physician and organization from any potential liability if the patient refuses the exam altogether or if an exception for the patient is made.
 

Making a chaperone policy work best

• Have your staff inform patients of a medical chaperone policy at the time an appointment is made. Have fact sheets available for the patient before appointments fully outlining your policy.
• Inform the chaperone fully about the details of the exam and the patient’s case prior to the exam, in accordance with HIPAA.
• The chaperone can introduce themselves to the patient in the waiting room or exam room before you enter the room. The chaperone can go over the policy again verbally and answer any questions the patient may have initially. You can then clarify whether the patient understands your chaperone policy when you come in.
• Document, document, document. Write down who the chaperone was for each exam in patient notes and note the details of any interactions that are significant, such as patient questions or conflicts.
• Practice respect, above all. “A patient’s safety and level of comfort should be prioritized,” said Ms. Kanyok.

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

News of physicians accused or convicted of sexually inappropriate behavior toward patients during medical exams has been frequent recently. And patient advocates have brought up the fact that many patients are uncomfortable during sensitive exams.

As a result, more doctors and medical organizations are using chaperones to protect the patient and the physician.

For some institutions, the movement has been toward mandating chaperones. Chaperones can be present for any examination of what are often referred to as sensitive areas, such as breasts, genitalia, and the perianal area. For example, Yale University Health requires patients to use a medical staff member as a chaperone for all sensitive exams except in emergency situations. UCLA Health, on the other hand, allows any adult or child aged 12 years or older to decline a chaperone if they wish to do so. Michigan Medicine provides a chaperone on request, although a patient can opt out.

Many physicians fully support the concept. “If a patient requests a chaperone I think we all, as practitioners, should honor that request respectfully,” said Shieva Ghofrany, MD, an ob.gyn. practicing in Stamford, Conn., and cofounder of tribecalledv, a women’s health knowledge platform. “It’s a clear sign a patient wants to ensure that they feel safe and comfortable.”

However, using a chaperone can be challenging for many primary care physicians and specialists in terms of logistics. Should a chaperone’s job be purely observational? Or should the chaperone also be a medical professional who assists during the procedure? How, specifically, should a chaperone perform their duty during an exam? Where should the chaperone stand? What about legal and ethical ramifications?
 

Who should be a chaperone?

The role of a chaperone is sometimes vaguely defined. It’s logical that a chaperone should have sufficient medical knowledge. Could it be a medical student? Should it be a nurse or another doctor? Would a patient representative suffice even if they aren’t a direct-care clinician?

There are no set standards about who can assume the role. However, the American Medical Association recommends that a patient chaperone be an authorized member of a health care team. For many patients, this is vital.

“As a survivor of sexual assault by an ob.gyn. while I was pregnant, I can assure you that the heinous crime committed against me and hundreds of other women would have been prevented had there been another medical professional in the room,” said Laurie Kanyok, founder of a dance company in New York City, whose former doctor was recently convicted of federal sex abuse charges and is scheduled to be sentenced in July 2023. “The chaperone should be a physician assistant, nurse or medical professional. Qualified professionals better understand the nature and protocols of an exam.”

For children and adolescents, allowing a parent to be a chaperone might be a logical and comforting choice. However, a new British study found that it’s not appropriate.

Study authors Rebecca Jane Moon and Justin Huw Davies looked at pubertal staging–related exams and contend that a chaperone should always be impartial, and a parent’s presence could conceivably open up a physician to false charges of misconduct.

The solution: A parent should have the option be present during any physical exam of their child, with a medical professional additionally acting as chaperone. This can also work for any patient who wishes to bring a trusted friend or family member to their medical appointments.
 

How does a chaperoned exam work?

A research team from the Medical College of Wisconsin and Louisiana State University Health conducted a recent systematic review of patient and clinician perspectives on carrying out a chaperoned urology exam. The review found that the protocol could use improvement. For example, it was reported that over one-quarter of patients didn’t feel comfortable asking for a chaperone if they were not offered one. “Patients should not have to request this,” said Diana Londoño, MD, a board-certified urologist and assistant clinical professor at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

The researchers also found that 93% of female patients preferred a chaperone of the same gender, whereas male patients were split on this issue. Key duties of a chaperone should be to ensure privacy, help interpret instructions from doctor to patient, and continually clarify that consent is being requested as a sensitive exam proceeds, the researchers report. Although clinical practice standards for chaperones aren’t uniform, keeping these important points in mind can easily be adopted by any health care provider.

Many doctors do follow their own set guidelines. “Often, we have our medical assistants be our chaperones,” explained Dr. Ghofrany. “Ideally they ‘room’ the patient – take vitals and ask the patient what specific concerns they would like to address. This helps with exam set-up.

“For example, if a patient has a breast concern versus a concern about their genital area, this would change what drapes are used. The medical assistant would then stand near me if they are helping with a Pap smear or cultures, or they may stand by the patient’s head at the bedside and offer support if needed. Some patients want to hold someone’s hand during an uncomfortable exam.”

The issue of positioning is important. A patient may feel very uneasy if it appears that the chaperone is looking at their body from the doctor’s angle, negating the point of reassurance. The key is to explain before an exam exactly how a chaperone is needed during the exam itself and whether the chaperone is a medical assistant or nurse.

“Chaperones usually stand next to me on either side or on the side of the patient facing me, depending on if they are immediately assisting me or helping the patient,” said Dr. Londoño. If a chaperone will be moving back and forth during the exam, that should be conveyed as well. For virtual visits, a chaperone can act as a third party and be present on a split screen, a process Michigan Medicine uses.

It’s also important to inform patients that a chaperone can step in and stop an exam at any point, both at the patient’s request or because of any observation of inappropriate physician behavior. Understanding this can help reluctant patients feel less worry.

When Christian Miller was diagnosed with a sleep disorder, his doctor suggested having a chaperone present during his physical exams. At first, he was apprehensive but then found the experience to be very positive. “Having someone there with me gave me an extra measure of assurance that nothing untoward would happen,” he said. “I found that having a chaperone was reassuring. The chaperone was not intrusive but stood close enough to ensure everything went smoothly and respectfully.”
 

Do chaperones help protect physicians legally?

Some states mandate that chaperones be present by patient request during sensitive exams, such as Texas and Oregon. For the most part, though, physicians have no legal obligation to offer chaperones, although it could be in their best interest to do so.

Ob.gyn. is one of the most litigated specialties, for example, so these physicians may find chaperones can play a key role in averting lawsuits. According to data from Physicians’ Insurance, having a reliable witness in an exam room can mitigate claims, and doctors should follow a clear practice policy regarding chaperones for all patients to further reduce liability.

Another advantage to having a chaperone present: protection for a doctor against a problematic patient. The risk for assault or aggression during an exam can of course go both ways. It’s important to be able to prove any patient misconduct through a witness, and a chaperone can lessen the prospect of violence in any form. “Having a chaperone in an exam room is about protecting the doctors as well as the patient,” said Ms. Kanyok.

A chaperone can also defuse ethical dilemmas. Consider a patient who refuses to allow a chaperone in an exam, but a chaperone is required by the physician’s health care organization. Asking a patient to state their reasons for wanting privacy with the chaperone present before the actual exam can help document the patient’s wish respectfully as well as protect a physician and organization from any potential liability if the patient refuses the exam altogether or if an exception for the patient is made.
 

Making a chaperone policy work best

• Have your staff inform patients of a medical chaperone policy at the time an appointment is made. Have fact sheets available for the patient before appointments fully outlining your policy.
• Inform the chaperone fully about the details of the exam and the patient’s case prior to the exam, in accordance with HIPAA.
• The chaperone can introduce themselves to the patient in the waiting room or exam room before you enter the room. The chaperone can go over the policy again verbally and answer any questions the patient may have initially. You can then clarify whether the patient understands your chaperone policy when you come in.
• Document, document, document. Write down who the chaperone was for each exam in patient notes and note the details of any interactions that are significant, such as patient questions or conflicts.
• Practice respect, above all. “A patient’s safety and level of comfort should be prioritized,” said Ms. Kanyok.

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

News of physicians accused or convicted of sexually inappropriate behavior toward patients during medical exams has been frequent recently. And patient advocates have brought up the fact that many patients are uncomfortable during sensitive exams.

As a result, more doctors and medical organizations are using chaperones to protect the patient and the physician.

For some institutions, the movement has been toward mandating chaperones. Chaperones can be present for any examination of what are often referred to as sensitive areas, such as breasts, genitalia, and the perianal area. For example, Yale University Health requires patients to use a medical staff member as a chaperone for all sensitive exams except in emergency situations. UCLA Health, on the other hand, allows any adult or child aged 12 years or older to decline a chaperone if they wish to do so. Michigan Medicine provides a chaperone on request, although a patient can opt out.

Many physicians fully support the concept. “If a patient requests a chaperone I think we all, as practitioners, should honor that request respectfully,” said Shieva Ghofrany, MD, an ob.gyn. practicing in Stamford, Conn., and cofounder of tribecalledv, a women’s health knowledge platform. “It’s a clear sign a patient wants to ensure that they feel safe and comfortable.”

However, using a chaperone can be challenging for many primary care physicians and specialists in terms of logistics. Should a chaperone’s job be purely observational? Or should the chaperone also be a medical professional who assists during the procedure? How, specifically, should a chaperone perform their duty during an exam? Where should the chaperone stand? What about legal and ethical ramifications?
 

Who should be a chaperone?

The role of a chaperone is sometimes vaguely defined. It’s logical that a chaperone should have sufficient medical knowledge. Could it be a medical student? Should it be a nurse or another doctor? Would a patient representative suffice even if they aren’t a direct-care clinician?

There are no set standards about who can assume the role. However, the American Medical Association recommends that a patient chaperone be an authorized member of a health care team. For many patients, this is vital.

“As a survivor of sexual assault by an ob.gyn. while I was pregnant, I can assure you that the heinous crime committed against me and hundreds of other women would have been prevented had there been another medical professional in the room,” said Laurie Kanyok, founder of a dance company in New York City, whose former doctor was recently convicted of federal sex abuse charges and is scheduled to be sentenced in July 2023. “The chaperone should be a physician assistant, nurse or medical professional. Qualified professionals better understand the nature and protocols of an exam.”

For children and adolescents, allowing a parent to be a chaperone might be a logical and comforting choice. However, a new British study found that it’s not appropriate.

Study authors Rebecca Jane Moon and Justin Huw Davies looked at pubertal staging–related exams and contend that a chaperone should always be impartial, and a parent’s presence could conceivably open up a physician to false charges of misconduct.

The solution: A parent should have the option be present during any physical exam of their child, with a medical professional additionally acting as chaperone. This can also work for any patient who wishes to bring a trusted friend or family member to their medical appointments.
 

How does a chaperoned exam work?

A research team from the Medical College of Wisconsin and Louisiana State University Health conducted a recent systematic review of patient and clinician perspectives on carrying out a chaperoned urology exam. The review found that the protocol could use improvement. For example, it was reported that over one-quarter of patients didn’t feel comfortable asking for a chaperone if they were not offered one. “Patients should not have to request this,” said Diana Londoño, MD, a board-certified urologist and assistant clinical professor at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

The researchers also found that 93% of female patients preferred a chaperone of the same gender, whereas male patients were split on this issue. Key duties of a chaperone should be to ensure privacy, help interpret instructions from doctor to patient, and continually clarify that consent is being requested as a sensitive exam proceeds, the researchers report. Although clinical practice standards for chaperones aren’t uniform, keeping these important points in mind can easily be adopted by any health care provider.

Many doctors do follow their own set guidelines. “Often, we have our medical assistants be our chaperones,” explained Dr. Ghofrany. “Ideally they ‘room’ the patient – take vitals and ask the patient what specific concerns they would like to address. This helps with exam set-up.

“For example, if a patient has a breast concern versus a concern about their genital area, this would change what drapes are used. The medical assistant would then stand near me if they are helping with a Pap smear or cultures, or they may stand by the patient’s head at the bedside and offer support if needed. Some patients want to hold someone’s hand during an uncomfortable exam.”

The issue of positioning is important. A patient may feel very uneasy if it appears that the chaperone is looking at their body from the doctor’s angle, negating the point of reassurance. The key is to explain before an exam exactly how a chaperone is needed during the exam itself and whether the chaperone is a medical assistant or nurse.

“Chaperones usually stand next to me on either side or on the side of the patient facing me, depending on if they are immediately assisting me or helping the patient,” said Dr. Londoño. If a chaperone will be moving back and forth during the exam, that should be conveyed as well. For virtual visits, a chaperone can act as a third party and be present on a split screen, a process Michigan Medicine uses.

It’s also important to inform patients that a chaperone can step in and stop an exam at any point, both at the patient’s request or because of any observation of inappropriate physician behavior. Understanding this can help reluctant patients feel less worry.

When Christian Miller was diagnosed with a sleep disorder, his doctor suggested having a chaperone present during his physical exams. At first, he was apprehensive but then found the experience to be very positive. “Having someone there with me gave me an extra measure of assurance that nothing untoward would happen,” he said. “I found that having a chaperone was reassuring. The chaperone was not intrusive but stood close enough to ensure everything went smoothly and respectfully.”
 

Do chaperones help protect physicians legally?

Some states mandate that chaperones be present by patient request during sensitive exams, such as Texas and Oregon. For the most part, though, physicians have no legal obligation to offer chaperones, although it could be in their best interest to do so.

Ob.gyn. is one of the most litigated specialties, for example, so these physicians may find chaperones can play a key role in averting lawsuits. According to data from Physicians’ Insurance, having a reliable witness in an exam room can mitigate claims, and doctors should follow a clear practice policy regarding chaperones for all patients to further reduce liability.

Another advantage to having a chaperone present: protection for a doctor against a problematic patient. The risk for assault or aggression during an exam can of course go both ways. It’s important to be able to prove any patient misconduct through a witness, and a chaperone can lessen the prospect of violence in any form. “Having a chaperone in an exam room is about protecting the doctors as well as the patient,” said Ms. Kanyok.

A chaperone can also defuse ethical dilemmas. Consider a patient who refuses to allow a chaperone in an exam, but a chaperone is required by the physician’s health care organization. Asking a patient to state their reasons for wanting privacy with the chaperone present before the actual exam can help document the patient’s wish respectfully as well as protect a physician and organization from any potential liability if the patient refuses the exam altogether or if an exception for the patient is made.
 

Making a chaperone policy work best

• Have your staff inform patients of a medical chaperone policy at the time an appointment is made. Have fact sheets available for the patient before appointments fully outlining your policy.
• Inform the chaperone fully about the details of the exam and the patient’s case prior to the exam, in accordance with HIPAA.
• The chaperone can introduce themselves to the patient in the waiting room or exam room before you enter the room. The chaperone can go over the policy again verbally and answer any questions the patient may have initially. You can then clarify whether the patient understands your chaperone policy when you come in.
• Document, document, document. Write down who the chaperone was for each exam in patient notes and note the details of any interactions that are significant, such as patient questions or conflicts.
• Practice respect, above all. “A patient’s safety and level of comfort should be prioritized,” said Ms. Kanyok.

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

Patients with cancer are at a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE)—in fact, it’s one of the leading causes of death in patients who receive systemic therapy for cancer. But as cancer treatment has evolved, have the incidence and risk of VTE changed too?

Researchers from Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts conducted a study with 434,203 veterans to evaluate the pattern of VTE incidence over 16 years, focusing on the types of cancer, treatment, race and ethnicity, and other factors related to cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT).

In contrast with other large population studies, this study found the overall incidence of CAT remained largely stable over time. At 12 months, the incidence was 4.5%, with yearly trends ranging between 4.2% and 4.7%. “As expected,” the researchers say, the subset of patients receiving systemic therapy had a higher incidence of VTE at 12 months (7.7%) than did the overall cohort. The pattern was “particularly pronounced” in gynecologic, testicular, and kidney cancers, where the incidence of VTE was 2 to 3 times higher in the treated cohort compared with the overall cohort. 

Cancer type and diagnosis were the most statistically and clinically significant associations with CAT, with up to a 6-fold difference between cancer subtypes. The patients at the highest risk of VTE were those with pancreatic cancer and acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Most studies have focused only on patients with solid tumors, but these researchers observed novel patterns among patients with hematologic neoplasms. Specifically, a higher incidence of VTE among patients with aggressive vs indolent leukemias and lymphomas. This trend, the researchers say, may be associated in part with catheter-related events.

Furthermore, the type of system treatment was associated with the risk of VTE, the researchers say, although to a lesser extent. Chemotherapy- and immunotherapy-based regimens had the highest risk of VTE, relative to no treatment. Targeted and endocrine therapy also carried a higher risk compared with no treatment but to a lesser degree.

The researchers found significant heterogeneity by race and ethnicity across cancer types. Non-Hispanic Black patients had about 20% higher risk of VTE compared with non-Hispanic White patients. Asian and Pacific Islander patients had about 20% lower risk compared with non-Hispanic White patients.

Male sex was also associated with VTE. However, “interestingly,” the researchers note, neighborhood-level socioeconomic factors and patients’ comorbidities were not associated with CAT but were associated with mortality.

Their results suggest that patient- and treatment-specific factors play a critical role in assessing the risk of CAT, and “ongoing efforts to identify these patterns are of utmost importance for risk stratification and prognostic assessment.”

Patients with cancer are at a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE)—in fact, it’s one of the leading causes of death in patients who receive systemic therapy for cancer. But as cancer treatment has evolved, have the incidence and risk of VTE changed too?

Researchers from Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts conducted a study with 434,203 veterans to evaluate the pattern of VTE incidence over 16 years, focusing on the types of cancer, treatment, race and ethnicity, and other factors related to cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT).

In contrast with other large population studies, this study found the overall incidence of CAT remained largely stable over time. At 12 months, the incidence was 4.5%, with yearly trends ranging between 4.2% and 4.7%. “As expected,” the researchers say, the subset of patients receiving systemic therapy had a higher incidence of VTE at 12 months (7.7%) than did the overall cohort. The pattern was “particularly pronounced” in gynecologic, testicular, and kidney cancers, where the incidence of VTE was 2 to 3 times higher in the treated cohort compared with the overall cohort. 

Cancer type and diagnosis were the most statistically and clinically significant associations with CAT, with up to a 6-fold difference between cancer subtypes. The patients at the highest risk of VTE were those with pancreatic cancer and acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Most studies have focused only on patients with solid tumors, but these researchers observed novel patterns among patients with hematologic neoplasms. Specifically, a higher incidence of VTE among patients with aggressive vs indolent leukemias and lymphomas. This trend, the researchers say, may be associated in part with catheter-related events.

Furthermore, the type of system treatment was associated with the risk of VTE, the researchers say, although to a lesser extent. Chemotherapy- and immunotherapy-based regimens had the highest risk of VTE, relative to no treatment. Targeted and endocrine therapy also carried a higher risk compared with no treatment but to a lesser degree.

The researchers found significant heterogeneity by race and ethnicity across cancer types. Non-Hispanic Black patients had about 20% higher risk of VTE compared with non-Hispanic White patients. Asian and Pacific Islander patients had about 20% lower risk compared with non-Hispanic White patients.

Male sex was also associated with VTE. However, “interestingly,” the researchers note, neighborhood-level socioeconomic factors and patients’ comorbidities were not associated with CAT but were associated with mortality.

Their results suggest that patient- and treatment-specific factors play a critical role in assessing the risk of CAT, and “ongoing efforts to identify these patterns are of utmost importance for risk stratification and prognostic assessment.”

Patients with cancer are at a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE)—in fact, it’s one of the leading causes of death in patients who receive systemic therapy for cancer. But as cancer treatment has evolved, have the incidence and risk of VTE changed too?

Researchers from Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System in Massachusetts conducted a study with 434,203 veterans to evaluate the pattern of VTE incidence over 16 years, focusing on the types of cancer, treatment, race and ethnicity, and other factors related to cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT).

In contrast with other large population studies, this study found the overall incidence of CAT remained largely stable over time. At 12 months, the incidence was 4.5%, with yearly trends ranging between 4.2% and 4.7%. “As expected,” the researchers say, the subset of patients receiving systemic therapy had a higher incidence of VTE at 12 months (7.7%) than did the overall cohort. The pattern was “particularly pronounced” in gynecologic, testicular, and kidney cancers, where the incidence of VTE was 2 to 3 times higher in the treated cohort compared with the overall cohort. 

Cancer type and diagnosis were the most statistically and clinically significant associations with CAT, with up to a 6-fold difference between cancer subtypes. The patients at the highest risk of VTE were those with pancreatic cancer and acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Most studies have focused only on patients with solid tumors, but these researchers observed novel patterns among patients with hematologic neoplasms. Specifically, a higher incidence of VTE among patients with aggressive vs indolent leukemias and lymphomas. This trend, the researchers say, may be associated in part with catheter-related events.

Furthermore, the type of system treatment was associated with the risk of VTE, the researchers say, although to a lesser extent. Chemotherapy- and immunotherapy-based regimens had the highest risk of VTE, relative to no treatment. Targeted and endocrine therapy also carried a higher risk compared with no treatment but to a lesser degree.

The researchers found significant heterogeneity by race and ethnicity across cancer types. Non-Hispanic Black patients had about 20% higher risk of VTE compared with non-Hispanic White patients. Asian and Pacific Islander patients had about 20% lower risk compared with non-Hispanic White patients.

Male sex was also associated with VTE. However, “interestingly,” the researchers note, neighborhood-level socioeconomic factors and patients’ comorbidities were not associated with CAT but were associated with mortality.

Their results suggest that patient- and treatment-specific factors play a critical role in assessing the risk of CAT, and “ongoing efforts to identify these patterns are of utmost importance for risk stratification and prognostic assessment.”

As the number of female veterans continues to grow, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is adjusting by focusing more on breast/gynecological cancer and referring fewer cases to outside clinicians.

The VA’s effort reflects the reality that female veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are approaching the ages—50s, 60s, and 70s—when cancer diagnoses become more common, said Sarah Colonna, MD, national medical director of breast oncology for VA's Breast and Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence and an oncologist at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and Wahlen VA Medical Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. “This is preparation for the change that we know is coming.”

In response, the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) is devoting a regional meeting in Tampa, Florida (July 29, 2023) to improving survivorship for patients with women’s cancers. “This meeting is designed to educate both cancer experts and primary care providers on the care of women who have already gone through breast and gynecological cancer treatment,” Colonna explained.

Adherence Challenges

Colonna will speak in a session about the importance of adherence to endocrine therapy. “When we prescribe endocrine therapy for breast cancer, we usually ask women to stay on it for 5 to 10 years, and sometimes that’s hard for them,” she said. “I’ll talk about tips and tricks to help women stay on endocrine therapy for the long haul because we know that is linked to better survival.”

Between two-thirds and three-quarters of women with breast cancer are advised to stay on endocrine drugs, she said, but the medications can be difficult to tolerate due to adverse effects such as hot flashes and sleep disturbances.

In addition, patients are often anxious about the medications. “Women are very leery of anything that changes or makes their hormones different,” Colonna noted. “They feel like it’s messing with something that is natural for them.”

Colonna urges colleagues to focus on their “soft skills,” the ability to absorb and validate the worries of patients. Instead of dismissing them, she said, focus on messages that acknowledge concerns but are also firm: “That’s real, that sucks. But we’ve got to do it.”

It’s also helpful to guide patients away from thinking that taking a pill every day means they’re sick. “I try to flip that paradigm: ‘You’re taking this pill every day because you have power over this thing that happened to you.’”

Education is also key, she said, so that patients “understand very clearly why this medication is important for them: It increases the chance of surviving breast cancer or it increases the chances that the cancer will never come back in your arm or in your breast. Then, whether they make a decision to take it or not, at least they’re making the choice with knowledge.”

As for adverse effects, Colonna said medications such as antidepressants and painkillers can relieve hot flashes, which can disturb sleep.

Identifying the best strategy to address adverse effects “requires keeping in frequent contact with the patient during the first 6 months of endocrine therapy, which are really critical,” she said. “Once they’ve been on it for a year, they can see the light at the end of the tunnel and hang in there even if they have adverse effects.”

Some guidelines suggest that no doctor visits are needed until the 6-month mark, but Colonna prefers to check in at the 4- to 6-week mark, even if it’s just via a phone call. Otherwise, “often they’ll stop taking the pill, and then you won’t know about it until you see them at 6 six months.” At that point, she said, a critical period for treatment has passed.

The Role of Nurse Navigators

In another session at the Tampa regional meeting, AVAHO president-elect Cindy Bowman, MSN, RN, OCN, will moderate a session about the role of nurse navigators in VA cancer care. She is the coordinator of the Cancer Care Navigation Program at the C. W. Bill Young VA Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida.

“Veterans become survivors the day they’re diagnosed with cancer,” she said. Within the VA, cancer-care navigator teams developed over the past decade aim to help patients find their way forward through survivorship, she said, and nurses are crucial to the effort.

As Sharp and Scheid reported in a 2018 Journal Oncology Navigation Survivorship article, “research demonstrates that navigation can improve access to the cancer care system by addressing barriers, as well as facilitating quality care. The benefits of patient navigation for improving cancer patient outcomes is considerable.” McKenney and colleagues found that “patient navigation has been demonstrated to increase access to screening, shorten time to diagnostic resolution, and improve cancer outcomes, particularly in health disparity populations, such as women of color, rural populations, and poor women.” 

According to Bowman, “it has become standard practice to have nurse navigators be there each step of the way from a high suspicion of cancer to diagnosis and through the clinical workup into active treatment and survivorship.” Within the VA, she said, “the focus right now is to look at standardizing care that all VAs will be able to offer holistic, comprehensive cancer-care navigation teams.”

At the regional meeting, Bowman’s session will include updates from nurse navigators about helping patients through breast/gynecological cancer, abnormal mammograms, and survivorship.

Nurse navigators are typically the second medical professionals who talk to cancer patients after their physicians, Bowman said. The unique knowledge of oncology nurse navigators gives them invaluable insight into treatment plans and cancer drug regimens, she said.

“They’re able to sit down and discuss the actual cancer drug regimen with patients—what each of those drugs do, how they’re administered, the short-term and long-term side effects,” she said. “They have the knowledge about all aspects of cancer care that can really only come from somebody who’s specialty trained.”

Other sessions at the AVAHO regional meeting will highlight breast cancer and lymphedema, breast cancer and bone health; diet, exercise and cancer; sexual health for breast/gynecological cancer survivors; and imaging surveillance after diagnosis.

As the number of female veterans continues to grow, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is adjusting by focusing more on breast/gynecological cancer and referring fewer cases to outside clinicians.

The VA’s effort reflects the reality that female veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are approaching the ages—50s, 60s, and 70s—when cancer diagnoses become more common, said Sarah Colonna, MD, national medical director of breast oncology for VA's Breast and Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence and an oncologist at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and Wahlen VA Medical Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. “This is preparation for the change that we know is coming.”

In response, the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) is devoting a regional meeting in Tampa, Florida (July 29, 2023) to improving survivorship for patients with women’s cancers. “This meeting is designed to educate both cancer experts and primary care providers on the care of women who have already gone through breast and gynecological cancer treatment,” Colonna explained.

Adherence Challenges

Colonna will speak in a session about the importance of adherence to endocrine therapy. “When we prescribe endocrine therapy for breast cancer, we usually ask women to stay on it for 5 to 10 years, and sometimes that’s hard for them,” she said. “I’ll talk about tips and tricks to help women stay on endocrine therapy for the long haul because we know that is linked to better survival.”

Between two-thirds and three-quarters of women with breast cancer are advised to stay on endocrine drugs, she said, but the medications can be difficult to tolerate due to adverse effects such as hot flashes and sleep disturbances.

In addition, patients are often anxious about the medications. “Women are very leery of anything that changes or makes their hormones different,” Colonna noted. “They feel like it’s messing with something that is natural for them.”

Colonna urges colleagues to focus on their “soft skills,” the ability to absorb and validate the worries of patients. Instead of dismissing them, she said, focus on messages that acknowledge concerns but are also firm: “That’s real, that sucks. But we’ve got to do it.”

It’s also helpful to guide patients away from thinking that taking a pill every day means they’re sick. “I try to flip that paradigm: ‘You’re taking this pill every day because you have power over this thing that happened to you.’”

Education is also key, she said, so that patients “understand very clearly why this medication is important for them: It increases the chance of surviving breast cancer or it increases the chances that the cancer will never come back in your arm or in your breast. Then, whether they make a decision to take it or not, at least they’re making the choice with knowledge.”

As for adverse effects, Colonna said medications such as antidepressants and painkillers can relieve hot flashes, which can disturb sleep.

Identifying the best strategy to address adverse effects “requires keeping in frequent contact with the patient during the first 6 months of endocrine therapy, which are really critical,” she said. “Once they’ve been on it for a year, they can see the light at the end of the tunnel and hang in there even if they have adverse effects.”

Some guidelines suggest that no doctor visits are needed until the 6-month mark, but Colonna prefers to check in at the 4- to 6-week mark, even if it’s just via a phone call. Otherwise, “often they’ll stop taking the pill, and then you won’t know about it until you see them at 6 six months.” At that point, she said, a critical period for treatment has passed.

The Role of Nurse Navigators

In another session at the Tampa regional meeting, AVAHO president-elect Cindy Bowman, MSN, RN, OCN, will moderate a session about the role of nurse navigators in VA cancer care. She is the coordinator of the Cancer Care Navigation Program at the C. W. Bill Young VA Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida.

“Veterans become survivors the day they’re diagnosed with cancer,” she said. Within the VA, cancer-care navigator teams developed over the past decade aim to help patients find their way forward through survivorship, she said, and nurses are crucial to the effort.

As Sharp and Scheid reported in a 2018 Journal Oncology Navigation Survivorship article, “research demonstrates that navigation can improve access to the cancer care system by addressing barriers, as well as facilitating quality care. The benefits of patient navigation for improving cancer patient outcomes is considerable.” McKenney and colleagues found that “patient navigation has been demonstrated to increase access to screening, shorten time to diagnostic resolution, and improve cancer outcomes, particularly in health disparity populations, such as women of color, rural populations, and poor women.” 

According to Bowman, “it has become standard practice to have nurse navigators be there each step of the way from a high suspicion of cancer to diagnosis and through the clinical workup into active treatment and survivorship.” Within the VA, she said, “the focus right now is to look at standardizing care that all VAs will be able to offer holistic, comprehensive cancer-care navigation teams.”

At the regional meeting, Bowman’s session will include updates from nurse navigators about helping patients through breast/gynecological cancer, abnormal mammograms, and survivorship.

Nurse navigators are typically the second medical professionals who talk to cancer patients after their physicians, Bowman said. The unique knowledge of oncology nurse navigators gives them invaluable insight into treatment plans and cancer drug regimens, she said.

“They’re able to sit down and discuss the actual cancer drug regimen with patients—what each of those drugs do, how they’re administered, the short-term and long-term side effects,” she said. “They have the knowledge about all aspects of cancer care that can really only come from somebody who’s specialty trained.”

Other sessions at the AVAHO regional meeting will highlight breast cancer and lymphedema, breast cancer and bone health; diet, exercise and cancer; sexual health for breast/gynecological cancer survivors; and imaging surveillance after diagnosis.

As the number of female veterans continues to grow, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is adjusting by focusing more on breast/gynecological cancer and referring fewer cases to outside clinicians.

The VA’s effort reflects the reality that female veterans from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are approaching the ages—50s, 60s, and 70s—when cancer diagnoses become more common, said Sarah Colonna, MD, national medical director of breast oncology for VA's Breast and Gynecologic Oncology System of Excellence and an oncologist at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and Wahlen VA Medical Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. “This is preparation for the change that we know is coming.”

In response, the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) is devoting a regional meeting in Tampa, Florida (July 29, 2023) to improving survivorship for patients with women’s cancers. “This meeting is designed to educate both cancer experts and primary care providers on the care of women who have already gone through breast and gynecological cancer treatment,” Colonna explained.

Adherence Challenges

Colonna will speak in a session about the importance of adherence to endocrine therapy. “When we prescribe endocrine therapy for breast cancer, we usually ask women to stay on it for 5 to 10 years, and sometimes that’s hard for them,” she said. “I’ll talk about tips and tricks to help women stay on endocrine therapy for the long haul because we know that is linked to better survival.”

Between two-thirds and three-quarters of women with breast cancer are advised to stay on endocrine drugs, she said, but the medications can be difficult to tolerate due to adverse effects such as hot flashes and sleep disturbances.

In addition, patients are often anxious about the medications. “Women are very leery of anything that changes or makes their hormones different,” Colonna noted. “They feel like it’s messing with something that is natural for them.”

Colonna urges colleagues to focus on their “soft skills,” the ability to absorb and validate the worries of patients. Instead of dismissing them, she said, focus on messages that acknowledge concerns but are also firm: “That’s real, that sucks. But we’ve got to do it.”

It’s also helpful to guide patients away from thinking that taking a pill every day means they’re sick. “I try to flip that paradigm: ‘You’re taking this pill every day because you have power over this thing that happened to you.’”

Education is also key, she said, so that patients “understand very clearly why this medication is important for them: It increases the chance of surviving breast cancer or it increases the chances that the cancer will never come back in your arm or in your breast. Then, whether they make a decision to take it or not, at least they’re making the choice with knowledge.”

As for adverse effects, Colonna said medications such as antidepressants and painkillers can relieve hot flashes, which can disturb sleep.

Identifying the best strategy to address adverse effects “requires keeping in frequent contact with the patient during the first 6 months of endocrine therapy, which are really critical,” she said. “Once they’ve been on it for a year, they can see the light at the end of the tunnel and hang in there even if they have adverse effects.”

Some guidelines suggest that no doctor visits are needed until the 6-month mark, but Colonna prefers to check in at the 4- to 6-week mark, even if it’s just via a phone call. Otherwise, “often they’ll stop taking the pill, and then you won’t know about it until you see them at 6 six months.” At that point, she said, a critical period for treatment has passed.

The Role of Nurse Navigators

In another session at the Tampa regional meeting, AVAHO president-elect Cindy Bowman, MSN, RN, OCN, will moderate a session about the role of nurse navigators in VA cancer care. She is the coordinator of the Cancer Care Navigation Program at the C. W. Bill Young VA Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida.

“Veterans become survivors the day they’re diagnosed with cancer,” she said. Within the VA, cancer-care navigator teams developed over the past decade aim to help patients find their way forward through survivorship, she said, and nurses are crucial to the effort.

As Sharp and Scheid reported in a 2018 Journal Oncology Navigation Survivorship article, “research demonstrates that navigation can improve access to the cancer care system by addressing barriers, as well as facilitating quality care. The benefits of patient navigation for improving cancer patient outcomes is considerable.” McKenney and colleagues found that “patient navigation has been demonstrated to increase access to screening, shorten time to diagnostic resolution, and improve cancer outcomes, particularly in health disparity populations, such as women of color, rural populations, and poor women.” 

According to Bowman, “it has become standard practice to have nurse navigators be there each step of the way from a high suspicion of cancer to diagnosis and through the clinical workup into active treatment and survivorship.” Within the VA, she said, “the focus right now is to look at standardizing care that all VAs will be able to offer holistic, comprehensive cancer-care navigation teams.”

At the regional meeting, Bowman’s session will include updates from nurse navigators about helping patients through breast/gynecological cancer, abnormal mammograms, and survivorship.

Nurse navigators are typically the second medical professionals who talk to cancer patients after their physicians, Bowman said. The unique knowledge of oncology nurse navigators gives them invaluable insight into treatment plans and cancer drug regimens, she said.

“They’re able to sit down and discuss the actual cancer drug regimen with patients—what each of those drugs do, how they’re administered, the short-term and long-term side effects,” she said. “They have the knowledge about all aspects of cancer care that can really only come from somebody who’s specialty trained.”

Other sessions at the AVAHO regional meeting will highlight breast cancer and lymphedema, breast cancer and bone health; diet, exercise and cancer; sexual health for breast/gynecological cancer survivors; and imaging surveillance after diagnosis.

The National Cancer Institute recently released a publicly available oral cancer survival calculator for people recently diagnosed with oral cancer.

This represents the first cancer survival calculator that provides “personalized estimates of the likelihood of surviving or dying from oral cancer or other causes,” according to the experts who developed the tool.

An analysis evaluating the new calculator revealed that people with oral cancer are more likely to die from other causes, compared with their peers without oral cancer, and that noncancer survival worsens with cancer stage.

With its unique design, the calculator “represents perhaps one of the most sophisticated and comprehensive tools to date by integrating multiple population-level data sources to account for general health status [and] disease exposures,” such as alcohol and tobacco, socioeconomic status, and coexisting conditions, the authors of an accompanying commentary wrote.

This calculator may just be the beginning. The broader aim of developing the tool, the study authors explained, is for this new calculator approach to be “applicable for developing future prognostic models of cancer and noncancer aspects of a person’s health in other cancers.”

The analysis was published in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery.

When assessing survival, factors such as cancer stage and tumor size are key, but comorbidities also play a crucial role. For oral cancer in particular, where alcohol and tobacco use are notorious risk factors, comorbidities occur frequently and are often serious.

To create a model that provides more “holistic and personalized” estimates and includes a host of factors that can affect the risk of death, the authors tapped into data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to develop the SEER Oral Cancer Survival Calculator.

Alongside data from the SEER database, the calculator used data from the National Health Interview Survey’s Longitudinal Mortality Files to obtain estimates of general health status, life expectancy without cancer, and the probability of dying from the cancer or from other causes within 1-10 years among people with newly diagnosed oral cancer.

Overall, the data included 22,392 patients, aged 20-94, with oral squamous cell carcinoma, 60.5% of whom were male and 78% White, as well as 402,626 interviewees from the survey. The calculator did not include patients with tonsil- or tongue-based cancers, which were not considered anatomically part of the oral cavity.

The most common conditions coexisting with oral cancer were diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among older patients. Among those with oral cancer, more than half (52.8%) had none of the major coexisting conditions, which also included peripheral and cerebrovascular disease, compared with 80% of the Medicare population.

The researchers described and validated four models – one that estimated the probability of death due to oral cancer, and then three others that estimated the probability of death from other causes, with variations based on the specific data and covariates included.

Overall, the models in the calculator estimated that patients with oral cancer have a higher risk of death from other causes, compared with the general population, and survival estimates for noncancer causes got worse with more advanced cancer stage.

For instance, for a patient diagnosed with stage 3 oral cancer after age 50, the chances of being alive at age 70 were 60% for females and 44% for males in the absence of cancer, whereas the corresponding survival estimates in the general U.S. population were 86% for females and 79% for males – an absolute difference of 26 and 35 percentage points.

One key reason for this trend is that patients with later-stage cancers likely also have more coexisting health conditions, first author Louise Davies, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., explained.

Another reason: For cancers with low enough mortality rates, people might be more likely to die from causes other than their cancer. This can also occur in ductal carcinoma in situ breast cancer or papillary thyroid cancer, noted Dr. Davies, also from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, Vt.

Commenting on the study, Eric Moore, MD, a head and neck surgeon with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said that while such prediction tools are important, they also come with caveats.

“I think these calculators are helpful and certainly having them widely available to people gives them another piece of knowledge that can be powerful,” he told this news organization. “But you want to make sure you don’t interpret them as the end-all, be-all message, because there are an infinite number of variables that could influence survival that aren’t available in some of these datasets.”

Neil D. Gross, MD, a professor of head and neck surgery at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, agreed. Although this new calculator uses a large dataset, such tools “can be imperfect” and some factors simply can’t be calculated, such as a person’s priorities, Dr. Gross said.

That’s why there’s no substitute for having a “very personal discussion between a patient and a physician to decide what’s best.” And this calculator is just one tool to help with that process, Dr. Gross said.

The commentary authors echoed these sentiments. “This calculator can potentially bridge the gaps between the survival estimates in the literature, life tables, clinical gestalt, and physician attempts to contextualize the inherent limitations of applying survival curves and averages to the one patient with the diagnosis,” wrote Leila J. Mady, MD, PhD, MPH, Wayne M. Koch, MD, and Carole Fakhry, MD, MPH, all from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore.

But a caveat in providing such predictions is the possible psychological effect the news can have.

“Potential risks of revealing personalized prognostic survival estimates to patients include increased anxiety and distress surrounding competing causes of death [and] misinterpretation of data,” the commentary authors cautioned, adding that “we must present such information with grace and sensitivity.”

Dr. Davies recommends that clinicians ask patients what they want to know because that will vary by patient and potentially over time for the same patient.

“People are more than their cancer diagnosis,” said Dr. Davies. “Giving them the opportunity to consider their life as a whole is the aim.”

The oral cancer calculator can be publicly accessed through the National Cancer Institute. The study was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Cancer Institute as part of an interagency agreement. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Cancer Institute recently released a publicly available oral cancer survival calculator for people recently diagnosed with oral cancer.

This represents the first cancer survival calculator that provides “personalized estimates of the likelihood of surviving or dying from oral cancer or other causes,” according to the experts who developed the tool.

An analysis evaluating the new calculator revealed that people with oral cancer are more likely to die from other causes, compared with their peers without oral cancer, and that noncancer survival worsens with cancer stage.

With its unique design, the calculator “represents perhaps one of the most sophisticated and comprehensive tools to date by integrating multiple population-level data sources to account for general health status [and] disease exposures,” such as alcohol and tobacco, socioeconomic status, and coexisting conditions, the authors of an accompanying commentary wrote.

This calculator may just be the beginning. The broader aim of developing the tool, the study authors explained, is for this new calculator approach to be “applicable for developing future prognostic models of cancer and noncancer aspects of a person’s health in other cancers.”

The analysis was published in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery.

When assessing survival, factors such as cancer stage and tumor size are key, but comorbidities also play a crucial role. For oral cancer in particular, where alcohol and tobacco use are notorious risk factors, comorbidities occur frequently and are often serious.

To create a model that provides more “holistic and personalized” estimates and includes a host of factors that can affect the risk of death, the authors tapped into data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to develop the SEER Oral Cancer Survival Calculator.

Alongside data from the SEER database, the calculator used data from the National Health Interview Survey’s Longitudinal Mortality Files to obtain estimates of general health status, life expectancy without cancer, and the probability of dying from the cancer or from other causes within 1-10 years among people with newly diagnosed oral cancer.

Overall, the data included 22,392 patients, aged 20-94, with oral squamous cell carcinoma, 60.5% of whom were male and 78% White, as well as 402,626 interviewees from the survey. The calculator did not include patients with tonsil- or tongue-based cancers, which were not considered anatomically part of the oral cavity.

The most common conditions coexisting with oral cancer were diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among older patients. Among those with oral cancer, more than half (52.8%) had none of the major coexisting conditions, which also included peripheral and cerebrovascular disease, compared with 80% of the Medicare population.

The researchers described and validated four models – one that estimated the probability of death due to oral cancer, and then three others that estimated the probability of death from other causes, with variations based on the specific data and covariates included.

Overall, the models in the calculator estimated that patients with oral cancer have a higher risk of death from other causes, compared with the general population, and survival estimates for noncancer causes got worse with more advanced cancer stage.

For instance, for a patient diagnosed with stage 3 oral cancer after age 50, the chances of being alive at age 70 were 60% for females and 44% for males in the absence of cancer, whereas the corresponding survival estimates in the general U.S. population were 86% for females and 79% for males – an absolute difference of 26 and 35 percentage points.

One key reason for this trend is that patients with later-stage cancers likely also have more coexisting health conditions, first author Louise Davies, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., explained.

Another reason: For cancers with low enough mortality rates, people might be more likely to die from causes other than their cancer. This can also occur in ductal carcinoma in situ breast cancer or papillary thyroid cancer, noted Dr. Davies, also from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, Vt.

Commenting on the study, Eric Moore, MD, a head and neck surgeon with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said that while such prediction tools are important, they also come with caveats.

“I think these calculators are helpful and certainly having them widely available to people gives them another piece of knowledge that can be powerful,” he told this news organization. “But you want to make sure you don’t interpret them as the end-all, be-all message, because there are an infinite number of variables that could influence survival that aren’t available in some of these datasets.”

Neil D. Gross, MD, a professor of head and neck surgery at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, agreed. Although this new calculator uses a large dataset, such tools “can be imperfect” and some factors simply can’t be calculated, such as a person’s priorities, Dr. Gross said.

That’s why there’s no substitute for having a “very personal discussion between a patient and a physician to decide what’s best.” And this calculator is just one tool to help with that process, Dr. Gross said.

The commentary authors echoed these sentiments. “This calculator can potentially bridge the gaps between the survival estimates in the literature, life tables, clinical gestalt, and physician attempts to contextualize the inherent limitations of applying survival curves and averages to the one patient with the diagnosis,” wrote Leila J. Mady, MD, PhD, MPH, Wayne M. Koch, MD, and Carole Fakhry, MD, MPH, all from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore.

But a caveat in providing such predictions is the possible psychological effect the news can have.

“Potential risks of revealing personalized prognostic survival estimates to patients include increased anxiety and distress surrounding competing causes of death [and] misinterpretation of data,” the commentary authors cautioned, adding that “we must present such information with grace and sensitivity.”

Dr. Davies recommends that clinicians ask patients what they want to know because that will vary by patient and potentially over time for the same patient.

“People are more than their cancer diagnosis,” said Dr. Davies. “Giving them the opportunity to consider their life as a whole is the aim.”

The oral cancer calculator can be publicly accessed through the National Cancer Institute. The study was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Cancer Institute as part of an interagency agreement. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The National Cancer Institute recently released a publicly available oral cancer survival calculator for people recently diagnosed with oral cancer.

This represents the first cancer survival calculator that provides “personalized estimates of the likelihood of surviving or dying from oral cancer or other causes,” according to the experts who developed the tool.

An analysis evaluating the new calculator revealed that people with oral cancer are more likely to die from other causes, compared with their peers without oral cancer, and that noncancer survival worsens with cancer stage.

With its unique design, the calculator “represents perhaps one of the most sophisticated and comprehensive tools to date by integrating multiple population-level data sources to account for general health status [and] disease exposures,” such as alcohol and tobacco, socioeconomic status, and coexisting conditions, the authors of an accompanying commentary wrote.

This calculator may just be the beginning. The broader aim of developing the tool, the study authors explained, is for this new calculator approach to be “applicable for developing future prognostic models of cancer and noncancer aspects of a person’s health in other cancers.”

The analysis was published in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery.

When assessing survival, factors such as cancer stage and tumor size are key, but comorbidities also play a crucial role. For oral cancer in particular, where alcohol and tobacco use are notorious risk factors, comorbidities occur frequently and are often serious.

To create a model that provides more “holistic and personalized” estimates and includes a host of factors that can affect the risk of death, the authors tapped into data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to develop the SEER Oral Cancer Survival Calculator.

Alongside data from the SEER database, the calculator used data from the National Health Interview Survey’s Longitudinal Mortality Files to obtain estimates of general health status, life expectancy without cancer, and the probability of dying from the cancer or from other causes within 1-10 years among people with newly diagnosed oral cancer.

Overall, the data included 22,392 patients, aged 20-94, with oral squamous cell carcinoma, 60.5% of whom were male and 78% White, as well as 402,626 interviewees from the survey. The calculator did not include patients with tonsil- or tongue-based cancers, which were not considered anatomically part of the oral cavity.

The most common conditions coexisting with oral cancer were diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among older patients. Among those with oral cancer, more than half (52.8%) had none of the major coexisting conditions, which also included peripheral and cerebrovascular disease, compared with 80% of the Medicare population.

The researchers described and validated four models – one that estimated the probability of death due to oral cancer, and then three others that estimated the probability of death from other causes, with variations based on the specific data and covariates included.

Overall, the models in the calculator estimated that patients with oral cancer have a higher risk of death from other causes, compared with the general population, and survival estimates for noncancer causes got worse with more advanced cancer stage.

For instance, for a patient diagnosed with stage 3 oral cancer after age 50, the chances of being alive at age 70 were 60% for females and 44% for males in the absence of cancer, whereas the corresponding survival estimates in the general U.S. population were 86% for females and 79% for males – an absolute difference of 26 and 35 percentage points.

One key reason for this trend is that patients with later-stage cancers likely also have more coexisting health conditions, first author Louise Davies, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., explained.

Another reason: For cancers with low enough mortality rates, people might be more likely to die from causes other than their cancer. This can also occur in ductal carcinoma in situ breast cancer or papillary thyroid cancer, noted Dr. Davies, also from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, Vt.

Commenting on the study, Eric Moore, MD, a head and neck surgeon with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said that while such prediction tools are important, they also come with caveats.

“I think these calculators are helpful and certainly having them widely available to people gives them another piece of knowledge that can be powerful,” he told this news organization. “But you want to make sure you don’t interpret them as the end-all, be-all message, because there are an infinite number of variables that could influence survival that aren’t available in some of these datasets.”

Neil D. Gross, MD, a professor of head and neck surgery at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, agreed. Although this new calculator uses a large dataset, such tools “can be imperfect” and some factors simply can’t be calculated, such as a person’s priorities, Dr. Gross said.

That’s why there’s no substitute for having a “very personal discussion between a patient and a physician to decide what’s best.” And this calculator is just one tool to help with that process, Dr. Gross said.

The commentary authors echoed these sentiments. “This calculator can potentially bridge the gaps between the survival estimates in the literature, life tables, clinical gestalt, and physician attempts to contextualize the inherent limitations of applying survival curves and averages to the one patient with the diagnosis,” wrote Leila J. Mady, MD, PhD, MPH, Wayne M. Koch, MD, and Carole Fakhry, MD, MPH, all from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore.

But a caveat in providing such predictions is the possible psychological effect the news can have.

“Potential risks of revealing personalized prognostic survival estimates to patients include increased anxiety and distress surrounding competing causes of death [and] misinterpretation of data,” the commentary authors cautioned, adding that “we must present such information with grace and sensitivity.”

Dr. Davies recommends that clinicians ask patients what they want to know because that will vary by patient and potentially over time for the same patient.

“People are more than their cancer diagnosis,” said Dr. Davies. “Giving them the opportunity to consider their life as a whole is the aim.”

The oral cancer calculator can be publicly accessed through the National Cancer Institute. The study was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the National Cancer Institute as part of an interagency agreement. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved quizartinib (Vanflyta) for adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) that carries the FLT3-ITD genetic mutation.

On July 20 the FDA also approved the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay to determine whether patients have this mutation.

The agency granted quizartinib a first-line indication for use in combination with standard chemotherapy – cytarabine and anthracycline induction followed by cytarabine consolidation – and as maintenance monotherapy afterwards, in adults whose tumors express FLT3-ITD.

The FLT3 protein is a tyrosine kinase receptor found on hematopoietic stem cells. Wild-type FLT3 promotes cell survival, growth, and differentiation, but ITD (internal tandem duplication)-mutated FLT3, which quizartinib targets, is associated with a higher relapse risk and shorter survival. About a quarter of AML patients carry the mutation. 

Approval was based on the phase 3 QuANTUM-First trial in over 500 patients with the mutation. Median overall survival among patients on standard chemotherapy randomly assigned to quizartinib was 31.9 months versus 15.1 months in patients randomly assigned to placebo, a 22.4% reduction in the risk of death (P = .0324).

Quizartinib is not indicated as maintenance monotherapy after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

In a company press release, the drug’s manufacturer Daiichi Sankyo said quizartinib will be available in the United States soon.

Company executive Ken Takeshita, MD, called the approval “an important milestone, as patients with the FLT3-ITD subtype of AML can now be treated with the first-ever FLT3 inhibitor approved across the three phases of treatment these patients typically receive.”

The FDA’s original decision date was April 24, but the agency pushed it back 3 months to review updates Daiichi Sankyo made to quizartinib’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program in response to an agency request.

Quizartinib carries a boxed warning of QT prolongation, torsades de pointes, and cardiac arrest. Because of these risks, it’s only available through a new program, dubbed “Vanflyta REMS.”

In the trial, the most common adverse with quizartinib included lymphopenia (60%), hypokalemia (59%), hypoalbuminemia (53%), hypophosphatemia (52%), alkaline phosphatase increased (51%), hypomagnesemia (44%), febrile neutropenia (44%), diarrhea (42%), mucositis (38%), nausea (34%), and hypocalcemia (33%), among others.

The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia (43% with quizartinib vs. 41% with placebo), neutropenia (18% vs. 9%), hypokalemia (19% vs. 16%), and pneumonia (11% both). Adverse events were fatal in 11.3% of patients receiving quizartinib versus 9.7% of patients on placebo, mostly caused by infections.

In 2019, the FDA rejected quizartinib for FLT3-ITD mutated relapsed/refractory AML monotherapy in adults, after most of its oncology advisers thought the risk of treatment outweighed the benefits in an earlier trial.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved quizartinib (Vanflyta) for adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) that carries the FLT3-ITD genetic mutation.

On July 20 the FDA also approved the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay to determine whether patients have this mutation.

The agency granted quizartinib a first-line indication for use in combination with standard chemotherapy – cytarabine and anthracycline induction followed by cytarabine consolidation – and as maintenance monotherapy afterwards, in adults whose tumors express FLT3-ITD.

The FLT3 protein is a tyrosine kinase receptor found on hematopoietic stem cells. Wild-type FLT3 promotes cell survival, growth, and differentiation, but ITD (internal tandem duplication)-mutated FLT3, which quizartinib targets, is associated with a higher relapse risk and shorter survival. About a quarter of AML patients carry the mutation. 

Approval was based on the phase 3 QuANTUM-First trial in over 500 patients with the mutation. Median overall survival among patients on standard chemotherapy randomly assigned to quizartinib was 31.9 months versus 15.1 months in patients randomly assigned to placebo, a 22.4% reduction in the risk of death (P = .0324).

Quizartinib is not indicated as maintenance monotherapy after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

In a company press release, the drug’s manufacturer Daiichi Sankyo said quizartinib will be available in the United States soon.

Company executive Ken Takeshita, MD, called the approval “an important milestone, as patients with the FLT3-ITD subtype of AML can now be treated with the first-ever FLT3 inhibitor approved across the three phases of treatment these patients typically receive.”

The FDA’s original decision date was April 24, but the agency pushed it back 3 months to review updates Daiichi Sankyo made to quizartinib’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program in response to an agency request.

Quizartinib carries a boxed warning of QT prolongation, torsades de pointes, and cardiac arrest. Because of these risks, it’s only available through a new program, dubbed “Vanflyta REMS.”

In the trial, the most common adverse with quizartinib included lymphopenia (60%), hypokalemia (59%), hypoalbuminemia (53%), hypophosphatemia (52%), alkaline phosphatase increased (51%), hypomagnesemia (44%), febrile neutropenia (44%), diarrhea (42%), mucositis (38%), nausea (34%), and hypocalcemia (33%), among others.

The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia (43% with quizartinib vs. 41% with placebo), neutropenia (18% vs. 9%), hypokalemia (19% vs. 16%), and pneumonia (11% both). Adverse events were fatal in 11.3% of patients receiving quizartinib versus 9.7% of patients on placebo, mostly caused by infections.

In 2019, the FDA rejected quizartinib for FLT3-ITD mutated relapsed/refractory AML monotherapy in adults, after most of its oncology advisers thought the risk of treatment outweighed the benefits in an earlier trial.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved quizartinib (Vanflyta) for adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) that carries the FLT3-ITD genetic mutation.

On July 20 the FDA also approved the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay to determine whether patients have this mutation.

The agency granted quizartinib a first-line indication for use in combination with standard chemotherapy – cytarabine and anthracycline induction followed by cytarabine consolidation – and as maintenance monotherapy afterwards, in adults whose tumors express FLT3-ITD.

The FLT3 protein is a tyrosine kinase receptor found on hematopoietic stem cells. Wild-type FLT3 promotes cell survival, growth, and differentiation, but ITD (internal tandem duplication)-mutated FLT3, which quizartinib targets, is associated with a higher relapse risk and shorter survival. About a quarter of AML patients carry the mutation. 

Approval was based on the phase 3 QuANTUM-First trial in over 500 patients with the mutation. Median overall survival among patients on standard chemotherapy randomly assigned to quizartinib was 31.9 months versus 15.1 months in patients randomly assigned to placebo, a 22.4% reduction in the risk of death (P = .0324).

Quizartinib is not indicated as maintenance monotherapy after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

In a company press release, the drug’s manufacturer Daiichi Sankyo said quizartinib will be available in the United States soon.

Company executive Ken Takeshita, MD, called the approval “an important milestone, as patients with the FLT3-ITD subtype of AML can now be treated with the first-ever FLT3 inhibitor approved across the three phases of treatment these patients typically receive.”

The FDA’s original decision date was April 24, but the agency pushed it back 3 months to review updates Daiichi Sankyo made to quizartinib’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program in response to an agency request.

Quizartinib carries a boxed warning of QT prolongation, torsades de pointes, and cardiac arrest. Because of these risks, it’s only available through a new program, dubbed “Vanflyta REMS.”

In the trial, the most common adverse with quizartinib included lymphopenia (60%), hypokalemia (59%), hypoalbuminemia (53%), hypophosphatemia (52%), alkaline phosphatase increased (51%), hypomagnesemia (44%), febrile neutropenia (44%), diarrhea (42%), mucositis (38%), nausea (34%), and hypocalcemia (33%), among others.

The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia (43% with quizartinib vs. 41% with placebo), neutropenia (18% vs. 9%), hypokalemia (19% vs. 16%), and pneumonia (11% both). Adverse events were fatal in 11.3% of patients receiving quizartinib versus 9.7% of patients on placebo, mostly caused by infections.

In 2019, the FDA rejected quizartinib for FLT3-ITD mutated relapsed/refractory AML monotherapy in adults, after most of its oncology advisers thought the risk of treatment outweighed the benefits in an earlier trial.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers found that, prior to resection, performing a minimally invasive staging procedure on newly diagnosed patients with pancreatic cancer helped identify metastatic disease and cancer stage, and prompted a change in management in about one in five patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 1,004 patients who underwent staging laparoscopy at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., from January 2017 to December 2021. 
• Patients’ median age was 66 years; 48% of the cohort were female. 
• Tumor location was proximal in 644 patients (64%) and distal in 360 patients (36%); median tumor size was 29 mm. 
• Upfront resectable disease was present in 351 patients (35%), and borderline resectable or locally advanced anatomy was present in 653 (65%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 180 patients had a positive staging laparoscopy because of gross metastatic disease (n = 140) and/or positive peritoneal cytology (n = 96); patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before staging laparoscopy had lower rates of positive laparoscopy (14% vs. 22%; P = .002).
• When the analysis was restricted to chemo-naive patients who had concurrent peritoneal lavage performed, 95 of 419 patients (23%) had positive laparoscopy. 
• Among 721 patients who had a staged procedure with peritoneal washings, 151 (21%) had confirmed metastatic disease; cytology was positive in 96 (13%).
• Among patients with positive staging laparoscopy, median overall survival was 11 months in those with gross metastatic disease and 13 months in those with positive peritoneal cytology only (P = .40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Staging laparoscopy should be considered in the majority of patients prior to resection and/or initiation of neoadjuvant therapy, specifically in patients with high-risk features such as indeterminate extrapancreatic lesions on imaging, young age, large tumor size, distal tumor location, or elevated serum tumor markers,” the authors concluded. 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Hallbera Gudmundsdottir, MD, of the Mayo Clinic was published in the  Journal of the American College of Surgeons  in June. 

LIMITATIONS:

Staging laparoscopy may have been performed in higher-risk patients in earlier years of the study. The Mayo Clinic is a high-volume pancreatic surgery center that sees high-risk patients with advances lesions. This study population may not be generalizable to the those at other centers.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any financial interests.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers found that, prior to resection, performing a minimally invasive staging procedure on newly diagnosed patients with pancreatic cancer helped identify metastatic disease and cancer stage, and prompted a change in management in about one in five patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 1,004 patients who underwent staging laparoscopy at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., from January 2017 to December 2021. 
• Patients’ median age was 66 years; 48% of the cohort were female. 
• Tumor location was proximal in 644 patients (64%) and distal in 360 patients (36%); median tumor size was 29 mm. 
• Upfront resectable disease was present in 351 patients (35%), and borderline resectable or locally advanced anatomy was present in 653 (65%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 180 patients had a positive staging laparoscopy because of gross metastatic disease (n = 140) and/or positive peritoneal cytology (n = 96); patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before staging laparoscopy had lower rates of positive laparoscopy (14% vs. 22%; P = .002).
• When the analysis was restricted to chemo-naive patients who had concurrent peritoneal lavage performed, 95 of 419 patients (23%) had positive laparoscopy. 
• Among 721 patients who had a staged procedure with peritoneal washings, 151 (21%) had confirmed metastatic disease; cytology was positive in 96 (13%).
• Among patients with positive staging laparoscopy, median overall survival was 11 months in those with gross metastatic disease and 13 months in those with positive peritoneal cytology only (P = .40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Staging laparoscopy should be considered in the majority of patients prior to resection and/or initiation of neoadjuvant therapy, specifically in patients with high-risk features such as indeterminate extrapancreatic lesions on imaging, young age, large tumor size, distal tumor location, or elevated serum tumor markers,” the authors concluded. 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Hallbera Gudmundsdottir, MD, of the Mayo Clinic was published in the  Journal of the American College of Surgeons  in June. 

LIMITATIONS:

Staging laparoscopy may have been performed in higher-risk patients in earlier years of the study. The Mayo Clinic is a high-volume pancreatic surgery center that sees high-risk patients with advances lesions. This study population may not be generalizable to the those at other centers.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any financial interests.

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

TOPLINE:

Researchers found that, prior to resection, performing a minimally invasive staging procedure on newly diagnosed patients with pancreatic cancer helped identify metastatic disease and cancer stage, and prompted a change in management in about one in five patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 1,004 patients who underwent staging laparoscopy at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., from January 2017 to December 2021. 
• Patients’ median age was 66 years; 48% of the cohort were female. 
• Tumor location was proximal in 644 patients (64%) and distal in 360 patients (36%); median tumor size was 29 mm. 
• Upfront resectable disease was present in 351 patients (35%), and borderline resectable or locally advanced anatomy was present in 653 (65%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 180 patients had a positive staging laparoscopy because of gross metastatic disease (n = 140) and/or positive peritoneal cytology (n = 96); patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy before staging laparoscopy had lower rates of positive laparoscopy (14% vs. 22%; P = .002).
• When the analysis was restricted to chemo-naive patients who had concurrent peritoneal lavage performed, 95 of 419 patients (23%) had positive laparoscopy. 
• Among 721 patients who had a staged procedure with peritoneal washings, 151 (21%) had confirmed metastatic disease; cytology was positive in 96 (13%).
• Among patients with positive staging laparoscopy, median overall survival was 11 months in those with gross metastatic disease and 13 months in those with positive peritoneal cytology only (P = .40).

IN PRACTICE:

“Staging laparoscopy should be considered in the majority of patients prior to resection and/or initiation of neoadjuvant therapy, specifically in patients with high-risk features such as indeterminate extrapancreatic lesions on imaging, young age, large tumor size, distal tumor location, or elevated serum tumor markers,” the authors concluded. 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Hallbera Gudmundsdottir, MD, of the Mayo Clinic was published in the  Journal of the American College of Surgeons  in June. 

LIMITATIONS:

Staging laparoscopy may have been performed in higher-risk patients in earlier years of the study. The Mayo Clinic is a high-volume pancreatic surgery center that sees high-risk patients with advances lesions. This study population may not be generalizable to the those at other centers.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any financial interests.

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

Dysphagia is one of the most common side effects of radiation for head and neck cancer and can be so bad that patients require a permanent gastrostomy tube for feeding.

A team of British investigators are now reporting a new strategy to help lessen this problem.

In the trial, the approach – dubbed dysphagia-optimized intensity-modulated radiotherapy (DO-IMRT) – reduced incidental radiation to the pharyngeal constrictor muscles responsible for swallowing during IMRT for pharyngeal cancer. Patients randomized to DO-IMRT reported significant improvements in swallowing at 1 year, compared with those receiving standard IMRT, at no cost to oncologic outcomes.

Overall, the findings show “DO-IMRT improves patient-reported swallowing function, compared with standard IMRT,” said investigators led by Christopher Nutting, MD, PhD, a head and neck cancer specialist at the Royal Marsden Hospital, London. “DO-IMRT should be considered a new standard of care.”

The team reported the results of their phase 3 trial in The Lancet Oncology.

Swallowing issues affect most patients with head and neck cancer after radiation therapy but strategies to mitigate this long-term adverse effect remain limited.

Dr. Nutting and colleagues wanted to assess whether a novel approach to radiation therapy could reduce the swallowing problems patients often encounter.

In the trial, 112 subjects with T1-4, N0-3, M0 oropharyngeal (90%) or hypopharyngeal cancer (10%) were randomized to standard IMRT or DO-IMRT. Patients received care at 22 radiation therapy centers in Ireland and the UK from 2016 to 2018.

Patients got radiation in 30 fractions over 6 weeks; most also had chemotherapy. The standard IMRT group received 65 Gy to their primary and nodal tumors and 54 Gy to other pharyngeal and nodal areas. In the DO-IMRT group, radiation doses to pharyngeal constrictor muscles lying outside of the tumor target area were limited to 50 Gy.

At 1 year, 56 patients randomized to DO-IMRT scored, on average, 7.2 points higher than the 56 patients randomized to standard IMRT – 77.7 points vs. 70.6 (P = .037) – on the 100-point MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI). MDADI is a validated scale for tracking radiation-induced dysphagia, with higher scores indicating better swallowing function.

The difference grew to 9.8 points when adjusted for chemotherapy use and tumor location and stage.

DO-IMRT patients were also more likely to report eating their normal diet and dining in public. Speech and language therapists who, like patients, were blinded to treatment allocation, reported better outcomes among patients receiving DO-IMRT as well.

At just over 3 years, oncologic outcomes were essentially equivalent in both groups. Two local recurrences occurred in both arms; distant metastatic recurrences occurred in three patients in the DO-IMRT group and two in the standard IMRT group.

The most common grade 3-4 late adverse events were hearing impairment (16% with DO-IMRT vs. 13% with standard IMRT), dry mouth (5% vs. 15%), and dysphagia (5% vs. 15%).

Taken together, the findings indicate that reducing doses to the pharyngeal constrictor muscle translates to “a meaningful benefit for patients” in terms of improved swallowing function, the investigators said.

In an accompanying editorial, Sandra Nuyts, MD, PhD, noted, however, that the trial failed to meet the predefined threshold for clinical significance, a 10-point difference in MDADI scores.

Still, “several other patient-reported and physician-reported secondary endpoints favored DO-IMRT,” explained Dr. Nuyts, a radiation oncologist at the Leuven Cancer Institute, Belgium. Considered alongside positive reports from smaller, nonrandomized studies, “there is now compelling evidence that the risk of dysphagia after head and neck radiotherapy can be reduced with this technology, without increasing the risk of local recurrences.”

The study team and Dr. Nuyts both called for further refinement of the technique, particularly figuring out what specific sections of the constrictor muscles need to be spared to optimize outcomes.

For now, there is a limit on “how much organ sparing can be achieved with the current DO-IMRT technique” because “use of even narrower margins” around the tumor runs the risk of not treating it adequately, investigators said.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. Nutting reports stock options in Advanced Oncotherapy. Another investigator reports institutional grants from Varian, AstraZeneca, Roche, and other companies. Dr. Nuyts reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dysphagia is one of the most common side effects of radiation for head and neck cancer and can be so bad that patients require a permanent gastrostomy tube for feeding.

A team of British investigators are now reporting a new strategy to help lessen this problem.

In the trial, the approach – dubbed dysphagia-optimized intensity-modulated radiotherapy (DO-IMRT) – reduced incidental radiation to the pharyngeal constrictor muscles responsible for swallowing during IMRT for pharyngeal cancer. Patients randomized to DO-IMRT reported significant improvements in swallowing at 1 year, compared with those receiving standard IMRT, at no cost to oncologic outcomes.

Overall, the findings show “DO-IMRT improves patient-reported swallowing function, compared with standard IMRT,” said investigators led by Christopher Nutting, MD, PhD, a head and neck cancer specialist at the Royal Marsden Hospital, London. “DO-IMRT should be considered a new standard of care.”

The team reported the results of their phase 3 trial in The Lancet Oncology.

Swallowing issues affect most patients with head and neck cancer after radiation therapy but strategies to mitigate this long-term adverse effect remain limited.

Dr. Nutting and colleagues wanted to assess whether a novel approach to radiation therapy could reduce the swallowing problems patients often encounter.

In the trial, 112 subjects with T1-4, N0-3, M0 oropharyngeal (90%) or hypopharyngeal cancer (10%) were randomized to standard IMRT or DO-IMRT. Patients received care at 22 radiation therapy centers in Ireland and the UK from 2016 to 2018.

Patients got radiation in 30 fractions over 6 weeks; most also had chemotherapy. The standard IMRT group received 65 Gy to their primary and nodal tumors and 54 Gy to other pharyngeal and nodal areas. In the DO-IMRT group, radiation doses to pharyngeal constrictor muscles lying outside of the tumor target area were limited to 50 Gy.

At 1 year, 56 patients randomized to DO-IMRT scored, on average, 7.2 points higher than the 56 patients randomized to standard IMRT – 77.7 points vs. 70.6 (P = .037) – on the 100-point MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI). MDADI is a validated scale for tracking radiation-induced dysphagia, with higher scores indicating better swallowing function.

The difference grew to 9.8 points when adjusted for chemotherapy use and tumor location and stage.

DO-IMRT patients were also more likely to report eating their normal diet and dining in public. Speech and language therapists who, like patients, were blinded to treatment allocation, reported better outcomes among patients receiving DO-IMRT as well.

At just over 3 years, oncologic outcomes were essentially equivalent in both groups. Two local recurrences occurred in both arms; distant metastatic recurrences occurred in three patients in the DO-IMRT group and two in the standard IMRT group.

The most common grade 3-4 late adverse events were hearing impairment (16% with DO-IMRT vs. 13% with standard IMRT), dry mouth (5% vs. 15%), and dysphagia (5% vs. 15%).

Taken together, the findings indicate that reducing doses to the pharyngeal constrictor muscle translates to “a meaningful benefit for patients” in terms of improved swallowing function, the investigators said.

In an accompanying editorial, Sandra Nuyts, MD, PhD, noted, however, that the trial failed to meet the predefined threshold for clinical significance, a 10-point difference in MDADI scores.

Still, “several other patient-reported and physician-reported secondary endpoints favored DO-IMRT,” explained Dr. Nuyts, a radiation oncologist at the Leuven Cancer Institute, Belgium. Considered alongside positive reports from smaller, nonrandomized studies, “there is now compelling evidence that the risk of dysphagia after head and neck radiotherapy can be reduced with this technology, without increasing the risk of local recurrences.”

The study team and Dr. Nuyts both called for further refinement of the technique, particularly figuring out what specific sections of the constrictor muscles need to be spared to optimize outcomes.

For now, there is a limit on “how much organ sparing can be achieved with the current DO-IMRT technique” because “use of even narrower margins” around the tumor runs the risk of not treating it adequately, investigators said.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. Nutting reports stock options in Advanced Oncotherapy. Another investigator reports institutional grants from Varian, AstraZeneca, Roche, and other companies. Dr. Nuyts reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dysphagia is one of the most common side effects of radiation for head and neck cancer and can be so bad that patients require a permanent gastrostomy tube for feeding.

A team of British investigators are now reporting a new strategy to help lessen this problem.

In the trial, the approach – dubbed dysphagia-optimized intensity-modulated radiotherapy (DO-IMRT) – reduced incidental radiation to the pharyngeal constrictor muscles responsible for swallowing during IMRT for pharyngeal cancer. Patients randomized to DO-IMRT reported significant improvements in swallowing at 1 year, compared with those receiving standard IMRT, at no cost to oncologic outcomes.

Overall, the findings show “DO-IMRT improves patient-reported swallowing function, compared with standard IMRT,” said investigators led by Christopher Nutting, MD, PhD, a head and neck cancer specialist at the Royal Marsden Hospital, London. “DO-IMRT should be considered a new standard of care.”

The team reported the results of their phase 3 trial in The Lancet Oncology.

Swallowing issues affect most patients with head and neck cancer after radiation therapy but strategies to mitigate this long-term adverse effect remain limited.

Dr. Nutting and colleagues wanted to assess whether a novel approach to radiation therapy could reduce the swallowing problems patients often encounter.

In the trial, 112 subjects with T1-4, N0-3, M0 oropharyngeal (90%) or hypopharyngeal cancer (10%) were randomized to standard IMRT or DO-IMRT. Patients received care at 22 radiation therapy centers in Ireland and the UK from 2016 to 2018.

Patients got radiation in 30 fractions over 6 weeks; most also had chemotherapy. The standard IMRT group received 65 Gy to their primary and nodal tumors and 54 Gy to other pharyngeal and nodal areas. In the DO-IMRT group, radiation doses to pharyngeal constrictor muscles lying outside of the tumor target area were limited to 50 Gy.

At 1 year, 56 patients randomized to DO-IMRT scored, on average, 7.2 points higher than the 56 patients randomized to standard IMRT – 77.7 points vs. 70.6 (P = .037) – on the 100-point MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI). MDADI is a validated scale for tracking radiation-induced dysphagia, with higher scores indicating better swallowing function.

The difference grew to 9.8 points when adjusted for chemotherapy use and tumor location and stage.

DO-IMRT patients were also more likely to report eating their normal diet and dining in public. Speech and language therapists who, like patients, were blinded to treatment allocation, reported better outcomes among patients receiving DO-IMRT as well.

At just over 3 years, oncologic outcomes were essentially equivalent in both groups. Two local recurrences occurred in both arms; distant metastatic recurrences occurred in three patients in the DO-IMRT group and two in the standard IMRT group.

The most common grade 3-4 late adverse events were hearing impairment (16% with DO-IMRT vs. 13% with standard IMRT), dry mouth (5% vs. 15%), and dysphagia (5% vs. 15%).

Taken together, the findings indicate that reducing doses to the pharyngeal constrictor muscle translates to “a meaningful benefit for patients” in terms of improved swallowing function, the investigators said.

In an accompanying editorial, Sandra Nuyts, MD, PhD, noted, however, that the trial failed to meet the predefined threshold for clinical significance, a 10-point difference in MDADI scores.

Still, “several other patient-reported and physician-reported secondary endpoints favored DO-IMRT,” explained Dr. Nuyts, a radiation oncologist at the Leuven Cancer Institute, Belgium. Considered alongside positive reports from smaller, nonrandomized studies, “there is now compelling evidence that the risk of dysphagia after head and neck radiotherapy can be reduced with this technology, without increasing the risk of local recurrences.”

The study team and Dr. Nuyts both called for further refinement of the technique, particularly figuring out what specific sections of the constrictor muscles need to be spared to optimize outcomes.

For now, there is a limit on “how much organ sparing can be achieved with the current DO-IMRT technique” because “use of even narrower margins” around the tumor runs the risk of not treating it adequately, investigators said.

The study was funded by Cancer Research UK. Dr. Nutting reports stock options in Advanced Oncotherapy. Another investigator reports institutional grants from Varian, AstraZeneca, Roche, and other companies. Dr. Nuyts reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A recent update to the U.S. recommendations for breast cancer screening is raising concerns about the costs associated with potential follow-up tests, while also renewing debates about the timing of these tests and the screening approaches used.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is currently finalizing an update to its recommendations on breast cancer screening. In May, the task force released a proposed update that dropped the initial age for routine mammogram screening from 50 to 40.

The task force intends to give a “B” rating to this recommendation, which covers screening every other year up to age 74 for women deemed average risk for breast cancer.

The task force’s rating carries clout, A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the Value-Based Insurance Design at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

For one, the Affordable Care Act requires that private insurers cover services that get top A or B marks from USPSTF without charging copays.

However, Dr. Fendrick noted, such coverage does not necessarily apply to follow-up testing when a routine mammogram comes back with a positive finding. The expense of follow-up testing may deter some women from seeking follow-up diagnostic imaging or biopsies after an abnormal result on a screening mammogram.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open found that women facing higher anticipated out-of-pocket costs for breast cancer diagnostic tests, based on their health insurance plan, were less likely to get that follow-up screening. For instance, the use of breast MRI decreased by nearly 24% between patients undergoing subsequent diagnostic testing in plans with the lowest out-of-pocket costs vs. those with the highest.

“The study’s central finding that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost is worrisome,” said Dr. Fendrick and Ilana B. Richman, MD, MHS, in an accompanying commentary to the JAMA analysis. “On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent.”

For patients to fully benefit from early detection, the USPSTF would also need to make clear that follow-up diagnostic mammograms are covered, Dr. Fendrick said.
 

The ongoing debates

Concerns over the costs of potential follow-up tests are not the only issues experts have highlighted since USPSTF released its updated draft guidance on screening mammography.

The task force’s proposed update has also reignited questions and uncertainties surrounding when to screen, how often, and what types are best.

When it comes to frequency, the major organizations that provide screening guidance don’t see eye to eye. The USPSTF recommends breast cancer screening every other year, while the American College of Radiology recommends screening every year because that approach leads to saves “the most lives.”

At this time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidance currently teeters in the middle, suggesting either annual or biennial screening and highlighting the pros and cons of either approach. According to ACOG, “annual screening intervals appear to result in the least number of breast cancer deaths, particularly in younger women, but at the cost of additional callbacks and biopsies.”

When to begin screening represents another point of contention. While some experts, such as ACOG, agree with the task force’s decision to lower the screening start age to 40, others point to the need for greater nuance on setting the appropriate screening age. The main issue: the task force’s draft sets a uniform age to begin screening, but the risk for breast cancer and breast cancer mortality is not uniform across different racial and ethnic groups.

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open found that, among women aged 40-49, breast cancer mortality was highest among Black women (27 deaths per 100,000 person-years) followed by White women (15 deaths per 100,000 person-years). Based on a recommended screening age of 50, the authors suggested that Black women should start screening at age 42, whereas White women could start at 51.

“These findings suggest that health policy makers and clinicians could consider an alternative, race and ethnicity–adapted approach in which Black female patients start screening earlier,” writes Tianhui Chen, PhD, of China’s Zhejiang Cancer Hospital and coauthor of the study.

Weighing in on the guidance, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research urged the task force to consider suggesting different screening schedules based on race and ethnicity data. That would mean the recommendation to start at age 40 should only apply to Black women and other groups with higher-than-average risk for breast cancer at a younger age.

“Women are capable of understanding why the age to start mammography screening may be different for women with different risk factors,” the National Center for Health Research wrote in a comment to USPSTF, provided to this news organization by request. “What is confusing is when some physician groups recommend annual mammograms for all women starting at age 40, even though the data do not support that recommendation.”

While the ACR agreed with the task force’s recommendation to lower the screening age, the organization suggested starting risk assessments based on racial variations in breast cancer incidence and death even earlier. Specifically, the ACR recommended that high-risk groups, such as Black women, get risk assessments by age 25 to determine whether mammography before age 40 is needed.

Screening options for women with dense breasts may be some of the most challenging to weigh. Having dense breasts increases an individual’s risk for breast cancer, and mammography alone is not as effective at identifying breast cancer among these women. However, the evidence on the benefits vs. harms of additional screening beyond mammography remains mixed.

As a result, the task force decided to maintain its “I” grade on additional screening beyond mammography for these women – a grade that indicates insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms for a service.

The task force largely based its decision on the findings of two key reports. One report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, which modeled potential outcomes of different screening strategies, indicated that extra screening might reduce breast cancer mortality in those with dense breasts, but at a cost of more false-positive reports.

The second report, a review from the Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, reaffirmed the benefits of routine mammography for reducing deaths from breast cancer, but found no solid evidence that different strategies – including supplemental screening in women with denser breasts – lowered breast cancer mortality or the risk of progression to advanced cancer. Further studies may show which approaches work best to reduce breast cancer deaths, the report said.

In this instance, ACOG agreed with USPSTF: “Based on the lack of data, ACOG does not recommend routine use of alternative or adjunctive tests to screening mammography in women with dense breasts who are asymptomatic and have no additional risk factors.”

Women with dense breasts should still be encouraged to receive regular screening mammography, even if the results they get may not be as accurate as those for women with less dense breasts, said Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, of the University of California, Davis, who worked on a report for the USPSTF guidelines.
 

What’s next?

Despite ongoing debate and uncertainties surrounding some breast screening guidance, support for ending copay requirements for follow-up tests after a positive mammogram finding is widespread.

According to Dr. Fendrick, the USPSTF should expand coverage of follow-up testing after a positive mammogram to ensure people receive routine screening and any necessary diagnostic tests, as it did with colon cancer.

Before 2021, patients could face high costs for a colonoscopy following a positive stool-based Cologuard test. But in 2021, the USPSTF said that positive results on stool-based tests would require follow-up with colonoscopy, defining this follow-up as part of the screening benefit. In 2022, Medicare followed by setting a policy that ended the copay for these follow-up colonoscopies.

For breast screening, there are efforts underway in Congress to end copays for breast screening. In May, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced a bill, the Find It Early Act, that would require both private and government insurers to cover the out-of-pocket costs for many women receiving screening with ultrasound and MRI.

When the USPSTF finalizes its breast screening guidelines, the recommendations will be woven into discussions between primary care physicians and patients about breast cancer screening.

As guidelines and evidence evolve, “we’re learning to adjust” and communicate these changes to patients, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

However, gaps in the guidance will leave some open-ended questions about optimal screening practices and how much screening may cost.

Given that, Dr. Iroku-Malize takes many factors into account when discussing screening options with her patients. Based on the new information and the patient’s information, she said she will tell her patients, “We’re going to adjust our guidance as to what you need.”

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

A recent update to the U.S. recommendations for breast cancer screening is raising concerns about the costs associated with potential follow-up tests, while also renewing debates about the timing of these tests and the screening approaches used.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is currently finalizing an update to its recommendations on breast cancer screening. In May, the task force released a proposed update that dropped the initial age for routine mammogram screening from 50 to 40.

The task force intends to give a “B” rating to this recommendation, which covers screening every other year up to age 74 for women deemed average risk for breast cancer.

The task force’s rating carries clout, A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the Value-Based Insurance Design at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

For one, the Affordable Care Act requires that private insurers cover services that get top A or B marks from USPSTF without charging copays.

However, Dr. Fendrick noted, such coverage does not necessarily apply to follow-up testing when a routine mammogram comes back with a positive finding. The expense of follow-up testing may deter some women from seeking follow-up diagnostic imaging or biopsies after an abnormal result on a screening mammogram.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open found that women facing higher anticipated out-of-pocket costs for breast cancer diagnostic tests, based on their health insurance plan, were less likely to get that follow-up screening. For instance, the use of breast MRI decreased by nearly 24% between patients undergoing subsequent diagnostic testing in plans with the lowest out-of-pocket costs vs. those with the highest.

“The study’s central finding that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost is worrisome,” said Dr. Fendrick and Ilana B. Richman, MD, MHS, in an accompanying commentary to the JAMA analysis. “On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent.”

For patients to fully benefit from early detection, the USPSTF would also need to make clear that follow-up diagnostic mammograms are covered, Dr. Fendrick said.
 

The ongoing debates

Concerns over the costs of potential follow-up tests are not the only issues experts have highlighted since USPSTF released its updated draft guidance on screening mammography.

The task force’s proposed update has also reignited questions and uncertainties surrounding when to screen, how often, and what types are best.

When it comes to frequency, the major organizations that provide screening guidance don’t see eye to eye. The USPSTF recommends breast cancer screening every other year, while the American College of Radiology recommends screening every year because that approach leads to saves “the most lives.”

At this time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidance currently teeters in the middle, suggesting either annual or biennial screening and highlighting the pros and cons of either approach. According to ACOG, “annual screening intervals appear to result in the least number of breast cancer deaths, particularly in younger women, but at the cost of additional callbacks and biopsies.”

When to begin screening represents another point of contention. While some experts, such as ACOG, agree with the task force’s decision to lower the screening start age to 40, others point to the need for greater nuance on setting the appropriate screening age. The main issue: the task force’s draft sets a uniform age to begin screening, but the risk for breast cancer and breast cancer mortality is not uniform across different racial and ethnic groups.

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open found that, among women aged 40-49, breast cancer mortality was highest among Black women (27 deaths per 100,000 person-years) followed by White women (15 deaths per 100,000 person-years). Based on a recommended screening age of 50, the authors suggested that Black women should start screening at age 42, whereas White women could start at 51.

“These findings suggest that health policy makers and clinicians could consider an alternative, race and ethnicity–adapted approach in which Black female patients start screening earlier,” writes Tianhui Chen, PhD, of China’s Zhejiang Cancer Hospital and coauthor of the study.

Weighing in on the guidance, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research urged the task force to consider suggesting different screening schedules based on race and ethnicity data. That would mean the recommendation to start at age 40 should only apply to Black women and other groups with higher-than-average risk for breast cancer at a younger age.

“Women are capable of understanding why the age to start mammography screening may be different for women with different risk factors,” the National Center for Health Research wrote in a comment to USPSTF, provided to this news organization by request. “What is confusing is when some physician groups recommend annual mammograms for all women starting at age 40, even though the data do not support that recommendation.”

While the ACR agreed with the task force’s recommendation to lower the screening age, the organization suggested starting risk assessments based on racial variations in breast cancer incidence and death even earlier. Specifically, the ACR recommended that high-risk groups, such as Black women, get risk assessments by age 25 to determine whether mammography before age 40 is needed.

Screening options for women with dense breasts may be some of the most challenging to weigh. Having dense breasts increases an individual’s risk for breast cancer, and mammography alone is not as effective at identifying breast cancer among these women. However, the evidence on the benefits vs. harms of additional screening beyond mammography remains mixed.

As a result, the task force decided to maintain its “I” grade on additional screening beyond mammography for these women – a grade that indicates insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms for a service.

The task force largely based its decision on the findings of two key reports. One report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, which modeled potential outcomes of different screening strategies, indicated that extra screening might reduce breast cancer mortality in those with dense breasts, but at a cost of more false-positive reports.

The second report, a review from the Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, reaffirmed the benefits of routine mammography for reducing deaths from breast cancer, but found no solid evidence that different strategies – including supplemental screening in women with denser breasts – lowered breast cancer mortality or the risk of progression to advanced cancer. Further studies may show which approaches work best to reduce breast cancer deaths, the report said.

In this instance, ACOG agreed with USPSTF: “Based on the lack of data, ACOG does not recommend routine use of alternative or adjunctive tests to screening mammography in women with dense breasts who are asymptomatic and have no additional risk factors.”

Women with dense breasts should still be encouraged to receive regular screening mammography, even if the results they get may not be as accurate as those for women with less dense breasts, said Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, of the University of California, Davis, who worked on a report for the USPSTF guidelines.
 

What’s next?

Despite ongoing debate and uncertainties surrounding some breast screening guidance, support for ending copay requirements for follow-up tests after a positive mammogram finding is widespread.

According to Dr. Fendrick, the USPSTF should expand coverage of follow-up testing after a positive mammogram to ensure people receive routine screening and any necessary diagnostic tests, as it did with colon cancer.

Before 2021, patients could face high costs for a colonoscopy following a positive stool-based Cologuard test. But in 2021, the USPSTF said that positive results on stool-based tests would require follow-up with colonoscopy, defining this follow-up as part of the screening benefit. In 2022, Medicare followed by setting a policy that ended the copay for these follow-up colonoscopies.

For breast screening, there are efforts underway in Congress to end copays for breast screening. In May, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced a bill, the Find It Early Act, that would require both private and government insurers to cover the out-of-pocket costs for many women receiving screening with ultrasound and MRI.

When the USPSTF finalizes its breast screening guidelines, the recommendations will be woven into discussions between primary care physicians and patients about breast cancer screening.

As guidelines and evidence evolve, “we’re learning to adjust” and communicate these changes to patients, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

However, gaps in the guidance will leave some open-ended questions about optimal screening practices and how much screening may cost.

Given that, Dr. Iroku-Malize takes many factors into account when discussing screening options with her patients. Based on the new information and the patient’s information, she said she will tell her patients, “We’re going to adjust our guidance as to what you need.”

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

A recent update to the U.S. recommendations for breast cancer screening is raising concerns about the costs associated with potential follow-up tests, while also renewing debates about the timing of these tests and the screening approaches used.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is currently finalizing an update to its recommendations on breast cancer screening. In May, the task force released a proposed update that dropped the initial age for routine mammogram screening from 50 to 40.

The task force intends to give a “B” rating to this recommendation, which covers screening every other year up to age 74 for women deemed average risk for breast cancer.

The task force’s rating carries clout, A. Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the Value-Based Insurance Design at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

For one, the Affordable Care Act requires that private insurers cover services that get top A or B marks from USPSTF without charging copays.

However, Dr. Fendrick noted, such coverage does not necessarily apply to follow-up testing when a routine mammogram comes back with a positive finding. The expense of follow-up testing may deter some women from seeking follow-up diagnostic imaging or biopsies after an abnormal result on a screening mammogram.

A recent analysis in JAMA Network Open found that women facing higher anticipated out-of-pocket costs for breast cancer diagnostic tests, based on their health insurance plan, were less likely to get that follow-up screening. For instance, the use of breast MRI decreased by nearly 24% between patients undergoing subsequent diagnostic testing in plans with the lowest out-of-pocket costs vs. those with the highest.

“The study’s central finding that some women who have an abnormal result on a mammogram may not get appropriate follow-up because of cost is worrisome,” said Dr. Fendrick and Ilana B. Richman, MD, MHS, in an accompanying commentary to the JAMA analysis. “On an individual level, high out-of-pocket costs may directly contribute to worse health outcomes or require individuals to use scarce financial resources that may otherwise be used for critical items such as food or rent.”

For patients to fully benefit from early detection, the USPSTF would also need to make clear that follow-up diagnostic mammograms are covered, Dr. Fendrick said.
 

The ongoing debates

Concerns over the costs of potential follow-up tests are not the only issues experts have highlighted since USPSTF released its updated draft guidance on screening mammography.

The task force’s proposed update has also reignited questions and uncertainties surrounding when to screen, how often, and what types are best.

When it comes to frequency, the major organizations that provide screening guidance don’t see eye to eye. The USPSTF recommends breast cancer screening every other year, while the American College of Radiology recommends screening every year because that approach leads to saves “the most lives.”

At this time, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidance currently teeters in the middle, suggesting either annual or biennial screening and highlighting the pros and cons of either approach. According to ACOG, “annual screening intervals appear to result in the least number of breast cancer deaths, particularly in younger women, but at the cost of additional callbacks and biopsies.”

When to begin screening represents another point of contention. While some experts, such as ACOG, agree with the task force’s decision to lower the screening start age to 40, others point to the need for greater nuance on setting the appropriate screening age. The main issue: the task force’s draft sets a uniform age to begin screening, but the risk for breast cancer and breast cancer mortality is not uniform across different racial and ethnic groups.

A recent study published in JAMA Network Open found that, among women aged 40-49, breast cancer mortality was highest among Black women (27 deaths per 100,000 person-years) followed by White women (15 deaths per 100,000 person-years). Based on a recommended screening age of 50, the authors suggested that Black women should start screening at age 42, whereas White women could start at 51.

“These findings suggest that health policy makers and clinicians could consider an alternative, race and ethnicity–adapted approach in which Black female patients start screening earlier,” writes Tianhui Chen, PhD, of China’s Zhejiang Cancer Hospital and coauthor of the study.

Weighing in on the guidance, the nonprofit National Center for Health Research urged the task force to consider suggesting different screening schedules based on race and ethnicity data. That would mean the recommendation to start at age 40 should only apply to Black women and other groups with higher-than-average risk for breast cancer at a younger age.

“Women are capable of understanding why the age to start mammography screening may be different for women with different risk factors,” the National Center for Health Research wrote in a comment to USPSTF, provided to this news organization by request. “What is confusing is when some physician groups recommend annual mammograms for all women starting at age 40, even though the data do not support that recommendation.”

While the ACR agreed with the task force’s recommendation to lower the screening age, the organization suggested starting risk assessments based on racial variations in breast cancer incidence and death even earlier. Specifically, the ACR recommended that high-risk groups, such as Black women, get risk assessments by age 25 to determine whether mammography before age 40 is needed.

Screening options for women with dense breasts may be some of the most challenging to weigh. Having dense breasts increases an individual’s risk for breast cancer, and mammography alone is not as effective at identifying breast cancer among these women. However, the evidence on the benefits vs. harms of additional screening beyond mammography remains mixed.

As a result, the task force decided to maintain its “I” grade on additional screening beyond mammography for these women – a grade that indicates insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms for a service.

The task force largely based its decision on the findings of two key reports. One report from the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, which modeled potential outcomes of different screening strategies, indicated that extra screening might reduce breast cancer mortality in those with dense breasts, but at a cost of more false-positive reports.

The second report, a review from the Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, reaffirmed the benefits of routine mammography for reducing deaths from breast cancer, but found no solid evidence that different strategies – including supplemental screening in women with denser breasts – lowered breast cancer mortality or the risk of progression to advanced cancer. Further studies may show which approaches work best to reduce breast cancer deaths, the report said.

In this instance, ACOG agreed with USPSTF: “Based on the lack of data, ACOG does not recommend routine use of alternative or adjunctive tests to screening mammography in women with dense breasts who are asymptomatic and have no additional risk factors.”

Women with dense breasts should still be encouraged to receive regular screening mammography, even if the results they get may not be as accurate as those for women with less dense breasts, said Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD, of the University of California, Davis, who worked on a report for the USPSTF guidelines.
 

What’s next?

Despite ongoing debate and uncertainties surrounding some breast screening guidance, support for ending copay requirements for follow-up tests after a positive mammogram finding is widespread.

According to Dr. Fendrick, the USPSTF should expand coverage of follow-up testing after a positive mammogram to ensure people receive routine screening and any necessary diagnostic tests, as it did with colon cancer.

Before 2021, patients could face high costs for a colonoscopy following a positive stool-based Cologuard test. But in 2021, the USPSTF said that positive results on stool-based tests would require follow-up with colonoscopy, defining this follow-up as part of the screening benefit. In 2022, Medicare followed by setting a policy that ended the copay for these follow-up colonoscopies.

For breast screening, there are efforts underway in Congress to end copays for breast screening. In May, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) introduced a bill, the Find It Early Act, that would require both private and government insurers to cover the out-of-pocket costs for many women receiving screening with ultrasound and MRI.

When the USPSTF finalizes its breast screening guidelines, the recommendations will be woven into discussions between primary care physicians and patients about breast cancer screening.

As guidelines and evidence evolve, “we’re learning to adjust” and communicate these changes to patients, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

However, gaps in the guidance will leave some open-ended questions about optimal screening practices and how much screening may cost.

Given that, Dr. Iroku-Malize takes many factors into account when discussing screening options with her patients. Based on the new information and the patient’s information, she said she will tell her patients, “We’re going to adjust our guidance as to what you need.”

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

After 15 years of researching what works well in oncology – and where the field has gone awry – Christopher Booth, MD, had a career moment.

“As I approached mid-career, I realized publishing and describing problems wasn’t fulfilling. It wasn’t doing enough,” recalled Dr. Booth, an oncologist and professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont. “I wanted to change mindsets and change systems so that things actually improved for the better for patients.”

His colleague, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, described a similar epiphany. As a trainee, he noticed that the real-world effects of some so-called blockbuster cancer drugs too often failed to measure up to the hype.

“I realized we were lacking common sense in oncology,” said Dr. Gyawali, a medical oncologist and assistant professor at Queen’s University.

In 2019, Dr. Gyawali launched a Medscape column addressing what he considers to be that lack of common sense, and in 2022, he and Dr. Booth published a similarly titled opinion piece in Nature Medicine. The core idea: The cancer community needs to prioritize cancer treatments that benefit patients, treatments that meaningfully improve survival and quality of life.

Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist and associate professor at UC San Diego Health, was on the same page. He’d been interested in the evidence-based medicine movement since his time as a hematology fellow when that movement was “a bit of a counterculture,” he explained.

Dr. Goodman and Dr. Booth connected through their common interests and collaborated on a 2021 paper exploring the discomfort clinicians might feel when a patient’s needs fall on the “edge of oncology”: that is, when the guideline-recommended standard of care offers marginal benefit, at best, and could, at worst, cause patient harm.

“We said, ‘Now is the time to make change,’ ” he recalled. It was time to stop talking and do something.
 

Common sense and a common purpose

Dr. Booth, Dr. Gyawali, and Dr. Goodman joined forces and, with the backing of a philanthropist who had experience as a patient with cancer, convened an organizing committee of more than 30 like-minded oncologists and patient advocates from across the globe.

The group convened for a 3-day “meeting of the minds” in Kingston in April and laid out their intentions in a position paper published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The publication marks the official launch of an ambitious, multipronged, global initiative to enact change: Common Sense Oncology, a new patient-centered movement in cancer care.

In their paper, the committee outline the vision for Common Sense Oncology. The mission: prioritize patient-centered and equitable care by focusing on treatments that improve survival and quality of life, communication that promotes informed decision-making, and systems that ensure access to all patients.

However, increasingly, the cancer community faces a “troubling paradox,” the team wrote in The Lancet. In some instance, treatments that bring minimal benefit are overused while those that can make a meaningful difference in patients’ lives are not accessible to most worldwide.

One reason for this shift: Commercial interests, rather than patient interests, appear to be driving cancer research and care. The team explained, for instance, that over the past few decades, clinical trials have largely pivoted from publicly funded efforts to industry funded ones “designed to achieve regulatory approval or commercial advantage, [often] at the expense of investigating new approaches to surgery, radiotherapy, palliative care, and prevention.”

But “patients deserve better,” the group wrote.

The team outlined three pillars for the initiative: evidence generation, evidence interpretation, and evidence communication.

The evidence generation pillar will aim to improve trial design and reporting to prioritize outcomes that matter to patients.

“One concern is that over the last 10 years or so, most of our new treatments have had very, very small benefits, and we think the bar has dropped too low,” Dr. Booth said, explaining that many trials have moved away from focusing on improving survival and quality of life and toward detecting small differences between treatments on other endpoints – namely progression-free survival. “Those small benefits need to be balanced against the very real risks to our patients.”

The evidence interpretation pillar will aim to foster critical thinking so that clinicians can better identify poorly designed or reported trials and help patients make more informed decisions.

Lastly, the evidence communication pillar will focus on fostering better communication about treatment options among patients, the public, and policymakers. Without clear and thoughtful communication, patients may have unrealistic expectations about the effectiveness of treatments that offer only marginal clinical benefits.

The team also emphasized a need to focus on improving global equity and access to affordable treatments so all patients can benefit from care that extends survival or quality of life.

It’s an ambitious undertaking, especially for a group of full-time clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates “volunteering their time for societal good,” said Dr. Gyawali, but the project teams intend to hit the ground running.

The team has established short-term targets, such as identifying deficiencies in data interpretation within education programs within 6 months and developing educational materials that begin to correct those deficiencies within 12 months, Dr. Booth explained. In the longer term, the team will also aim to design clinical trials that focus on patient outcomes, such as overall survival and quality of life.

Breast cancer survivor and patient advocate Michelle Tregear, PhD, who was recruited to help with Common Sense Oncology, also hopes the initiative will lead to better regulatory control that requires trial sponsors to “focus on what matters to patients, not on surrogate endpoints.”

When it comes to clinical trials, “more, more, more is not always better,” said Dr. Tregear, director of Education and Training Programs for patient advocates at the National Breast Cancer Coalition, Washington, D.C. “Industry interests are not always aligned with patient interests,” and “the system, by and large, is not addressing questions that really matter to patients and their families.”

Although “it’s a tall order to change the direction that we’re going in,” Dr. Tregear is up to the challenge of helping raise awareness, which will hopefully spur patients to demand change.

When Dr. Goodman announced the Common Sense Oncology initiative on Twitter, the news brought excitement, with many oncologists asking to join.

With its sweeping, ambitious goals, the Common Sense Oncology initiative has a long road ahead. Figuring out how to implement some of its aims in practice will take time, Dr. Booth acknowledges, and the initial launch marks the first steps, which will continue to evolve over time.

“We’re not proposing we have all the answers or that we know what every patient would want – we’re saying we’ve not done a good job of communicating to patients the relative benefits and risks of different treatments,” Dr. Booth explained. “We want to celebrate and promote what helps and speak out about what’s not in the best interest of patients.”

Dr. Goodman reported consulting fees from Seattle Genetics and speaking honoraria from Curio. Dr. Booth, Dr. Gyawali, and Dr. Tregear reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After 15 years of researching what works well in oncology – and where the field has gone awry – Christopher Booth, MD, had a career moment.

“As I approached mid-career, I realized publishing and describing problems wasn’t fulfilling. It wasn’t doing enough,” recalled Dr. Booth, an oncologist and professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont. “I wanted to change mindsets and change systems so that things actually improved for the better for patients.”

His colleague, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, described a similar epiphany. As a trainee, he noticed that the real-world effects of some so-called blockbuster cancer drugs too often failed to measure up to the hype.

“I realized we were lacking common sense in oncology,” said Dr. Gyawali, a medical oncologist and assistant professor at Queen’s University.

In 2019, Dr. Gyawali launched a Medscape column addressing what he considers to be that lack of common sense, and in 2022, he and Dr. Booth published a similarly titled opinion piece in Nature Medicine. The core idea: The cancer community needs to prioritize cancer treatments that benefit patients, treatments that meaningfully improve survival and quality of life.

Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist and associate professor at UC San Diego Health, was on the same page. He’d been interested in the evidence-based medicine movement since his time as a hematology fellow when that movement was “a bit of a counterculture,” he explained.

Dr. Goodman and Dr. Booth connected through their common interests and collaborated on a 2021 paper exploring the discomfort clinicians might feel when a patient’s needs fall on the “edge of oncology”: that is, when the guideline-recommended standard of care offers marginal benefit, at best, and could, at worst, cause patient harm.

“We said, ‘Now is the time to make change,’ ” he recalled. It was time to stop talking and do something.
 

Common sense and a common purpose

Dr. Booth, Dr. Gyawali, and Dr. Goodman joined forces and, with the backing of a philanthropist who had experience as a patient with cancer, convened an organizing committee of more than 30 like-minded oncologists and patient advocates from across the globe.

The group convened for a 3-day “meeting of the minds” in Kingston in April and laid out their intentions in a position paper published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The publication marks the official launch of an ambitious, multipronged, global initiative to enact change: Common Sense Oncology, a new patient-centered movement in cancer care.

In their paper, the committee outline the vision for Common Sense Oncology. The mission: prioritize patient-centered and equitable care by focusing on treatments that improve survival and quality of life, communication that promotes informed decision-making, and systems that ensure access to all patients.

However, increasingly, the cancer community faces a “troubling paradox,” the team wrote in The Lancet. In some instance, treatments that bring minimal benefit are overused while those that can make a meaningful difference in patients’ lives are not accessible to most worldwide.

One reason for this shift: Commercial interests, rather than patient interests, appear to be driving cancer research and care. The team explained, for instance, that over the past few decades, clinical trials have largely pivoted from publicly funded efforts to industry funded ones “designed to achieve regulatory approval or commercial advantage, [often] at the expense of investigating new approaches to surgery, radiotherapy, palliative care, and prevention.”

But “patients deserve better,” the group wrote.

The team outlined three pillars for the initiative: evidence generation, evidence interpretation, and evidence communication.

The evidence generation pillar will aim to improve trial design and reporting to prioritize outcomes that matter to patients.

“One concern is that over the last 10 years or so, most of our new treatments have had very, very small benefits, and we think the bar has dropped too low,” Dr. Booth said, explaining that many trials have moved away from focusing on improving survival and quality of life and toward detecting small differences between treatments on other endpoints – namely progression-free survival. “Those small benefits need to be balanced against the very real risks to our patients.”

The evidence interpretation pillar will aim to foster critical thinking so that clinicians can better identify poorly designed or reported trials and help patients make more informed decisions.

Lastly, the evidence communication pillar will focus on fostering better communication about treatment options among patients, the public, and policymakers. Without clear and thoughtful communication, patients may have unrealistic expectations about the effectiveness of treatments that offer only marginal clinical benefits.

The team also emphasized a need to focus on improving global equity and access to affordable treatments so all patients can benefit from care that extends survival or quality of life.

It’s an ambitious undertaking, especially for a group of full-time clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates “volunteering their time for societal good,” said Dr. Gyawali, but the project teams intend to hit the ground running.

The team has established short-term targets, such as identifying deficiencies in data interpretation within education programs within 6 months and developing educational materials that begin to correct those deficiencies within 12 months, Dr. Booth explained. In the longer term, the team will also aim to design clinical trials that focus on patient outcomes, such as overall survival and quality of life.

Breast cancer survivor and patient advocate Michelle Tregear, PhD, who was recruited to help with Common Sense Oncology, also hopes the initiative will lead to better regulatory control that requires trial sponsors to “focus on what matters to patients, not on surrogate endpoints.”

When it comes to clinical trials, “more, more, more is not always better,” said Dr. Tregear, director of Education and Training Programs for patient advocates at the National Breast Cancer Coalition, Washington, D.C. “Industry interests are not always aligned with patient interests,” and “the system, by and large, is not addressing questions that really matter to patients and their families.”

Although “it’s a tall order to change the direction that we’re going in,” Dr. Tregear is up to the challenge of helping raise awareness, which will hopefully spur patients to demand change.

When Dr. Goodman announced the Common Sense Oncology initiative on Twitter, the news brought excitement, with many oncologists asking to join.

With its sweeping, ambitious goals, the Common Sense Oncology initiative has a long road ahead. Figuring out how to implement some of its aims in practice will take time, Dr. Booth acknowledges, and the initial launch marks the first steps, which will continue to evolve over time.

“We’re not proposing we have all the answers or that we know what every patient would want – we’re saying we’ve not done a good job of communicating to patients the relative benefits and risks of different treatments,” Dr. Booth explained. “We want to celebrate and promote what helps and speak out about what’s not in the best interest of patients.”

Dr. Goodman reported consulting fees from Seattle Genetics and speaking honoraria from Curio. Dr. Booth, Dr. Gyawali, and Dr. Tregear reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After 15 years of researching what works well in oncology – and where the field has gone awry – Christopher Booth, MD, had a career moment.

“As I approached mid-career, I realized publishing and describing problems wasn’t fulfilling. It wasn’t doing enough,” recalled Dr. Booth, an oncologist and professor at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont. “I wanted to change mindsets and change systems so that things actually improved for the better for patients.”

His colleague, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, described a similar epiphany. As a trainee, he noticed that the real-world effects of some so-called blockbuster cancer drugs too often failed to measure up to the hype.

“I realized we were lacking common sense in oncology,” said Dr. Gyawali, a medical oncologist and assistant professor at Queen’s University.

In 2019, Dr. Gyawali launched a Medscape column addressing what he considers to be that lack of common sense, and in 2022, he and Dr. Booth published a similarly titled opinion piece in Nature Medicine. The core idea: The cancer community needs to prioritize cancer treatments that benefit patients, treatments that meaningfully improve survival and quality of life.

Aaron Goodman, MD, a hematologist and associate professor at UC San Diego Health, was on the same page. He’d been interested in the evidence-based medicine movement since his time as a hematology fellow when that movement was “a bit of a counterculture,” he explained.

Dr. Goodman and Dr. Booth connected through their common interests and collaborated on a 2021 paper exploring the discomfort clinicians might feel when a patient’s needs fall on the “edge of oncology”: that is, when the guideline-recommended standard of care offers marginal benefit, at best, and could, at worst, cause patient harm.

“We said, ‘Now is the time to make change,’ ” he recalled. It was time to stop talking and do something.
 

Common sense and a common purpose

Dr. Booth, Dr. Gyawali, and Dr. Goodman joined forces and, with the backing of a philanthropist who had experience as a patient with cancer, convened an organizing committee of more than 30 like-minded oncologists and patient advocates from across the globe.

The group convened for a 3-day “meeting of the minds” in Kingston in April and laid out their intentions in a position paper published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The publication marks the official launch of an ambitious, multipronged, global initiative to enact change: Common Sense Oncology, a new patient-centered movement in cancer care.

In their paper, the committee outline the vision for Common Sense Oncology. The mission: prioritize patient-centered and equitable care by focusing on treatments that improve survival and quality of life, communication that promotes informed decision-making, and systems that ensure access to all patients.

However, increasingly, the cancer community faces a “troubling paradox,” the team wrote in The Lancet. In some instance, treatments that bring minimal benefit are overused while those that can make a meaningful difference in patients’ lives are not accessible to most worldwide.

One reason for this shift: Commercial interests, rather than patient interests, appear to be driving cancer research and care. The team explained, for instance, that over the past few decades, clinical trials have largely pivoted from publicly funded efforts to industry funded ones “designed to achieve regulatory approval or commercial advantage, [often] at the expense of investigating new approaches to surgery, radiotherapy, palliative care, and prevention.”

But “patients deserve better,” the group wrote.

The team outlined three pillars for the initiative: evidence generation, evidence interpretation, and evidence communication.

The evidence generation pillar will aim to improve trial design and reporting to prioritize outcomes that matter to patients.

“One concern is that over the last 10 years or so, most of our new treatments have had very, very small benefits, and we think the bar has dropped too low,” Dr. Booth said, explaining that many trials have moved away from focusing on improving survival and quality of life and toward detecting small differences between treatments on other endpoints – namely progression-free survival. “Those small benefits need to be balanced against the very real risks to our patients.”

The evidence interpretation pillar will aim to foster critical thinking so that clinicians can better identify poorly designed or reported trials and help patients make more informed decisions.

Lastly, the evidence communication pillar will focus on fostering better communication about treatment options among patients, the public, and policymakers. Without clear and thoughtful communication, patients may have unrealistic expectations about the effectiveness of treatments that offer only marginal clinical benefits.

The team also emphasized a need to focus on improving global equity and access to affordable treatments so all patients can benefit from care that extends survival or quality of life.

It’s an ambitious undertaking, especially for a group of full-time clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates “volunteering their time for societal good,” said Dr. Gyawali, but the project teams intend to hit the ground running.

The team has established short-term targets, such as identifying deficiencies in data interpretation within education programs within 6 months and developing educational materials that begin to correct those deficiencies within 12 months, Dr. Booth explained. In the longer term, the team will also aim to design clinical trials that focus on patient outcomes, such as overall survival and quality of life.

Breast cancer survivor and patient advocate Michelle Tregear, PhD, who was recruited to help with Common Sense Oncology, also hopes the initiative will lead to better regulatory control that requires trial sponsors to “focus on what matters to patients, not on surrogate endpoints.”

When it comes to clinical trials, “more, more, more is not always better,” said Dr. Tregear, director of Education and Training Programs for patient advocates at the National Breast Cancer Coalition, Washington, D.C. “Industry interests are not always aligned with patient interests,” and “the system, by and large, is not addressing questions that really matter to patients and their families.”

Although “it’s a tall order to change the direction that we’re going in,” Dr. Tregear is up to the challenge of helping raise awareness, which will hopefully spur patients to demand change.

When Dr. Goodman announced the Common Sense Oncology initiative on Twitter, the news brought excitement, with many oncologists asking to join.

With its sweeping, ambitious goals, the Common Sense Oncology initiative has a long road ahead. Figuring out how to implement some of its aims in practice will take time, Dr. Booth acknowledges, and the initial launch marks the first steps, which will continue to evolve over time.

“We’re not proposing we have all the answers or that we know what every patient would want – we’re saying we’ve not done a good job of communicating to patients the relative benefits and risks of different treatments,” Dr. Booth explained. “We want to celebrate and promote what helps and speak out about what’s not in the best interest of patients.”

Dr. Goodman reported consulting fees from Seattle Genetics and speaking honoraria from Curio. Dr. Booth, Dr. Gyawali, and Dr. Tregear reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Implementing stewardship strategies for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, including personalized weight-based dosing, dose rounding, and pharmacy-level vial sharing, could generate savings of as much as $74 million each year for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), a new analysis suggests.

That $74 million in savings would translate to nearly 14% less spent on ICI therapy annually.

“Our work suggests that implementing these strategies across the VHA could lead to tens of millions of dollars in annual savings – and that’s just for immunotherapy – without sacrificing outcomes,” first author Alex Bryant, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

The study was published in Health Affairs.

ICI therapy is used in about 40 unique cancer indications and, in 2020, accounted for more than $6 billion in Medicare Part B spending.

Two of the most prescribed ICIs – pembrolizumab and nivolumab – initially received their U.S. approval at personalized weight-based doses. But at the request of the manufacturers, the Food and Drug Administration approved “one-size-fits-all” flat doses, despite a lack of data to support this strategy compared with weight-based dosing.

With a fixed dose strategy, “patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel,  told this news organization last year. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”

To compare the cost of a weight-based vs. fixed-dose strategy, Dr. Bryant and colleagues conducted a simulation analysis under four stewardship scenarios, using data from the VHA and Medicare drug prices. Strategy one looked at weight-based dosing; strategy two combined weight-based dosing and dose rounding but not single-use vial sharing; strategy three used weight-based dosing and single-use vial sharing but not dose rounding; and strategy four, the most aggressive, combined all three.

ICIs in the VHA national formulary included pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and cemiplimab-rwlc.

Using an algorithm to extract data, the team identified 49,851 administration events in 8,276 unique patients in 2021 – just over half were pembrolizumab, nearly 23% were nivolumab, and the remaining 26% largely included atezolizumab (12.1%) and durvalumab (11.9%).

The team found that the VHA spends roughly $537 million annually on ICIs. But implementing the stewardship measures that combined weight-based dosing, dose rounding, and vial sharing could save the VHA $74 million, or about 14%, annually on ICIs.

Most of the savings came from dosing changes to pembrolizumab and nivolumab, with greater savings achieved by combining more stewardship strategies. For instance, using strategy one (weight-based dosing alone) could lead to annual pembrolizumab savings of $14 million. Adding dose rounding (strategy two) could reduce pembrolizumab spending by $24 million. And using strategy four, with an unlimited window for vial sharing, could mean annual savings of nearly $60 million.

“Our results should prompt cost-conscious systems and payers to ask whether the amounts of drugs they’re providing to patients and how they go about making those doses are the most cost-effective approaches,” said corresponding author Garth W. Strohbehn, MD, of the University of Michigan and the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System.

Dr. Strohbehn said the prospect of adopting these strategies hinges on several factors, with financial incentives at the prescriber and medical center level likely being the most influential.

“In fee-for-service systems, reimbursement scales with the amount of drug administered, so there can be a financial disincentive to decreasing overall drug usage,” Dr. Strohbehn explained.

“Conversely, integrated systems such as Kaiser Permanente or the VHA and large self-insured employers are incentivized to contain costs and take great care of patients, so they may be more inclined to promote these strategies,” he added.

However, Adam C. Powell, PhD, president, Payer+Provider Syndicate, who wasn’t involved in the analysis, cautioned that such a shift may come with unintended consequences.

The Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act of 2021 let the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services seek reimbursement for discarded drugs – in effect, changing the reimbursement model for medications. That led pharmaceutical manufacturers to respond in kind by changing the dosing model, Dr. Powell said. 

“Drugs that previously had personalized weight-based dosing were moved to uniform flat dosing, eliminating the potential for the manufacturer to have to issue a reimbursement if the patient’s personalized dose fell short of the amount in the single-use vial,” Dr. Powell added.  

If there is a substantial migration to weight-based dosing, “it is possible that pharmaceutical manufacturers will rethink their dosing and pricing models, just as happened previously,” he cautioned.

However, these strategies could also provide relief for another escalating issue: drug shortages. Especially in the current moment, having a stewardship mindset, “might be helpful in navigating drug shortages,” Dr. Strohbehn said.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Bryant, Dr. Strohbehn, and Dr. Powell report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Implementing stewardship strategies for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, including personalized weight-based dosing, dose rounding, and pharmacy-level vial sharing, could generate savings of as much as $74 million each year for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), a new analysis suggests.

That $74 million in savings would translate to nearly 14% less spent on ICI therapy annually.

“Our work suggests that implementing these strategies across the VHA could lead to tens of millions of dollars in annual savings – and that’s just for immunotherapy – without sacrificing outcomes,” first author Alex Bryant, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

The study was published in Health Affairs.

ICI therapy is used in about 40 unique cancer indications and, in 2020, accounted for more than $6 billion in Medicare Part B spending.

Two of the most prescribed ICIs – pembrolizumab and nivolumab – initially received their U.S. approval at personalized weight-based doses. But at the request of the manufacturers, the Food and Drug Administration approved “one-size-fits-all” flat doses, despite a lack of data to support this strategy compared with weight-based dosing.

With a fixed dose strategy, “patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel,  told this news organization last year. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”

To compare the cost of a weight-based vs. fixed-dose strategy, Dr. Bryant and colleagues conducted a simulation analysis under four stewardship scenarios, using data from the VHA and Medicare drug prices. Strategy one looked at weight-based dosing; strategy two combined weight-based dosing and dose rounding but not single-use vial sharing; strategy three used weight-based dosing and single-use vial sharing but not dose rounding; and strategy four, the most aggressive, combined all three.

ICIs in the VHA national formulary included pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and cemiplimab-rwlc.

Using an algorithm to extract data, the team identified 49,851 administration events in 8,276 unique patients in 2021 – just over half were pembrolizumab, nearly 23% were nivolumab, and the remaining 26% largely included atezolizumab (12.1%) and durvalumab (11.9%).

The team found that the VHA spends roughly $537 million annually on ICIs. But implementing the stewardship measures that combined weight-based dosing, dose rounding, and vial sharing could save the VHA $74 million, or about 14%, annually on ICIs.

Most of the savings came from dosing changes to pembrolizumab and nivolumab, with greater savings achieved by combining more stewardship strategies. For instance, using strategy one (weight-based dosing alone) could lead to annual pembrolizumab savings of $14 million. Adding dose rounding (strategy two) could reduce pembrolizumab spending by $24 million. And using strategy four, with an unlimited window for vial sharing, could mean annual savings of nearly $60 million.

“Our results should prompt cost-conscious systems and payers to ask whether the amounts of drugs they’re providing to patients and how they go about making those doses are the most cost-effective approaches,” said corresponding author Garth W. Strohbehn, MD, of the University of Michigan and the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System.

Dr. Strohbehn said the prospect of adopting these strategies hinges on several factors, with financial incentives at the prescriber and medical center level likely being the most influential.

“In fee-for-service systems, reimbursement scales with the amount of drug administered, so there can be a financial disincentive to decreasing overall drug usage,” Dr. Strohbehn explained.

“Conversely, integrated systems such as Kaiser Permanente or the VHA and large self-insured employers are incentivized to contain costs and take great care of patients, so they may be more inclined to promote these strategies,” he added.

However, Adam C. Powell, PhD, president, Payer+Provider Syndicate, who wasn’t involved in the analysis, cautioned that such a shift may come with unintended consequences.

The Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act of 2021 let the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services seek reimbursement for discarded drugs – in effect, changing the reimbursement model for medications. That led pharmaceutical manufacturers to respond in kind by changing the dosing model, Dr. Powell said. 

“Drugs that previously had personalized weight-based dosing were moved to uniform flat dosing, eliminating the potential for the manufacturer to have to issue a reimbursement if the patient’s personalized dose fell short of the amount in the single-use vial,” Dr. Powell added.  

If there is a substantial migration to weight-based dosing, “it is possible that pharmaceutical manufacturers will rethink their dosing and pricing models, just as happened previously,” he cautioned.

However, these strategies could also provide relief for another escalating issue: drug shortages. Especially in the current moment, having a stewardship mindset, “might be helpful in navigating drug shortages,” Dr. Strohbehn said.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Bryant, Dr. Strohbehn, and Dr. Powell report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Implementing stewardship strategies for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, including personalized weight-based dosing, dose rounding, and pharmacy-level vial sharing, could generate savings of as much as $74 million each year for the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), a new analysis suggests.

That $74 million in savings would translate to nearly 14% less spent on ICI therapy annually.

“Our work suggests that implementing these strategies across the VHA could lead to tens of millions of dollars in annual savings – and that’s just for immunotherapy – without sacrificing outcomes,” first author Alex Bryant, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

The study was published in Health Affairs.

ICI therapy is used in about 40 unique cancer indications and, in 2020, accounted for more than $6 billion in Medicare Part B spending.

Two of the most prescribed ICIs – pembrolizumab and nivolumab – initially received their U.S. approval at personalized weight-based doses. But at the request of the manufacturers, the Food and Drug Administration approved “one-size-fits-all” flat doses, despite a lack of data to support this strategy compared with weight-based dosing.

With a fixed dose strategy, “patients with cancer not only tend to get too high a dose of the drug, but costs go up significantly,” Daniel Goldstein, MD, a medical oncologist at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel,  told this news organization last year. “Why should we give a higher dose with the same efficacy when that dose will cost significantly more and has the potential to increase adverse events?”

To compare the cost of a weight-based vs. fixed-dose strategy, Dr. Bryant and colleagues conducted a simulation analysis under four stewardship scenarios, using data from the VHA and Medicare drug prices. Strategy one looked at weight-based dosing; strategy two combined weight-based dosing and dose rounding but not single-use vial sharing; strategy three used weight-based dosing and single-use vial sharing but not dose rounding; and strategy four, the most aggressive, combined all three.

ICIs in the VHA national formulary included pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab, durvalumab, and cemiplimab-rwlc.

Using an algorithm to extract data, the team identified 49,851 administration events in 8,276 unique patients in 2021 – just over half were pembrolizumab, nearly 23% were nivolumab, and the remaining 26% largely included atezolizumab (12.1%) and durvalumab (11.9%).

The team found that the VHA spends roughly $537 million annually on ICIs. But implementing the stewardship measures that combined weight-based dosing, dose rounding, and vial sharing could save the VHA $74 million, or about 14%, annually on ICIs.

Most of the savings came from dosing changes to pembrolizumab and nivolumab, with greater savings achieved by combining more stewardship strategies. For instance, using strategy one (weight-based dosing alone) could lead to annual pembrolizumab savings of $14 million. Adding dose rounding (strategy two) could reduce pembrolizumab spending by $24 million. And using strategy four, with an unlimited window for vial sharing, could mean annual savings of nearly $60 million.

“Our results should prompt cost-conscious systems and payers to ask whether the amounts of drugs they’re providing to patients and how they go about making those doses are the most cost-effective approaches,” said corresponding author Garth W. Strohbehn, MD, of the University of Michigan and the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System.

Dr. Strohbehn said the prospect of adopting these strategies hinges on several factors, with financial incentives at the prescriber and medical center level likely being the most influential.

“In fee-for-service systems, reimbursement scales with the amount of drug administered, so there can be a financial disincentive to decreasing overall drug usage,” Dr. Strohbehn explained.

“Conversely, integrated systems such as Kaiser Permanente or the VHA and large self-insured employers are incentivized to contain costs and take great care of patients, so they may be more inclined to promote these strategies,” he added.

However, Adam C. Powell, PhD, president, Payer+Provider Syndicate, who wasn’t involved in the analysis, cautioned that such a shift may come with unintended consequences.

The Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act of 2021 let the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services seek reimbursement for discarded drugs – in effect, changing the reimbursement model for medications. That led pharmaceutical manufacturers to respond in kind by changing the dosing model, Dr. Powell said. 

“Drugs that previously had personalized weight-based dosing were moved to uniform flat dosing, eliminating the potential for the manufacturer to have to issue a reimbursement if the patient’s personalized dose fell short of the amount in the single-use vial,” Dr. Powell added.  

If there is a substantial migration to weight-based dosing, “it is possible that pharmaceutical manufacturers will rethink their dosing and pricing models, just as happened previously,” he cautioned.

However, these strategies could also provide relief for another escalating issue: drug shortages. Especially in the current moment, having a stewardship mindset, “might be helpful in navigating drug shortages,” Dr. Strohbehn said.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Bryant, Dr. Strohbehn, and Dr. Powell report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.