Federal Practitioner

More women today are surviving breast cancer if it’s caught early, largely because of better screening and more effective and targeted treatments.

However, not everyone has benefited equitably from this progress. Critical gaps in breast cancer outcomes and survival remain for women in racial and ethnic minority groups.

Black women for instance, have a 41% higher death rate from breast cancer compared with White patients. They also have a greater incidence of aggressive disease like triple-negative breast cancer. Native American and Hispanic women, meanwhile, are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer at an earlier age than White women and experience more aggressive breast cancers.

In 2023, Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, and his team published an updated analysis of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in cancer trends based on data from 2014 to 2020. The analysis found that Black women in particular, were the least likely to have an early-stage diagnosis of breast cancer. Localized‐stage breast cancer was diagnosed in 57% of Black women versus 68% of White women.

American Cancer Society

“Despite substantial progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatments, the burden of cancer remains greater among populations that have been historically marginalized, including people of color, people with lower socioeconomic status, and people living in nonmetropolitan areas,” said Dr. Islami, who is senior scientific director of cancer disparity research in the Surveillance & Health Equity Science Department at the American Cancer Society.

The reasons behind outcomes disparities in breast cancer are complex, making solutions challenging, say experts researching racial differences in cancer outcomes.

While social determinants of health (SDH) seem to be drivers of higher breast cancer mortality in Black women, biological differences between Black and White women are also linked to poorer outcomes in Black women with breast cancer, new studies suggest. Among the findings of this research is that breast cancer tests may be contributing to the disparities and misguiding care for some patients of color.
 

SDH and Screening Rates Differences By Race

A range of factors contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in breast cancer outcomes, said Pamela Ganschow, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago and part of the university’s Cancer Prevention and Control research program. These include socioeconomic status, access to timely and high-quality care across the cancer control continuum, cultural beliefs, differences in genetic makeup and tumor biology, as well as system biases, such as implicit biases and systemic racism, Dr. Ganschow said.

Dr. Islami adds that gaps in access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are largely rooted in fundamental inequities in social determinants of health (SDH), such as whether a patient has safe housing, transportation, education, job opportunities, income, access to nutritious foods, and language and literacy skills, among others.

Dr. Islami’s analysis, for example, shows that people of color are generally more likely to have lower educational attainment and to experience poverty, food insecurity, and housing insecurity compared with White people. Among people aged 18-64 years, the age-adjusted proportion of individuals with no health insurance in 2021 was also higher among Black (13.7%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (18.7%), and Hispanic (28.7%) patients than among White (7.8%) or Asian (5.9%) people, according to the report.

Competing needs can also get in the way of prioritizing cancer screenings, especially for patients in lower socio-economic populations, Dr. Ganschow said.

University of Illinois Cancer Center

Biological Differences, Bad Testing Recommendations May Contribute to Poor Outcomes

Differences in biology may be one overlooked internal driver of lower breast cancer survival in Black women.

Researchers at Sanford Burnham Prebys in La Jolla, California, recently analyzed the breast cells of White and Black women, finding significant molecular differences that may be contributing to higher breast cancer mortality rates in Black women.

Investigators analyzed both healthy tissue and tumor tissue from 185 Black women and compared the samples to that of White women. They discovered differences among Black and White women in the way their DNA repair genes are expressed, both in healthy breast tissue and in tumors positive for estrogen receptor breast cancer. Molecular differences were also present in the cellular signals that control how fast cells, including cancer cells, grow.

DNA repair is part of normal cellular function and helps cells recover from damage that can occur during DNA replication or in response to external factors, such as stress.

“One of the first lines of defense, to prevent the cell from becoming a tumor are DNA damage repair pathways,” said Svasti Haricharan, PhD, a coauthor of the study and an assistant professor at Sanford Burnham Prebys. “We know there are many different DNA damage repair pathways that respond to different types of DNA damage. What we didn’t know was that, even in our normal cells, based on your race and ethnicity, you have different levels of DNA repair proteins.”

Sanford Burnham Prebys

University of Illinois Cancer Center

How Neighborhood Impacts Breast Cancer, Death Rates

Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood also lowers breast cancer survival, according to new research. A disadvantaged neighborhood is generally defined as a location associated with higher concentrations of poverty, higher rates of unemployment, and less access to health care, quality housing, food, and community resources, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open on April 18 identified 350,824 patients with breast cancer. Of these, 41,519 (11.8%) were Hispanic, 39,631 (11.3%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 234,698 (66.9%) were non-Hispanic White. Investigators divided the patients into five groups representing the lowest to highest neighborhood socioeconomic indices using the Yost Index. (The Yost Index is used by the National Cancer Institute for cancer surveillance and is based on variables such as household income, home value, median rent, percentage below 150% of the poverty line, education, and unemployment.)

Of the Black and Hispanic patients in the study, the highest proportions of both demographics lived in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. (16,141 Black patients [30.9%]) and 10,168 Hispanic patients [19.5%]). Although 45% of White patients also fell into that same category, the highest proportion of White patients in the study lived in the most advantaged neighborhoods (66,529 patients [76.2%]).

Findings showed patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had the highest proportion of triple-negative breast cancer. Patients in this group also had the lowest proportion of patients who completed surgery and radiation, and the highest proportion of patients who received chemotherapy, compared with all other neighborhood groups. The most advantaged neighborhoods group had higher proportions of localized-stage cancer, a higher proportion of patients who underwent surgery and radiation, and the lowest proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy treatment.

Patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods also had the highest risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR,] 1.53; 95% CI, 1.48-1.59; P less than .001) compared with patients living in the most advantaged neighborhoods. Non-Hispanic Black patients in particular, had the highest risk of mortality, compared with non-Hispanic White patients (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20; P less than .001).

Authors wrote that the findings suggest neighborhood disadvantage is independently associated with shorter survival in patients with breast cancer, even after controlling for individual-level factors, tumor characteristics, and treatment.

“To address these residual disparities associated with neighborhood disadvantage, research must focus on which components of the built environment influence outcomes,” the authors said.

Another recent study also found correlations among where breast cancer patients lived and how they fared with the disease.

Jasmine M. Miller-Kleinhenz, PhD, an assistant professor at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, studied how historical redlining impacts breast cancer development and outcomes in her research published in JAMA Network Open, earlier this year. Redlining refers to the practice of denying people access to credit because of where they live. Historically, mortgage lenders widely redlined neighborhoods with predominantly Black residents. The 1968 Fair Housing Act outlawed racially motivated redlining, but consequences from historical redlining still exist.

University of Mississippi Medical Center

Hope for Improved Outcomes, Higher Survival Rates

Investigators hope the findings of all of this new research lead to better, more targeted treatments and, in turn, improved outcomes.

Dr. Haricharan is optimistic about the improvement of breast cancer outcomes as more is learned about the biology of Black patients and other non-White patients.

There is a growing effort to include more data from minoritized populations in breast cancer research studies, Dr. Haricharan said, and she foresees associated changes to clinical protocols in the future. Her own team is working on creating larger data sets that are more representative of non-White patients to further analyze the differences found in their prior study.

“I think there’s this understanding that, until we have data sets that are more representative, we really are catering to [only one] population in terms of our diagnostic and therapeutic technological advances,” she said.

The American Cancer Society meanwhile, is launching a new initiative in May that aims to collect more health data from Black women to ultimately develop more effective cancer interventions. VOICES of Black Women will focus on collecting and studying health data from Black women through online surveys. The society’s goal is to enroll at least 100,000 Black women in the United States between ages 25 and 55.

Dr. Miller-Kleinhenz called the initiative “an important step to starting to research and answer some of these lingering questions about why there continue to be breast cancer disparities.”

More women today are surviving breast cancer if it’s caught early, largely because of better screening and more effective and targeted treatments.

However, not everyone has benefited equitably from this progress. Critical gaps in breast cancer outcomes and survival remain for women in racial and ethnic minority groups.

Black women for instance, have a 41% higher death rate from breast cancer compared with White patients. They also have a greater incidence of aggressive disease like triple-negative breast cancer. Native American and Hispanic women, meanwhile, are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer at an earlier age than White women and experience more aggressive breast cancers.

In 2023, Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, and his team published an updated analysis of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in cancer trends based on data from 2014 to 2020. The analysis found that Black women in particular, were the least likely to have an early-stage diagnosis of breast cancer. Localized‐stage breast cancer was diagnosed in 57% of Black women versus 68% of White women.

American Cancer Society

“Despite substantial progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatments, the burden of cancer remains greater among populations that have been historically marginalized, including people of color, people with lower socioeconomic status, and people living in nonmetropolitan areas,” said Dr. Islami, who is senior scientific director of cancer disparity research in the Surveillance & Health Equity Science Department at the American Cancer Society.

The reasons behind outcomes disparities in breast cancer are complex, making solutions challenging, say experts researching racial differences in cancer outcomes.

While social determinants of health (SDH) seem to be drivers of higher breast cancer mortality in Black women, biological differences between Black and White women are also linked to poorer outcomes in Black women with breast cancer, new studies suggest. Among the findings of this research is that breast cancer tests may be contributing to the disparities and misguiding care for some patients of color.
 

SDH and Screening Rates Differences By Race

A range of factors contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in breast cancer outcomes, said Pamela Ganschow, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago and part of the university’s Cancer Prevention and Control research program. These include socioeconomic status, access to timely and high-quality care across the cancer control continuum, cultural beliefs, differences in genetic makeup and tumor biology, as well as system biases, such as implicit biases and systemic racism, Dr. Ganschow said.

Dr. Islami adds that gaps in access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are largely rooted in fundamental inequities in social determinants of health (SDH), such as whether a patient has safe housing, transportation, education, job opportunities, income, access to nutritious foods, and language and literacy skills, among others.

Dr. Islami’s analysis, for example, shows that people of color are generally more likely to have lower educational attainment and to experience poverty, food insecurity, and housing insecurity compared with White people. Among people aged 18-64 years, the age-adjusted proportion of individuals with no health insurance in 2021 was also higher among Black (13.7%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (18.7%), and Hispanic (28.7%) patients than among White (7.8%) or Asian (5.9%) people, according to the report.

Competing needs can also get in the way of prioritizing cancer screenings, especially for patients in lower socio-economic populations, Dr. Ganschow said.

University of Illinois Cancer Center

Biological Differences, Bad Testing Recommendations May Contribute to Poor Outcomes

Differences in biology may be one overlooked internal driver of lower breast cancer survival in Black women.

Researchers at Sanford Burnham Prebys in La Jolla, California, recently analyzed the breast cells of White and Black women, finding significant molecular differences that may be contributing to higher breast cancer mortality rates in Black women.

Investigators analyzed both healthy tissue and tumor tissue from 185 Black women and compared the samples to that of White women. They discovered differences among Black and White women in the way their DNA repair genes are expressed, both in healthy breast tissue and in tumors positive for estrogen receptor breast cancer. Molecular differences were also present in the cellular signals that control how fast cells, including cancer cells, grow.

DNA repair is part of normal cellular function and helps cells recover from damage that can occur during DNA replication or in response to external factors, such as stress.

“One of the first lines of defense, to prevent the cell from becoming a tumor are DNA damage repair pathways,” said Svasti Haricharan, PhD, a coauthor of the study and an assistant professor at Sanford Burnham Prebys. “We know there are many different DNA damage repair pathways that respond to different types of DNA damage. What we didn’t know was that, even in our normal cells, based on your race and ethnicity, you have different levels of DNA repair proteins.”

Sanford Burnham Prebys

University of Illinois Cancer Center

How Neighborhood Impacts Breast Cancer, Death Rates

Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood also lowers breast cancer survival, according to new research. A disadvantaged neighborhood is generally defined as a location associated with higher concentrations of poverty, higher rates of unemployment, and less access to health care, quality housing, food, and community resources, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open on April 18 identified 350,824 patients with breast cancer. Of these, 41,519 (11.8%) were Hispanic, 39,631 (11.3%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 234,698 (66.9%) were non-Hispanic White. Investigators divided the patients into five groups representing the lowest to highest neighborhood socioeconomic indices using the Yost Index. (The Yost Index is used by the National Cancer Institute for cancer surveillance and is based on variables such as household income, home value, median rent, percentage below 150% of the poverty line, education, and unemployment.)

Of the Black and Hispanic patients in the study, the highest proportions of both demographics lived in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. (16,141 Black patients [30.9%]) and 10,168 Hispanic patients [19.5%]). Although 45% of White patients also fell into that same category, the highest proportion of White patients in the study lived in the most advantaged neighborhoods (66,529 patients [76.2%]).

Findings showed patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had the highest proportion of triple-negative breast cancer. Patients in this group also had the lowest proportion of patients who completed surgery and radiation, and the highest proportion of patients who received chemotherapy, compared with all other neighborhood groups. The most advantaged neighborhoods group had higher proportions of localized-stage cancer, a higher proportion of patients who underwent surgery and radiation, and the lowest proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy treatment.

Patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods also had the highest risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR,] 1.53; 95% CI, 1.48-1.59; P less than .001) compared with patients living in the most advantaged neighborhoods. Non-Hispanic Black patients in particular, had the highest risk of mortality, compared with non-Hispanic White patients (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20; P less than .001).

Authors wrote that the findings suggest neighborhood disadvantage is independently associated with shorter survival in patients with breast cancer, even after controlling for individual-level factors, tumor characteristics, and treatment.

“To address these residual disparities associated with neighborhood disadvantage, research must focus on which components of the built environment influence outcomes,” the authors said.

Another recent study also found correlations among where breast cancer patients lived and how they fared with the disease.

Jasmine M. Miller-Kleinhenz, PhD, an assistant professor at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, studied how historical redlining impacts breast cancer development and outcomes in her research published in JAMA Network Open, earlier this year. Redlining refers to the practice of denying people access to credit because of where they live. Historically, mortgage lenders widely redlined neighborhoods with predominantly Black residents. The 1968 Fair Housing Act outlawed racially motivated redlining, but consequences from historical redlining still exist.

University of Mississippi Medical Center

Hope for Improved Outcomes, Higher Survival Rates

Investigators hope the findings of all of this new research lead to better, more targeted treatments and, in turn, improved outcomes.

Dr. Haricharan is optimistic about the improvement of breast cancer outcomes as more is learned about the biology of Black patients and other non-White patients.

There is a growing effort to include more data from minoritized populations in breast cancer research studies, Dr. Haricharan said, and she foresees associated changes to clinical protocols in the future. Her own team is working on creating larger data sets that are more representative of non-White patients to further analyze the differences found in their prior study.

“I think there’s this understanding that, until we have data sets that are more representative, we really are catering to [only one] population in terms of our diagnostic and therapeutic technological advances,” she said.

The American Cancer Society meanwhile, is launching a new initiative in May that aims to collect more health data from Black women to ultimately develop more effective cancer interventions. VOICES of Black Women will focus on collecting and studying health data from Black women through online surveys. The society’s goal is to enroll at least 100,000 Black women in the United States between ages 25 and 55.

Dr. Miller-Kleinhenz called the initiative “an important step to starting to research and answer some of these lingering questions about why there continue to be breast cancer disparities.”

More women today are surviving breast cancer if it’s caught early, largely because of better screening and more effective and targeted treatments.

However, not everyone has benefited equitably from this progress. Critical gaps in breast cancer outcomes and survival remain for women in racial and ethnic minority groups.

Black women for instance, have a 41% higher death rate from breast cancer compared with White patients. They also have a greater incidence of aggressive disease like triple-negative breast cancer. Native American and Hispanic women, meanwhile, are more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer at an earlier age than White women and experience more aggressive breast cancers.

In 2023, Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, and his team published an updated analysis of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in cancer trends based on data from 2014 to 2020. The analysis found that Black women in particular, were the least likely to have an early-stage diagnosis of breast cancer. Localized‐stage breast cancer was diagnosed in 57% of Black women versus 68% of White women.

American Cancer Society

“Despite substantial progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatments, the burden of cancer remains greater among populations that have been historically marginalized, including people of color, people with lower socioeconomic status, and people living in nonmetropolitan areas,” said Dr. Islami, who is senior scientific director of cancer disparity research in the Surveillance & Health Equity Science Department at the American Cancer Society.

The reasons behind outcomes disparities in breast cancer are complex, making solutions challenging, say experts researching racial differences in cancer outcomes.

While social determinants of health (SDH) seem to be drivers of higher breast cancer mortality in Black women, biological differences between Black and White women are also linked to poorer outcomes in Black women with breast cancer, new studies suggest. Among the findings of this research is that breast cancer tests may be contributing to the disparities and misguiding care for some patients of color.
 

SDH and Screening Rates Differences By Race

A range of factors contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in breast cancer outcomes, said Pamela Ganschow, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Illinois Cancer Center in Chicago and part of the university’s Cancer Prevention and Control research program. These include socioeconomic status, access to timely and high-quality care across the cancer control continuum, cultural beliefs, differences in genetic makeup and tumor biology, as well as system biases, such as implicit biases and systemic racism, Dr. Ganschow said.

Dr. Islami adds that gaps in access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are largely rooted in fundamental inequities in social determinants of health (SDH), such as whether a patient has safe housing, transportation, education, job opportunities, income, access to nutritious foods, and language and literacy skills, among others.

Dr. Islami’s analysis, for example, shows that people of color are generally more likely to have lower educational attainment and to experience poverty, food insecurity, and housing insecurity compared with White people. Among people aged 18-64 years, the age-adjusted proportion of individuals with no health insurance in 2021 was also higher among Black (13.7%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (18.7%), and Hispanic (28.7%) patients than among White (7.8%) or Asian (5.9%) people, according to the report.

Competing needs can also get in the way of prioritizing cancer screenings, especially for patients in lower socio-economic populations, Dr. Ganschow said.

University of Illinois Cancer Center

Biological Differences, Bad Testing Recommendations May Contribute to Poor Outcomes

Differences in biology may be one overlooked internal driver of lower breast cancer survival in Black women.

Researchers at Sanford Burnham Prebys in La Jolla, California, recently analyzed the breast cells of White and Black women, finding significant molecular differences that may be contributing to higher breast cancer mortality rates in Black women.

Investigators analyzed both healthy tissue and tumor tissue from 185 Black women and compared the samples to that of White women. They discovered differences among Black and White women in the way their DNA repair genes are expressed, both in healthy breast tissue and in tumors positive for estrogen receptor breast cancer. Molecular differences were also present in the cellular signals that control how fast cells, including cancer cells, grow.

DNA repair is part of normal cellular function and helps cells recover from damage that can occur during DNA replication or in response to external factors, such as stress.

“One of the first lines of defense, to prevent the cell from becoming a tumor are DNA damage repair pathways,” said Svasti Haricharan, PhD, a coauthor of the study and an assistant professor at Sanford Burnham Prebys. “We know there are many different DNA damage repair pathways that respond to different types of DNA damage. What we didn’t know was that, even in our normal cells, based on your race and ethnicity, you have different levels of DNA repair proteins.”

Sanford Burnham Prebys

University of Illinois Cancer Center

How Neighborhood Impacts Breast Cancer, Death Rates

Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood also lowers breast cancer survival, according to new research. A disadvantaged neighborhood is generally defined as a location associated with higher concentrations of poverty, higher rates of unemployment, and less access to health care, quality housing, food, and community resources, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open on April 18 identified 350,824 patients with breast cancer. Of these, 41,519 (11.8%) were Hispanic, 39,631 (11.3%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 234,698 (66.9%) were non-Hispanic White. Investigators divided the patients into five groups representing the lowest to highest neighborhood socioeconomic indices using the Yost Index. (The Yost Index is used by the National Cancer Institute for cancer surveillance and is based on variables such as household income, home value, median rent, percentage below 150% of the poverty line, education, and unemployment.)

Of the Black and Hispanic patients in the study, the highest proportions of both demographics lived in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods. (16,141 Black patients [30.9%]) and 10,168 Hispanic patients [19.5%]). Although 45% of White patients also fell into that same category, the highest proportion of White patients in the study lived in the most advantaged neighborhoods (66,529 patients [76.2%]).

Findings showed patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had the highest proportion of triple-negative breast cancer. Patients in this group also had the lowest proportion of patients who completed surgery and radiation, and the highest proportion of patients who received chemotherapy, compared with all other neighborhood groups. The most advantaged neighborhoods group had higher proportions of localized-stage cancer, a higher proportion of patients who underwent surgery and radiation, and the lowest proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy treatment.

Patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods also had the highest risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR,] 1.53; 95% CI, 1.48-1.59; P less than .001) compared with patients living in the most advantaged neighborhoods. Non-Hispanic Black patients in particular, had the highest risk of mortality, compared with non-Hispanic White patients (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20; P less than .001).

Authors wrote that the findings suggest neighborhood disadvantage is independently associated with shorter survival in patients with breast cancer, even after controlling for individual-level factors, tumor characteristics, and treatment.

“To address these residual disparities associated with neighborhood disadvantage, research must focus on which components of the built environment influence outcomes,” the authors said.

Another recent study also found correlations among where breast cancer patients lived and how they fared with the disease.

Jasmine M. Miller-Kleinhenz, PhD, an assistant professor at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, studied how historical redlining impacts breast cancer development and outcomes in her research published in JAMA Network Open, earlier this year. Redlining refers to the practice of denying people access to credit because of where they live. Historically, mortgage lenders widely redlined neighborhoods with predominantly Black residents. The 1968 Fair Housing Act outlawed racially motivated redlining, but consequences from historical redlining still exist.

University of Mississippi Medical Center

Hope for Improved Outcomes, Higher Survival Rates

Investigators hope the findings of all of this new research lead to better, more targeted treatments and, in turn, improved outcomes.

Dr. Haricharan is optimistic about the improvement of breast cancer outcomes as more is learned about the biology of Black patients and other non-White patients.

There is a growing effort to include more data from minoritized populations in breast cancer research studies, Dr. Haricharan said, and she foresees associated changes to clinical protocols in the future. Her own team is working on creating larger data sets that are more representative of non-White patients to further analyze the differences found in their prior study.

“I think there’s this understanding that, until we have data sets that are more representative, we really are catering to [only one] population in terms of our diagnostic and therapeutic technological advances,” she said.

The American Cancer Society meanwhile, is launching a new initiative in May that aims to collect more health data from Black women to ultimately develop more effective cancer interventions. VOICES of Black Women will focus on collecting and studying health data from Black women through online surveys. The society’s goal is to enroll at least 100,000 Black women in the United States between ages 25 and 55.

Dr. Miller-Kleinhenz called the initiative “an important step to starting to research and answer some of these lingering questions about why there continue to be breast cancer disparities.”

Gut microbiota signatures associated with KRAS mutations in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) have been identified by researchers.

Their findings suggest that the gut microbes may serve as noninvasive biomarkers to help identify subtypes of CRC and guide personalized treatment recommendations.

“Our new work contributes to the growing body of evidence highlighting the significance of microbiota-driven mechanisms in cancer pathogenesis,” lead investigator Weizhong Tang, MD, with Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital in Nanning, China, said in a statement. 

The research was recently published online in Microbiology Spectrum. 

The onset and growth of CRC has been linked both to imbalances in the gut microbiome and to mutations in the KRAS gene — about 40% of people with CRC have a KRAS mutation. Yet, the interplay between gut dysbiosis and KRAS mutations in CRC remains unclear. 

To investigate further, Dr. Tang and colleagues used 16s rRNA sequencing to analyze stool samples from 94 patients with CRC, including 24 with KRAS-mutated CRC and 70 with KRAS wild-type (nonmutated) CRC. 

The researchers identified 26 distinct types of gut microbiota with statistically significant differences in abundance between the KRAS mutant and KRAS wild-type CRC patients.

At the genus level, Fusobacterium, Clostridium, and Shewanella were all abundant in the KRAS mutant group. 

Fusobacterium is a Gram-negative microbe found in the gastrointestinal tract and the oral cavity. Recent studies have established a strong link between Fusobacterium and CRC development. Other work found elevated levels of Fusobacterium nucleatum were not only closely associated with KRAS mutation but also correlated with chemoresistance in CRC.

Clostridium produces metabolites in the large intestine, which are known to cause DNA damage and trigger inflammatory responses, thereby increasing the risk of CRC development. 

Similarly, Shewanella has been proven to be a contributor to CRC development.

The researchers say it’s “plausible” to consider all three as potential noninvasive biomarkers for identifying KRAS mutation in CRC patients.

In contrast, Bifidobacterium and Akkermansia were abundant in the KRAS wild-type group. 

Bifidobacterium is a probiotic with antitumor activity and Akkermansia is a Gram-negative anaerobic bacterium abundant in the gut and currently recognized as a potential probiotic. 

The researchers speculated that CRC patients may have a reduced likelihood of developing KRAS mutation in the presence of Bifidobacterium and Akkermansia.

Analyses of biological pathways of gut microbiota associated with KRAS mutation status in CRC revealed a significantly higher abundance of the isoflavonoid biosynthesis pathway in the KRAS wild-type group compared with the KRAS mutant group.

“In comparison to KRAS mutant CRC, it is postulated that KRAS wild-type CRC may be less aggressive due to the upregulation of the isoflavonoid biosynthesis pathway, which may inhibit CRC development and progression,” the authors wrote.

Promising Predictive Model

Dr. Tang and colleagues also developed a machine learning model to predict KRAS mutation status in CRC patients based on the gut microbiota signature in KRAS mutant CRC. 

The initial results underscore the model’s predictive efficacy and suggest that it has “considerable potential for clinical application, offering a novel dimension in the prediction of KRAS mutation status among CRC patients in a clinical setting,” the authors wrote. 

They caution that the model requires data from a larger cohort to improve its efficacy, and they plan to do larger studies to validate the findings. 

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Gut microbiota signatures associated with KRAS mutations in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) have been identified by researchers.

Their findings suggest that the gut microbes may serve as noninvasive biomarkers to help identify subtypes of CRC and guide personalized treatment recommendations.

“Our new work contributes to the growing body of evidence highlighting the significance of microbiota-driven mechanisms in cancer pathogenesis,” lead investigator Weizhong Tang, MD, with Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital in Nanning, China, said in a statement. 

The research was recently published online in Microbiology Spectrum. 

The onset and growth of CRC has been linked both to imbalances in the gut microbiome and to mutations in the KRAS gene — about 40% of people with CRC have a KRAS mutation. Yet, the interplay between gut dysbiosis and KRAS mutations in CRC remains unclear. 

To investigate further, Dr. Tang and colleagues used 16s rRNA sequencing to analyze stool samples from 94 patients with CRC, including 24 with KRAS-mutated CRC and 70 with KRAS wild-type (nonmutated) CRC. 

The researchers identified 26 distinct types of gut microbiota with statistically significant differences in abundance between the KRAS mutant and KRAS wild-type CRC patients.

At the genus level, Fusobacterium, Clostridium, and Shewanella were all abundant in the KRAS mutant group. 

Fusobacterium is a Gram-negative microbe found in the gastrointestinal tract and the oral cavity. Recent studies have established a strong link between Fusobacterium and CRC development. Other work found elevated levels of Fusobacterium nucleatum were not only closely associated with KRAS mutation but also correlated with chemoresistance in CRC.

Clostridium produces metabolites in the large intestine, which are known to cause DNA damage and trigger inflammatory responses, thereby increasing the risk of CRC development. 

Similarly, Shewanella has been proven to be a contributor to CRC development.

The researchers say it’s “plausible” to consider all three as potential noninvasive biomarkers for identifying KRAS mutation in CRC patients.

In contrast, Bifidobacterium and Akkermansia were abundant in the KRAS wild-type group. 

Bifidobacterium is a probiotic with antitumor activity and Akkermansia is a Gram-negative anaerobic bacterium abundant in the gut and currently recognized as a potential probiotic. 

The researchers speculated that CRC patients may have a reduced likelihood of developing KRAS mutation in the presence of Bifidobacterium and Akkermansia.

Analyses of biological pathways of gut microbiota associated with KRAS mutation status in CRC revealed a significantly higher abundance of the isoflavonoid biosynthesis pathway in the KRAS wild-type group compared with the KRAS mutant group.

“In comparison to KRAS mutant CRC, it is postulated that KRAS wild-type CRC may be less aggressive due to the upregulation of the isoflavonoid biosynthesis pathway, which may inhibit CRC development and progression,” the authors wrote.

Promising Predictive Model

Dr. Tang and colleagues also developed a machine learning model to predict KRAS mutation status in CRC patients based on the gut microbiota signature in KRAS mutant CRC. 

The initial results underscore the model’s predictive efficacy and suggest that it has “considerable potential for clinical application, offering a novel dimension in the prediction of KRAS mutation status among CRC patients in a clinical setting,” the authors wrote. 

They caution that the model requires data from a larger cohort to improve its efficacy, and they plan to do larger studies to validate the findings. 

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Gut microbiota signatures associated with KRAS mutations in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) have been identified by researchers.

Their findings suggest that the gut microbes may serve as noninvasive biomarkers to help identify subtypes of CRC and guide personalized treatment recommendations.

“Our new work contributes to the growing body of evidence highlighting the significance of microbiota-driven mechanisms in cancer pathogenesis,” lead investigator Weizhong Tang, MD, with Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital in Nanning, China, said in a statement. 

The research was recently published online in Microbiology Spectrum. 

The onset and growth of CRC has been linked both to imbalances in the gut microbiome and to mutations in the KRAS gene — about 40% of people with CRC have a KRAS mutation. Yet, the interplay between gut dysbiosis and KRAS mutations in CRC remains unclear. 

To investigate further, Dr. Tang and colleagues used 16s rRNA sequencing to analyze stool samples from 94 patients with CRC, including 24 with KRAS-mutated CRC and 70 with KRAS wild-type (nonmutated) CRC. 

The researchers identified 26 distinct types of gut microbiota with statistically significant differences in abundance between the KRAS mutant and KRAS wild-type CRC patients.

At the genus level, Fusobacterium, Clostridium, and Shewanella were all abundant in the KRAS mutant group. 

Fusobacterium is a Gram-negative microbe found in the gastrointestinal tract and the oral cavity. Recent studies have established a strong link between Fusobacterium and CRC development. Other work found elevated levels of Fusobacterium nucleatum were not only closely associated with KRAS mutation but also correlated with chemoresistance in CRC.

Clostridium produces metabolites in the large intestine, which are known to cause DNA damage and trigger inflammatory responses, thereby increasing the risk of CRC development. 

Similarly, Shewanella has been proven to be a contributor to CRC development.

The researchers say it’s “plausible” to consider all three as potential noninvasive biomarkers for identifying KRAS mutation in CRC patients.

In contrast, Bifidobacterium and Akkermansia were abundant in the KRAS wild-type group. 

Bifidobacterium is a probiotic with antitumor activity and Akkermansia is a Gram-negative anaerobic bacterium abundant in the gut and currently recognized as a potential probiotic. 

The researchers speculated that CRC patients may have a reduced likelihood of developing KRAS mutation in the presence of Bifidobacterium and Akkermansia.

Analyses of biological pathways of gut microbiota associated with KRAS mutation status in CRC revealed a significantly higher abundance of the isoflavonoid biosynthesis pathway in the KRAS wild-type group compared with the KRAS mutant group.

“In comparison to KRAS mutant CRC, it is postulated that KRAS wild-type CRC may be less aggressive due to the upregulation of the isoflavonoid biosynthesis pathway, which may inhibit CRC development and progression,” the authors wrote.

Promising Predictive Model

Dr. Tang and colleagues also developed a machine learning model to predict KRAS mutation status in CRC patients based on the gut microbiota signature in KRAS mutant CRC. 

The initial results underscore the model’s predictive efficacy and suggest that it has “considerable potential for clinical application, offering a novel dimension in the prediction of KRAS mutation status among CRC patients in a clinical setting,” the authors wrote. 

They caution that the model requires data from a larger cohort to improve its efficacy, and they plan to do larger studies to validate the findings. 

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent study suggests that younger breast cancer survivors with a germline pathogenic variant or those with an initial diagnosis of in situ vs invasive primary breast cancer have a significantly higher risk for a second primary breast cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Women who are diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger are about two to three times more likely to develop second primary breast cancer compared with women who are older when first diagnosed.
• However, data are lacking on whether certain factors increase a woman’s risk for a second primary breast cancer.
• To classify the risk of developing a second primary breast cancer, the researchers evaluated a main cohort of 685 patients with stages 0-III breast cancer who were diagnosed at age 40 years or younger and had undergone unilateral mastectomy or lumpectomy as primary surgery between August 2006 and June 2015. The team also analyzed data on 547 younger women who had a bilateral mastectomy.
• The researchers assessed various breast cancer risk factors, including self-reported ethnicity, race, age, family history of breast or ovarian cancer, germline genetics, tumor stage, grade, and receptor status.
• The primary outcome was the diagnosis of a second primary breast cancer that occurred at least 6 months after the initial diagnosis of primary breast cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 685 main study participants, 17 (2.5%) developed a second primary breast cancer (15 contralateral and 2 ipsilateral) over a median of 4.2 years since their primary diagnosis. The 5- and 10-year cumulative incidence of a second primary breast cancer was 1.5% and 2.6%, respectively.
• Overall, only 33 women were positive for a germline pathogenic variant, and having a pathogenic variant was associated with a fourfold higher risk for second primary breast cancer compared with noncarriers at 5 years (5.5% vs 1.3%) and at 10 years (8.9% vs 2.2%). These findings were held in multivariate models.
• Patients initially diagnosed with in situ disease had more than a fivefold higher risk for second primary breast cancer compared with those initially diagnosed with invasive disease — 6.2% vs 1.2% at 5 years and 10.4% vs 2.1% at 10 years (hazard ratio, 5.25; P = .004). These findings were held in multivariate models (adjusted sub-hazard ratio [sHR], 5.61; 95% CI, 1.52-20.70) and among women without a pathogenic variant (adjusted sHR, 5.67; 95% CI, 1.54-20.90).
• The researchers also found a low risk for contralateral breast cancer among women without pathogenic variants, which could inform surgical decision-making.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the number of women positive for a germline pathogenic variant was small (n = 33) and “results should be interpreted cautiously,” the analysis signals “the importance of genetic testing” in younger breast cancer survivors to gauge their risk for a second primary breast cancer, the authors concluded. The authors added that their “finding of a higher risk of [second primary breast cancer] among those diagnosed with in situ primary [breast cancer] merits further investigation.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Kristen D. Brantley, PhD, from Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small number of second breast cancer events limited the authors’ ability to assess the effects of multiple risk factors together. Data on risk factors might be incomplete. About 9% of participants completed abbreviated questionnaires that did not include information on body mass index, alcohol, smoking, and family history. Frequencies of pathogenic variants besides BRCA1 and BRCA2 may be underestimated.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received no external funding. Four authors reported receiving grants or royalties outside this work. Other reported no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent study suggests that younger breast cancer survivors with a germline pathogenic variant or those with an initial diagnosis of in situ vs invasive primary breast cancer have a significantly higher risk for a second primary breast cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Women who are diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger are about two to three times more likely to develop second primary breast cancer compared with women who are older when first diagnosed.
• However, data are lacking on whether certain factors increase a woman’s risk for a second primary breast cancer.
• To classify the risk of developing a second primary breast cancer, the researchers evaluated a main cohort of 685 patients with stages 0-III breast cancer who were diagnosed at age 40 years or younger and had undergone unilateral mastectomy or lumpectomy as primary surgery between August 2006 and June 2015. The team also analyzed data on 547 younger women who had a bilateral mastectomy.
• The researchers assessed various breast cancer risk factors, including self-reported ethnicity, race, age, family history of breast or ovarian cancer, germline genetics, tumor stage, grade, and receptor status.
• The primary outcome was the diagnosis of a second primary breast cancer that occurred at least 6 months after the initial diagnosis of primary breast cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 685 main study participants, 17 (2.5%) developed a second primary breast cancer (15 contralateral and 2 ipsilateral) over a median of 4.2 years since their primary diagnosis. The 5- and 10-year cumulative incidence of a second primary breast cancer was 1.5% and 2.6%, respectively.
• Overall, only 33 women were positive for a germline pathogenic variant, and having a pathogenic variant was associated with a fourfold higher risk for second primary breast cancer compared with noncarriers at 5 years (5.5% vs 1.3%) and at 10 years (8.9% vs 2.2%). These findings were held in multivariate models.
• Patients initially diagnosed with in situ disease had more than a fivefold higher risk for second primary breast cancer compared with those initially diagnosed with invasive disease — 6.2% vs 1.2% at 5 years and 10.4% vs 2.1% at 10 years (hazard ratio, 5.25; P = .004). These findings were held in multivariate models (adjusted sub-hazard ratio [sHR], 5.61; 95% CI, 1.52-20.70) and among women without a pathogenic variant (adjusted sHR, 5.67; 95% CI, 1.54-20.90).
• The researchers also found a low risk for contralateral breast cancer among women without pathogenic variants, which could inform surgical decision-making.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the number of women positive for a germline pathogenic variant was small (n = 33) and “results should be interpreted cautiously,” the analysis signals “the importance of genetic testing” in younger breast cancer survivors to gauge their risk for a second primary breast cancer, the authors concluded. The authors added that their “finding of a higher risk of [second primary breast cancer] among those diagnosed with in situ primary [breast cancer] merits further investigation.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Kristen D. Brantley, PhD, from Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small number of second breast cancer events limited the authors’ ability to assess the effects of multiple risk factors together. Data on risk factors might be incomplete. About 9% of participants completed abbreviated questionnaires that did not include information on body mass index, alcohol, smoking, and family history. Frequencies of pathogenic variants besides BRCA1 and BRCA2 may be underestimated.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received no external funding. Four authors reported receiving grants or royalties outside this work. Other reported no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent study suggests that younger breast cancer survivors with a germline pathogenic variant or those with an initial diagnosis of in situ vs invasive primary breast cancer have a significantly higher risk for a second primary breast cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Women who are diagnosed with breast cancer at age 40 or younger are about two to three times more likely to develop second primary breast cancer compared with women who are older when first diagnosed.
• However, data are lacking on whether certain factors increase a woman’s risk for a second primary breast cancer.
• To classify the risk of developing a second primary breast cancer, the researchers evaluated a main cohort of 685 patients with stages 0-III breast cancer who were diagnosed at age 40 years or younger and had undergone unilateral mastectomy or lumpectomy as primary surgery between August 2006 and June 2015. The team also analyzed data on 547 younger women who had a bilateral mastectomy.
• The researchers assessed various breast cancer risk factors, including self-reported ethnicity, race, age, family history of breast or ovarian cancer, germline genetics, tumor stage, grade, and receptor status.
• The primary outcome was the diagnosis of a second primary breast cancer that occurred at least 6 months after the initial diagnosis of primary breast cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 685 main study participants, 17 (2.5%) developed a second primary breast cancer (15 contralateral and 2 ipsilateral) over a median of 4.2 years since their primary diagnosis. The 5- and 10-year cumulative incidence of a second primary breast cancer was 1.5% and 2.6%, respectively.
• Overall, only 33 women were positive for a germline pathogenic variant, and having a pathogenic variant was associated with a fourfold higher risk for second primary breast cancer compared with noncarriers at 5 years (5.5% vs 1.3%) and at 10 years (8.9% vs 2.2%). These findings were held in multivariate models.
• Patients initially diagnosed with in situ disease had more than a fivefold higher risk for second primary breast cancer compared with those initially diagnosed with invasive disease — 6.2% vs 1.2% at 5 years and 10.4% vs 2.1% at 10 years (hazard ratio, 5.25; P = .004). These findings were held in multivariate models (adjusted sub-hazard ratio [sHR], 5.61; 95% CI, 1.52-20.70) and among women without a pathogenic variant (adjusted sHR, 5.67; 95% CI, 1.54-20.90).
• The researchers also found a low risk for contralateral breast cancer among women without pathogenic variants, which could inform surgical decision-making.

IN PRACTICE:

Although the number of women positive for a germline pathogenic variant was small (n = 33) and “results should be interpreted cautiously,” the analysis signals “the importance of genetic testing” in younger breast cancer survivors to gauge their risk for a second primary breast cancer, the authors concluded. The authors added that their “finding of a higher risk of [second primary breast cancer] among those diagnosed with in situ primary [breast cancer] merits further investigation.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Kristen D. Brantley, PhD, from Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small number of second breast cancer events limited the authors’ ability to assess the effects of multiple risk factors together. Data on risk factors might be incomplete. About 9% of participants completed abbreviated questionnaires that did not include information on body mass index, alcohol, smoking, and family history. Frequencies of pathogenic variants besides BRCA1 and BRCA2 may be underestimated.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received no external funding. Four authors reported receiving grants or royalties outside this work. Other reported no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER – Headaches, including tension-type, migraine, and posttraumatic, are robustly associated with both attempted and completed suicide, results of a large study suggest. 

The risk for suicide attempt was four times higher in people with trigeminal and autonomic cephalalgias (TAC), and the risk for completed suicide was double among those with posttraumatic headache compared with individuals with no headache.

The retrospective analysis included data on more than 100,000 headache patients from a Danish registry. 

“The results suggest there’s a unique risk among headache patients for attempted and completed suicide,” lead investigator Holly Elser, MD, MPH, PhD, resident, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the findings were presented. “This really underscores the potential importance of complementary psychiatric evaluation and treatment for individuals diagnosed with headache.”
 

Underestimated Problem

Headache disorders affect about half of working-age adults and are among the leading causes of productivity loss, absence from work, and disability. 

Prior research suggests headache disorders often co-occur with psychiatric illness including depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and even attempted suicide.

However, previous studies that showed an increased risk for attempted suicide in patients with headache relied heavily on survey data and mostly focused on patients with migraine. There was little information on other headache types and on the risk for completed suicide.

Researchers used Danish registries to identify 64,057 patients with migraine, 40,160 with tension-type headache (TTH), 5743 with TAC, and 4253 with posttraumatic headache, all diagnosed from 1995 to 2019.

Some 5.8% of those with migraine, 6.3% with TAC, 7.2% with TTH, and 7.2% with posttraumatic headache, had a mood disorder (depression and anxiety combined) at baseline.

Those without a headache diagnosis were matched 5:1 to those with a headache diagnosis by sex and birth year.

Across all headache disorders, baseline prevalence of mood disorder was higher among those with headache versus population-matched controls. Dr. Elser emphasized that these are people diagnosed with a mood disorder in the inpatient, emergency department, or outpatient specialist clinic setting, “which means we are almost certainly underestimating the true burden of mood symptoms in our cohort,” she said.

Researchers identified attempted suicides using diagnostic codes. For completed suicide, they determined whether those who attempted suicide died within 30 days of the attempt.

For each headache type, investigators examined both the absolute and relative risk for attempted and completed suicides and estimated the risk at intervals of 5, 10, and 20 years after initial headache diagnosis.
 

Robust Link

The “power of this study is that we asked a simple, but important question, and answered it with simple, but appropriate, methodologic techniques,” Dr. Elser said.

The estimated risk differences (RDs) for attempted suicide were strongest for TAC and posttraumatic headache and for longer follow-ups. The RDs for completed suicide were largely the same but of a smaller magnitude and were “relatively less precise,” reflecting the “rarity of this outcome,” said Dr. Elser.

After adjusting for sex, age, education, income, comorbidities, and baseline medical and psychiatric diagnoses, researchers found the strongest association or attempted suicide was among those with TAC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.25; 95% CI, 2.85-6.33).

“A hazard ratio of 4 is enormous” for this type of comparison, Dr. Elser noted.

For completed suicide, the strongest association was with posttraumatic headache (aHR, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.78-6.16).

The study revealed a robust association with attempted and completed suicide across all headache types, including TTH, noted Dr. Elser. The link between tension headaches and suicide “was the most striking finding to me because I think of that as sort of a benign and common headache disorder,” she said.

The was an observational study, so “it’s not clear whether headache is playing an etiological role in the relationship with suicide,” she said. “It’s possible there are common shared risk factors or confounders that explain the relationship in full or in part that aren’t accounted for in this study.”
 

Ask About Mood

The results underscore the need for psychiatric evaluations in patients with a headache disorder. “For me, this is just going to make me that much more likely to ask my patients about their mood when I see them in clinic,” Dr. Elser said.

After asking patients with headache about their mood and stress at home and at work, physicians should have a “low threshold to refer to a behavioral health provider,” she added.

Future research should aim to better understand the link between headache and suicide risk, with a focus on the mechanisms behind low- and high-risk subgroups, said Dr. Elser.

A limitation of the study was that headache diagnoses were based on inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient specialist visits but not on visits to primary care practitioners. The study didn’t include information on headache severity or frequency and included only people who sought treatment for their headaches.

Though it’s unlikely the results “are perfectly generalizable” with respect to other geographical or cultural contexts, “I don’t think this relationship is unique to Denmark based on the literature to date,” Dr. Elser said.

Commenting on the study, session co-chair Todd J. Schwedt, MD, professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, and president-elect of the American Headache Society, noted that the study offers important findings “that demonstrate the enormous negative impact that headaches can exert.”

It’s “a strong reminder” that clinicians should assess the mental health of their patients with headaches and offer treatment when appropriate, he said.

The study received support from Aarhus University. No relevant conflicts of interest were reported.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER – Headaches, including tension-type, migraine, and posttraumatic, are robustly associated with both attempted and completed suicide, results of a large study suggest. 

The risk for suicide attempt was four times higher in people with trigeminal and autonomic cephalalgias (TAC), and the risk for completed suicide was double among those with posttraumatic headache compared with individuals with no headache.

The retrospective analysis included data on more than 100,000 headache patients from a Danish registry. 

“The results suggest there’s a unique risk among headache patients for attempted and completed suicide,” lead investigator Holly Elser, MD, MPH, PhD, resident, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the findings were presented. “This really underscores the potential importance of complementary psychiatric evaluation and treatment for individuals diagnosed with headache.”
 

Underestimated Problem

Headache disorders affect about half of working-age adults and are among the leading causes of productivity loss, absence from work, and disability. 

Prior research suggests headache disorders often co-occur with psychiatric illness including depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and even attempted suicide.

However, previous studies that showed an increased risk for attempted suicide in patients with headache relied heavily on survey data and mostly focused on patients with migraine. There was little information on other headache types and on the risk for completed suicide.

Researchers used Danish registries to identify 64,057 patients with migraine, 40,160 with tension-type headache (TTH), 5743 with TAC, and 4253 with posttraumatic headache, all diagnosed from 1995 to 2019.

Some 5.8% of those with migraine, 6.3% with TAC, 7.2% with TTH, and 7.2% with posttraumatic headache, had a mood disorder (depression and anxiety combined) at baseline.

Those without a headache diagnosis were matched 5:1 to those with a headache diagnosis by sex and birth year.

Across all headache disorders, baseline prevalence of mood disorder was higher among those with headache versus population-matched controls. Dr. Elser emphasized that these are people diagnosed with a mood disorder in the inpatient, emergency department, or outpatient specialist clinic setting, “which means we are almost certainly underestimating the true burden of mood symptoms in our cohort,” she said.

Researchers identified attempted suicides using diagnostic codes. For completed suicide, they determined whether those who attempted suicide died within 30 days of the attempt.

For each headache type, investigators examined both the absolute and relative risk for attempted and completed suicides and estimated the risk at intervals of 5, 10, and 20 years after initial headache diagnosis.
 

Robust Link

The “power of this study is that we asked a simple, but important question, and answered it with simple, but appropriate, methodologic techniques,” Dr. Elser said.

The estimated risk differences (RDs) for attempted suicide were strongest for TAC and posttraumatic headache and for longer follow-ups. The RDs for completed suicide were largely the same but of a smaller magnitude and were “relatively less precise,” reflecting the “rarity of this outcome,” said Dr. Elser.

After adjusting for sex, age, education, income, comorbidities, and baseline medical and psychiatric diagnoses, researchers found the strongest association or attempted suicide was among those with TAC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.25; 95% CI, 2.85-6.33).

“A hazard ratio of 4 is enormous” for this type of comparison, Dr. Elser noted.

For completed suicide, the strongest association was with posttraumatic headache (aHR, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.78-6.16).

The study revealed a robust association with attempted and completed suicide across all headache types, including TTH, noted Dr. Elser. The link between tension headaches and suicide “was the most striking finding to me because I think of that as sort of a benign and common headache disorder,” she said.

The was an observational study, so “it’s not clear whether headache is playing an etiological role in the relationship with suicide,” she said. “It’s possible there are common shared risk factors or confounders that explain the relationship in full or in part that aren’t accounted for in this study.”
 

Ask About Mood

The results underscore the need for psychiatric evaluations in patients with a headache disorder. “For me, this is just going to make me that much more likely to ask my patients about their mood when I see them in clinic,” Dr. Elser said.

After asking patients with headache about their mood and stress at home and at work, physicians should have a “low threshold to refer to a behavioral health provider,” she added.

Future research should aim to better understand the link between headache and suicide risk, with a focus on the mechanisms behind low- and high-risk subgroups, said Dr. Elser.

A limitation of the study was that headache diagnoses were based on inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient specialist visits but not on visits to primary care practitioners. The study didn’t include information on headache severity or frequency and included only people who sought treatment for their headaches.

Though it’s unlikely the results “are perfectly generalizable” with respect to other geographical or cultural contexts, “I don’t think this relationship is unique to Denmark based on the literature to date,” Dr. Elser said.

Commenting on the study, session co-chair Todd J. Schwedt, MD, professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, and president-elect of the American Headache Society, noted that the study offers important findings “that demonstrate the enormous negative impact that headaches can exert.”

It’s “a strong reminder” that clinicians should assess the mental health of their patients with headaches and offer treatment when appropriate, he said.

The study received support from Aarhus University. No relevant conflicts of interest were reported.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

DENVER – Headaches, including tension-type, migraine, and posttraumatic, are robustly associated with both attempted and completed suicide, results of a large study suggest. 

The risk for suicide attempt was four times higher in people with trigeminal and autonomic cephalalgias (TAC), and the risk for completed suicide was double among those with posttraumatic headache compared with individuals with no headache.

The retrospective analysis included data on more than 100,000 headache patients from a Danish registry. 

“The results suggest there’s a unique risk among headache patients for attempted and completed suicide,” lead investigator Holly Elser, MD, MPH, PhD, resident, Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology, where the findings were presented. “This really underscores the potential importance of complementary psychiatric evaluation and treatment for individuals diagnosed with headache.”
 

Underestimated Problem

Headache disorders affect about half of working-age adults and are among the leading causes of productivity loss, absence from work, and disability. 

Prior research suggests headache disorders often co-occur with psychiatric illness including depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and even attempted suicide.

However, previous studies that showed an increased risk for attempted suicide in patients with headache relied heavily on survey data and mostly focused on patients with migraine. There was little information on other headache types and on the risk for completed suicide.

Researchers used Danish registries to identify 64,057 patients with migraine, 40,160 with tension-type headache (TTH), 5743 with TAC, and 4253 with posttraumatic headache, all diagnosed from 1995 to 2019.

Some 5.8% of those with migraine, 6.3% with TAC, 7.2% with TTH, and 7.2% with posttraumatic headache, had a mood disorder (depression and anxiety combined) at baseline.

Those without a headache diagnosis were matched 5:1 to those with a headache diagnosis by sex and birth year.

Across all headache disorders, baseline prevalence of mood disorder was higher among those with headache versus population-matched controls. Dr. Elser emphasized that these are people diagnosed with a mood disorder in the inpatient, emergency department, or outpatient specialist clinic setting, “which means we are almost certainly underestimating the true burden of mood symptoms in our cohort,” she said.

Researchers identified attempted suicides using diagnostic codes. For completed suicide, they determined whether those who attempted suicide died within 30 days of the attempt.

For each headache type, investigators examined both the absolute and relative risk for attempted and completed suicides and estimated the risk at intervals of 5, 10, and 20 years after initial headache diagnosis.
 

Robust Link

The “power of this study is that we asked a simple, but important question, and answered it with simple, but appropriate, methodologic techniques,” Dr. Elser said.

The estimated risk differences (RDs) for attempted suicide were strongest for TAC and posttraumatic headache and for longer follow-ups. The RDs for completed suicide were largely the same but of a smaller magnitude and were “relatively less precise,” reflecting the “rarity of this outcome,” said Dr. Elser.

After adjusting for sex, age, education, income, comorbidities, and baseline medical and psychiatric diagnoses, researchers found the strongest association or attempted suicide was among those with TAC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 4.25; 95% CI, 2.85-6.33).

“A hazard ratio of 4 is enormous” for this type of comparison, Dr. Elser noted.

For completed suicide, the strongest association was with posttraumatic headache (aHR, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.78-6.16).

The study revealed a robust association with attempted and completed suicide across all headache types, including TTH, noted Dr. Elser. The link between tension headaches and suicide “was the most striking finding to me because I think of that as sort of a benign and common headache disorder,” she said.

The was an observational study, so “it’s not clear whether headache is playing an etiological role in the relationship with suicide,” she said. “It’s possible there are common shared risk factors or confounders that explain the relationship in full or in part that aren’t accounted for in this study.”
 

Ask About Mood

The results underscore the need for psychiatric evaluations in patients with a headache disorder. “For me, this is just going to make me that much more likely to ask my patients about their mood when I see them in clinic,” Dr. Elser said.

After asking patients with headache about their mood and stress at home and at work, physicians should have a “low threshold to refer to a behavioral health provider,” she added.

Future research should aim to better understand the link between headache and suicide risk, with a focus on the mechanisms behind low- and high-risk subgroups, said Dr. Elser.

A limitation of the study was that headache diagnoses were based on inpatient, emergency department, and outpatient specialist visits but not on visits to primary care practitioners. The study didn’t include information on headache severity or frequency and included only people who sought treatment for their headaches.

Though it’s unlikely the results “are perfectly generalizable” with respect to other geographical or cultural contexts, “I don’t think this relationship is unique to Denmark based on the literature to date,” Dr. Elser said.

Commenting on the study, session co-chair Todd J. Schwedt, MD, professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, and president-elect of the American Headache Society, noted that the study offers important findings “that demonstrate the enormous negative impact that headaches can exert.”

It’s “a strong reminder” that clinicians should assess the mental health of their patients with headaches and offer treatment when appropriate, he said.

The study received support from Aarhus University. No relevant conflicts of interest were reported.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When I was doing my nephrology training, I had an attending who would write notes that were, well, kind of funny. I remember one time we were seeing a patient whose first name was “Lucky.” He dryly opened his section of the consult note as follows: “This is a 56-year-old woman with an ironic name who presents with acute renal failure.”

As an exhausted renal fellow, I appreciated the bit of color amid the ongoing series of tragedies that was the consult service. But let’s be clear — writing like this in the medical record is not a good idea. It wasn’t a good idea then, when any record might end up disclosed during a malpractice suit, and it’s really not a good idea now, when patients have ready and automated access to all the notes we write about them.

And yet, worse language than that of my attending appears in hospital notes all the time; there is research about this. Specifically, I’m talking about language that does not have high clinical utility but telegraphs the biases of the person writing the note. This is known as “stigmatizing language” and it can be overt or subtle.

For example, a physician wrote “I listed several fictitious medication names and she reported she was taking them.”

This casts suspicions about the patient’s credibility, as does the more subtle statement, “he claims nicotine patches don’t work for him.” Stigmatizing language may cast the patient in a difficult light, like this note: “she persevered on the fact that ... ‘you wouldn’t understand.’ ”

This stuff creeps into our medical notes because doctors are human, not AI — at least not yet — and our frustrations and biases are real. But could those frustrations and biases lead to medical errors? Even deaths? Stay with me.

We are going to start by defining a very sick patient population: those admitted to the hospital and who, within 48 hours, have either been transferred to the intensive care unit or died. Because of the severity of illness in this population we’ve just defined, figuring out whether a diagnostic or other error was made would be extremely high yield; these can mean the difference between life and death.

In a letter appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers examined a group of more than 2300 patients just like this from 29 hospitals, scouring the medical records for evidence of these types of errors.

Nearly one in four (23.2%) had at least one diagnostic error, which could include a missed physical exam finding, failure to ask a key question on history taking, inadequate testing, and so on.

Understanding why we make these errors is clearly critical to improving care for these patients. The researchers hypothesized that stigmatizing language might lead to errors like this. For example, by demonstrating that you don’t find a patient credible, you may ignore statements that would help make a better diagnosis.

Just over 5% of these patients had evidence of stigmatizing language in their medical notes. Like earlier studies, this language was more common if the patient was Black or had unstable housing.

Critically, stigmatizing language was more likely to be found among those who had diagnostic errors — a rate of 8.2% vs 4.1%. After adjustment for factors like race, the presence of stigmatizing language was associated with roughly a doubling of the risk for diagnostic errors.

Now, I’m all for eliminating stigmatizing language from our medical notes. And, given the increased transparency of all medical notes these days, I expect that we’ll see less of this over time. But of course, the fact that a physician doesn’t write something that disparages the patient does not necessarily mean that they don’t retain that bias. That said, those comments have an effect on all the other team members who care for that patient as well; it sets a tone and can entrench an individual’s bias more broadly. We should strive to eliminate our biases when it comes to caring for patients. But perhaps the second best thing is to work to keep those biases to ourselves.
 

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Biscuits reformulated with the sweeteners and sweetness enhancers (S&SEs) neotame and stevia rebaudioside M (StRebM) yield appetite responses similar to those of sucrose-sweetened ones but decrease post-meal insulin and glucose levels in adults with overweight or obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• In 2023, the World Health Organization issued a conditional recommendation that S&SE should not be used for weight control, apparently due to a lack of evidence for a clear benefit and weak evidence linking S&SE intake with excess weight and poorer health outcomes.
• This randomized crossover trial, conducted in England and France between 2021 and 2022, evaluated the acute (1 day) and repeated (daily for 2 weeks) effects of S&SEs vs sucrose in solid food on appetite and endocrine responses in adults with overweight or obesity.
• Overall, 53 adults (33 women, 20 men; aged 18-60 years) with overweight or obesity consumed biscuits with fruit filling containing either sucrose or reformulated with the S&SEs StRebM or neotame, daily for three 2-week intervention periods separated by a washout period of 14-21 days.
• Participants were required to fast for 12 hours before attending a laboratory session at the beginning (day 1) and end (day 14) of each consumption period.
• The primary endpoint was the composite appetite score, while secondary endpoints included food preferences, postprandial glucose and insulin response, and other satiety-related peptides, such as ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1, and pancreatic polypeptide.

TAKEAWAY:

• The composite appetite scores were comparable between the sucrose, StRebM, and neotame groups, with lower appetite suppression observed on day 14 than on day 1 for all three formulations.
• Neotame (P < .001) and StRebM (P < .001) lowered postprandial insulin levels compared with sucrose, while glucose levels saw a decline only with StRebM (and not with neotame) compared with sucrose (P < .05).
• The S&SEs had no effect on satiety levels, as any acute or repeated exposures to StRebM or neotame vs sucrose did not affect the ghrelin and glucagon-like peptide-1 responses.
• Gastrointestinal issues were more frequently reported in the neotame and StRebM groups than in the sucrose group.

IN PRACTICE:

“There is no detrimental impact of replacing sugar with S&SE in these endpoints,” the authors wrote. “Additionally, glucose and insulin responses were blunted after acute and repeated consumption of S&SE-reformulated biscuits, which may confer a benefit for blood glucose control, for example, in individuals at risk of developing type 2 diabetes.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Catherine Gibbons, School of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, England. It was published online in eBioMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The reformulated products required the addition of polyol bulking agents (8% maltitol and 8% sorbitol) to match the biscuits in sensory qualities as closely as possible. Gastrointestinal symptoms (initial bloating and flatulence) in the neotame and StRebM formulations may be due to the polyols, classed as low-digestible carbohydrates.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from a European Union Horizon 2020 program, SWEET (Sweeteners and sweetness enhancers: Impact on health, obesity, safety, and sustainability). The authors reported receiving funding and honoraria from the food and beverage industry and trade groups from various entities.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Biscuits reformulated with the sweeteners and sweetness enhancers (S&SEs) neotame and stevia rebaudioside M (StRebM) yield appetite responses similar to those of sucrose-sweetened ones but decrease post-meal insulin and glucose levels in adults with overweight or obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• In 2023, the World Health Organization issued a conditional recommendation that S&SE should not be used for weight control, apparently due to a lack of evidence for a clear benefit and weak evidence linking S&SE intake with excess weight and poorer health outcomes.
• This randomized crossover trial, conducted in England and France between 2021 and 2022, evaluated the acute (1 day) and repeated (daily for 2 weeks) effects of S&SEs vs sucrose in solid food on appetite and endocrine responses in adults with overweight or obesity.
• Overall, 53 adults (33 women, 20 men; aged 18-60 years) with overweight or obesity consumed biscuits with fruit filling containing either sucrose or reformulated with the S&SEs StRebM or neotame, daily for three 2-week intervention periods separated by a washout period of 14-21 days.
• Participants were required to fast for 12 hours before attending a laboratory session at the beginning (day 1) and end (day 14) of each consumption period.
• The primary endpoint was the composite appetite score, while secondary endpoints included food preferences, postprandial glucose and insulin response, and other satiety-related peptides, such as ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1, and pancreatic polypeptide.

TAKEAWAY:

• The composite appetite scores were comparable between the sucrose, StRebM, and neotame groups, with lower appetite suppression observed on day 14 than on day 1 for all three formulations.
• Neotame (P < .001) and StRebM (P < .001) lowered postprandial insulin levels compared with sucrose, while glucose levels saw a decline only with StRebM (and not with neotame) compared with sucrose (P < .05).
• The S&SEs had no effect on satiety levels, as any acute or repeated exposures to StRebM or neotame vs sucrose did not affect the ghrelin and glucagon-like peptide-1 responses.
• Gastrointestinal issues were more frequently reported in the neotame and StRebM groups than in the sucrose group.

IN PRACTICE:

“There is no detrimental impact of replacing sugar with S&SE in these endpoints,” the authors wrote. “Additionally, glucose and insulin responses were blunted after acute and repeated consumption of S&SE-reformulated biscuits, which may confer a benefit for blood glucose control, for example, in individuals at risk of developing type 2 diabetes.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Catherine Gibbons, School of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, England. It was published online in eBioMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The reformulated products required the addition of polyol bulking agents (8% maltitol and 8% sorbitol) to match the biscuits in sensory qualities as closely as possible. Gastrointestinal symptoms (initial bloating and flatulence) in the neotame and StRebM formulations may be due to the polyols, classed as low-digestible carbohydrates.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from a European Union Horizon 2020 program, SWEET (Sweeteners and sweetness enhancers: Impact on health, obesity, safety, and sustainability). The authors reported receiving funding and honoraria from the food and beverage industry and trade groups from various entities.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Biscuits reformulated with the sweeteners and sweetness enhancers (S&SEs) neotame and stevia rebaudioside M (StRebM) yield appetite responses similar to those of sucrose-sweetened ones but decrease post-meal insulin and glucose levels in adults with overweight or obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• In 2023, the World Health Organization issued a conditional recommendation that S&SE should not be used for weight control, apparently due to a lack of evidence for a clear benefit and weak evidence linking S&SE intake with excess weight and poorer health outcomes.
• This randomized crossover trial, conducted in England and France between 2021 and 2022, evaluated the acute (1 day) and repeated (daily for 2 weeks) effects of S&SEs vs sucrose in solid food on appetite and endocrine responses in adults with overweight or obesity.
• Overall, 53 adults (33 women, 20 men; aged 18-60 years) with overweight or obesity consumed biscuits with fruit filling containing either sucrose or reformulated with the S&SEs StRebM or neotame, daily for three 2-week intervention periods separated by a washout period of 14-21 days.
• Participants were required to fast for 12 hours before attending a laboratory session at the beginning (day 1) and end (day 14) of each consumption period.
• The primary endpoint was the composite appetite score, while secondary endpoints included food preferences, postprandial glucose and insulin response, and other satiety-related peptides, such as ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide 1, and pancreatic polypeptide.

TAKEAWAY:

• The composite appetite scores were comparable between the sucrose, StRebM, and neotame groups, with lower appetite suppression observed on day 14 than on day 1 for all three formulations.
• Neotame (P < .001) and StRebM (P < .001) lowered postprandial insulin levels compared with sucrose, while glucose levels saw a decline only with StRebM (and not with neotame) compared with sucrose (P < .05).
• The S&SEs had no effect on satiety levels, as any acute or repeated exposures to StRebM or neotame vs sucrose did not affect the ghrelin and glucagon-like peptide-1 responses.
• Gastrointestinal issues were more frequently reported in the neotame and StRebM groups than in the sucrose group.

IN PRACTICE:

“There is no detrimental impact of replacing sugar with S&SE in these endpoints,” the authors wrote. “Additionally, glucose and insulin responses were blunted after acute and repeated consumption of S&SE-reformulated biscuits, which may confer a benefit for blood glucose control, for example, in individuals at risk of developing type 2 diabetes.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Catherine Gibbons, School of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, England. It was published online in eBioMedicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The reformulated products required the addition of polyol bulking agents (8% maltitol and 8% sorbitol) to match the biscuits in sensory qualities as closely as possible. Gastrointestinal symptoms (initial bloating and flatulence) in the neotame and StRebM formulations may be due to the polyols, classed as low-digestible carbohydrates.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from a European Union Horizon 2020 program, SWEET (Sweeteners and sweetness enhancers: Impact on health, obesity, safety, and sustainability). The authors reported receiving funding and honoraria from the food and beverage industry and trade groups from various entities.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Depression is a serious issue. I want to say that off the top, because nothing below is intended to minimize it.

But does everyone need to be tested for it?

A lot of general practices test for it with every patient and every visit. After all, mandates say you have to or you’ll get penalized a few bucks. Since no one wants to leave any money on the table in the razor-thin margins of running a medical practice, they ask these questions (I don’t blame them for that).

I can see where this might be useful, but does it really do much? Or is it just a mandatory waste of time?

Good question.

A recent review by the American College of Physicians found it was mostly a waste of time (which surprises no one). Only one of the eight measures involved in depression screening (suicide risk assessment) turned out to be useful. So, basically, 88% of the time spent on these questions contributed absolutely nothing of clinical relevance.

Of course, this isn’t unique to family medicine. Every time I see a Medicare or Medicare Advantage patient I have to document whether they’ve had flu and pneumonia vaccines. While there are occasional cases where asking about recent vaccines is critical to the history, for most it’s not. But I do it so I don’t get penalized, even though the answer changes nothing. It’s not like I give vaccines in my practice.

A fair number of people come to me for hospital follow-ups, so I go into the system and review the chart. The notes inevitably contain questions of sexual activity, fear of violence, fear of domestic abuse, food security, recent travel patterns, and so on. Some of them are useful in certain situations, but not in all, or even most. All they do is increase the length of the note until anything of relevance is obscured, and allow someone in coding to check the boxes to raise the billing level. Realistically, the ER staff involved probably didn’t ask any of them, and just clicked “no.”

Once this probably seemed like a good idea, but clearly most of it is now a waste of time. These “quality measures” have turned the art of taking a good history into a session of mouse and box clicking.

Does that really improve care?
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Depression is a serious issue. I want to say that off the top, because nothing below is intended to minimize it.

But does everyone need to be tested for it?

A lot of general practices test for it with every patient and every visit. After all, mandates say you have to or you’ll get penalized a few bucks. Since no one wants to leave any money on the table in the razor-thin margins of running a medical practice, they ask these questions (I don’t blame them for that).

I can see where this might be useful, but does it really do much? Or is it just a mandatory waste of time?

Good question.

A recent review by the American College of Physicians found it was mostly a waste of time (which surprises no one). Only one of the eight measures involved in depression screening (suicide risk assessment) turned out to be useful. So, basically, 88% of the time spent on these questions contributed absolutely nothing of clinical relevance.

Of course, this isn’t unique to family medicine. Every time I see a Medicare or Medicare Advantage patient I have to document whether they’ve had flu and pneumonia vaccines. While there are occasional cases where asking about recent vaccines is critical to the history, for most it’s not. But I do it so I don’t get penalized, even though the answer changes nothing. It’s not like I give vaccines in my practice.

A fair number of people come to me for hospital follow-ups, so I go into the system and review the chart. The notes inevitably contain questions of sexual activity, fear of violence, fear of domestic abuse, food security, recent travel patterns, and so on. Some of them are useful in certain situations, but not in all, or even most. All they do is increase the length of the note until anything of relevance is obscured, and allow someone in coding to check the boxes to raise the billing level. Realistically, the ER staff involved probably didn’t ask any of them, and just clicked “no.”

Once this probably seemed like a good idea, but clearly most of it is now a waste of time. These “quality measures” have turned the art of taking a good history into a session of mouse and box clicking.

Does that really improve care?
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Depression is a serious issue. I want to say that off the top, because nothing below is intended to minimize it.

But does everyone need to be tested for it?

A lot of general practices test for it with every patient and every visit. After all, mandates say you have to or you’ll get penalized a few bucks. Since no one wants to leave any money on the table in the razor-thin margins of running a medical practice, they ask these questions (I don’t blame them for that).

I can see where this might be useful, but does it really do much? Or is it just a mandatory waste of time?

Good question.

A recent review by the American College of Physicians found it was mostly a waste of time (which surprises no one). Only one of the eight measures involved in depression screening (suicide risk assessment) turned out to be useful. So, basically, 88% of the time spent on these questions contributed absolutely nothing of clinical relevance.

Of course, this isn’t unique to family medicine. Every time I see a Medicare or Medicare Advantage patient I have to document whether they’ve had flu and pneumonia vaccines. While there are occasional cases where asking about recent vaccines is critical to the history, for most it’s not. But I do it so I don’t get penalized, even though the answer changes nothing. It’s not like I give vaccines in my practice.

A fair number of people come to me for hospital follow-ups, so I go into the system and review the chart. The notes inevitably contain questions of sexual activity, fear of violence, fear of domestic abuse, food security, recent travel patterns, and so on. Some of them are useful in certain situations, but not in all, or even most. All they do is increase the length of the note until anything of relevance is obscured, and allow someone in coding to check the boxes to raise the billing level. Realistically, the ER staff involved probably didn’t ask any of them, and just clicked “no.”

Once this probably seemed like a good idea, but clearly most of it is now a waste of time. These “quality measures” have turned the art of taking a good history into a session of mouse and box clicking.

Does that really improve care?
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.