Federal Practitioner

SAN DIEGO — A new cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-based blood test shows promising performance in detecting colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions, say the authors of new research.

Rachel B. Issaka, MD, MAS, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, presented the clinical data, which was published in The New England Journal of Medicine, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

The authors of the study evaluated the performance of a cfDNA blood-based test in a population eligible for colorectal cancer screening. The researchers found that the test had high sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer and high specificity for advanced precancerous lesions.

This novel blood test could improve screening adherence and, ultimately, reduce colorectal cancer-related mortality, Dr. Issaka said during her presentation.

“This test has the potential to help us reach the 80% screening target in colorectal cancer. However, this will depend on many factors, including access, implementation, follow-up colonoscopy, and characteristics of the test,” Dr. Issaka said in an interview.

She added that, when approved for broader use, anyone who wants to use this blood test for colorectal cancer screening should have a frank conversation with their healthcare provider.

“Considering the person’s age, medical history, family history, and any potential symptoms, and how the test performs will dictate if it’s the right test for that person versus another screening strategy,” Dr. Issaka explained.
 

The Blood Test Detects Colorectal Cancer With High Accuracy

The investigators of the observational ECLIPSE trial evaluated the performance of the cfDNA-based blood test in 7861 individuals who were eligible for colorectal cancer screening. The study population included people from more than 200 rural and urban sites across 34 states, including community hospitals, private practices, gastroenterology clinics, and academic centers. “The study enrolled a diverse cohort that is reflective of the demographics of the intended use population in the US,” Dr. Issaka said during her talk.

The co-primary outcomes of the study were the test’s sensitivity for detecting colorectal cancer and its specificity for identifying advanced neoplasia.

In her presentation, Dr. Issaka highlighted that the test had 83.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.2%-90.3%) sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer, meaning that it was able to correctly identify most participants with the disease. The test’s sensitivity was even higher (87.5%; 95% CI, 75.3%-94.1%) for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer. “These are the stages at which early intervention can have the greatest impact on patient prognosis,” Dr. Issaka said.

Moreover, the blood test showed 89.6% (95% CI, 88.8%-90.3%) specificity for advanced neoplasia, including colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions. The specificity of the test for negative colonoscopy results (no colorectal cancer, advanced precancerous lesions, or nonadvanced precancerous lesions) was 89.9% (95% CI, 89.0%-90.7%).

Dr. Issaka highlighted that this cfDNA assay is the first blood-based test with performance comparable to current guideline-recommended noninvasive options for CRC.
 

The Blood Test Shows Limited Ability To Detect Advanced Precancerous Lesions

During her presentation, Dr. Issaka acknowledged that the cfDNA-based blood test had a lower sensitivity (13.2%; 95% CI, 11.3%-15.3%) for the detection of advanced precancerous lesions, suggesting that it may be more effective at identifying established cancers than early-stage precancerous changes. Low sensitivity was also observed for high-grade dysplasia (22.6%; 95% CI, 11.4%-39.8%). However, she emphasized that the test could still play a valuable role in a comprehensive screening approach, potentially serving as a first-line tool to identify individuals who would then undergo follow-up colonoscopy.

“Although blood-based tests perform well at finding cancers, they do not do so well at finding precancerous polyps. This is relevant because colorectal cancer is one of the few cancers that we can prevent by finding and removing precancerous polyps,” Folasade P. May, MD, PhD, MPhil, said in an interview.

“Users must also understand that if the test result is abnormal, a colonoscopy is required to look for cancers and polyps that might have caused the abnormal result,” added Dr. May, associate professor at UCLA. She was not involved in the study.
 

Clinical Implications and Future Steps

According to the study published in the NEJM, colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, and early detection is crucial for effective treatment. However, over a third of eligible individuals are not up to date with recommended screening.

During her talk, Dr. Issaka noted that colonoscopy is the most commonly used screening method for colorectal cancer. What contributes to the low adherence to getting a colonoscopy among the eligible population is that some find it inconvenient, and the test is invasive, she added.

According to Dr. May, the key advantage of cfDNA-based screening is that many people will find it easier to complete a blood test than the currently available screening tests.

“This option may allow us to screen individuals that we have previously struggled to convince to get screened for colorectal cancer,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Issaka acknowledged that the potential public health impact of any noninvasive screening test depends on how many people with abnormal results complete a follow-up colonoscopy. “This is an important quality metric to track,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Issaka emphasized that comparing this cfDNA blood test with emerging blood tests and other noninvasive screening strategies will empower patients and clinicians to select the right test at the right time for the right patient.

She added that the study was conducted in an average-risk screening population and that further research is needed to evaluate the test’s performance in higher-risk groups and to assess its real-world impact on screening adherence and colorectal cancer-related outcomes.

Commenting on potential challenges with implementing this cfDNA blood test in clinical practice, Dr. May said, “As we consider incorporating blood-based tests into clinical practice, some challenges include cost, equitable access to tests and follow-up, performance in young adults who are newly eligible for screening, and follow-up after abnormal results.”

She added that, if there is uptake of these tests, it will be important to track how that impacts colorectal cancer screening rates, stage at diagnosis, and whether there is stage migration, incidence, and mortality.

“At this time, I feel that these tests are appropriate for individuals who will not or cannot participate in one of the currently recommended screening tests. These include colonoscopy and stool-based tests, like FIT and FIT-DNA,” Dr. May concluded.

Dr. Issaka reported financial relationships with the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, American College of Gastroenterology, and Guardant Health Inc. Dr. May reported financial relationships with Takeda, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Saint Supply, Exact Sciences, Freenome, Geneoscopy, Guardant Health, InterVenn, Natura, National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Veterans Affairs HSR&D, Broad Institute, Stand up to Cancer, and NRG Oncology.

SAN DIEGO — A new cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-based blood test shows promising performance in detecting colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions, say the authors of new research.

Rachel B. Issaka, MD, MAS, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, presented the clinical data, which was published in The New England Journal of Medicine, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

The authors of the study evaluated the performance of a cfDNA blood-based test in a population eligible for colorectal cancer screening. The researchers found that the test had high sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer and high specificity for advanced precancerous lesions.

This novel blood test could improve screening adherence and, ultimately, reduce colorectal cancer-related mortality, Dr. Issaka said during her presentation.

“This test has the potential to help us reach the 80% screening target in colorectal cancer. However, this will depend on many factors, including access, implementation, follow-up colonoscopy, and characteristics of the test,” Dr. Issaka said in an interview.

She added that, when approved for broader use, anyone who wants to use this blood test for colorectal cancer screening should have a frank conversation with their healthcare provider.

“Considering the person’s age, medical history, family history, and any potential symptoms, and how the test performs will dictate if it’s the right test for that person versus another screening strategy,” Dr. Issaka explained.
 

The Blood Test Detects Colorectal Cancer With High Accuracy

The investigators of the observational ECLIPSE trial evaluated the performance of the cfDNA-based blood test in 7861 individuals who were eligible for colorectal cancer screening. The study population included people from more than 200 rural and urban sites across 34 states, including community hospitals, private practices, gastroenterology clinics, and academic centers. “The study enrolled a diverse cohort that is reflective of the demographics of the intended use population in the US,” Dr. Issaka said during her talk.

The co-primary outcomes of the study were the test’s sensitivity for detecting colorectal cancer and its specificity for identifying advanced neoplasia.

In her presentation, Dr. Issaka highlighted that the test had 83.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.2%-90.3%) sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer, meaning that it was able to correctly identify most participants with the disease. The test’s sensitivity was even higher (87.5%; 95% CI, 75.3%-94.1%) for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer. “These are the stages at which early intervention can have the greatest impact on patient prognosis,” Dr. Issaka said.

Moreover, the blood test showed 89.6% (95% CI, 88.8%-90.3%) specificity for advanced neoplasia, including colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions. The specificity of the test for negative colonoscopy results (no colorectal cancer, advanced precancerous lesions, or nonadvanced precancerous lesions) was 89.9% (95% CI, 89.0%-90.7%).

Dr. Issaka highlighted that this cfDNA assay is the first blood-based test with performance comparable to current guideline-recommended noninvasive options for CRC.
 

The Blood Test Shows Limited Ability To Detect Advanced Precancerous Lesions

During her presentation, Dr. Issaka acknowledged that the cfDNA-based blood test had a lower sensitivity (13.2%; 95% CI, 11.3%-15.3%) for the detection of advanced precancerous lesions, suggesting that it may be more effective at identifying established cancers than early-stage precancerous changes. Low sensitivity was also observed for high-grade dysplasia (22.6%; 95% CI, 11.4%-39.8%). However, she emphasized that the test could still play a valuable role in a comprehensive screening approach, potentially serving as a first-line tool to identify individuals who would then undergo follow-up colonoscopy.

“Although blood-based tests perform well at finding cancers, they do not do so well at finding precancerous polyps. This is relevant because colorectal cancer is one of the few cancers that we can prevent by finding and removing precancerous polyps,” Folasade P. May, MD, PhD, MPhil, said in an interview.

“Users must also understand that if the test result is abnormal, a colonoscopy is required to look for cancers and polyps that might have caused the abnormal result,” added Dr. May, associate professor at UCLA. She was not involved in the study.
 

Clinical Implications and Future Steps

According to the study published in the NEJM, colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, and early detection is crucial for effective treatment. However, over a third of eligible individuals are not up to date with recommended screening.

During her talk, Dr. Issaka noted that colonoscopy is the most commonly used screening method for colorectal cancer. What contributes to the low adherence to getting a colonoscopy among the eligible population is that some find it inconvenient, and the test is invasive, she added.

According to Dr. May, the key advantage of cfDNA-based screening is that many people will find it easier to complete a blood test than the currently available screening tests.

“This option may allow us to screen individuals that we have previously struggled to convince to get screened for colorectal cancer,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Issaka acknowledged that the potential public health impact of any noninvasive screening test depends on how many people with abnormal results complete a follow-up colonoscopy. “This is an important quality metric to track,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Issaka emphasized that comparing this cfDNA blood test with emerging blood tests and other noninvasive screening strategies will empower patients and clinicians to select the right test at the right time for the right patient.

She added that the study was conducted in an average-risk screening population and that further research is needed to evaluate the test’s performance in higher-risk groups and to assess its real-world impact on screening adherence and colorectal cancer-related outcomes.

Commenting on potential challenges with implementing this cfDNA blood test in clinical practice, Dr. May said, “As we consider incorporating blood-based tests into clinical practice, some challenges include cost, equitable access to tests and follow-up, performance in young adults who are newly eligible for screening, and follow-up after abnormal results.”

She added that, if there is uptake of these tests, it will be important to track how that impacts colorectal cancer screening rates, stage at diagnosis, and whether there is stage migration, incidence, and mortality.

“At this time, I feel that these tests are appropriate for individuals who will not or cannot participate in one of the currently recommended screening tests. These include colonoscopy and stool-based tests, like FIT and FIT-DNA,” Dr. May concluded.

Dr. Issaka reported financial relationships with the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, American College of Gastroenterology, and Guardant Health Inc. Dr. May reported financial relationships with Takeda, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Saint Supply, Exact Sciences, Freenome, Geneoscopy, Guardant Health, InterVenn, Natura, National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Veterans Affairs HSR&D, Broad Institute, Stand up to Cancer, and NRG Oncology.

SAN DIEGO — A new cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-based blood test shows promising performance in detecting colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions, say the authors of new research.

Rachel B. Issaka, MD, MAS, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, presented the clinical data, which was published in The New England Journal of Medicine, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

The authors of the study evaluated the performance of a cfDNA blood-based test in a population eligible for colorectal cancer screening. The researchers found that the test had high sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer and high specificity for advanced precancerous lesions.

This novel blood test could improve screening adherence and, ultimately, reduce colorectal cancer-related mortality, Dr. Issaka said during her presentation.

“This test has the potential to help us reach the 80% screening target in colorectal cancer. However, this will depend on many factors, including access, implementation, follow-up colonoscopy, and characteristics of the test,” Dr. Issaka said in an interview.

She added that, when approved for broader use, anyone who wants to use this blood test for colorectal cancer screening should have a frank conversation with their healthcare provider.

“Considering the person’s age, medical history, family history, and any potential symptoms, and how the test performs will dictate if it’s the right test for that person versus another screening strategy,” Dr. Issaka explained.
 

The Blood Test Detects Colorectal Cancer With High Accuracy

The investigators of the observational ECLIPSE trial evaluated the performance of the cfDNA-based blood test in 7861 individuals who were eligible for colorectal cancer screening. The study population included people from more than 200 rural and urban sites across 34 states, including community hospitals, private practices, gastroenterology clinics, and academic centers. “The study enrolled a diverse cohort that is reflective of the demographics of the intended use population in the US,” Dr. Issaka said during her talk.

The co-primary outcomes of the study were the test’s sensitivity for detecting colorectal cancer and its specificity for identifying advanced neoplasia.

In her presentation, Dr. Issaka highlighted that the test had 83.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72.2%-90.3%) sensitivity for the detection of colorectal cancer, meaning that it was able to correctly identify most participants with the disease. The test’s sensitivity was even higher (87.5%; 95% CI, 75.3%-94.1%) for stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer. “These are the stages at which early intervention can have the greatest impact on patient prognosis,” Dr. Issaka said.

Moreover, the blood test showed 89.6% (95% CI, 88.8%-90.3%) specificity for advanced neoplasia, including colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions. The specificity of the test for negative colonoscopy results (no colorectal cancer, advanced precancerous lesions, or nonadvanced precancerous lesions) was 89.9% (95% CI, 89.0%-90.7%).

Dr. Issaka highlighted that this cfDNA assay is the first blood-based test with performance comparable to current guideline-recommended noninvasive options for CRC.
 

The Blood Test Shows Limited Ability To Detect Advanced Precancerous Lesions

During her presentation, Dr. Issaka acknowledged that the cfDNA-based blood test had a lower sensitivity (13.2%; 95% CI, 11.3%-15.3%) for the detection of advanced precancerous lesions, suggesting that it may be more effective at identifying established cancers than early-stage precancerous changes. Low sensitivity was also observed for high-grade dysplasia (22.6%; 95% CI, 11.4%-39.8%). However, she emphasized that the test could still play a valuable role in a comprehensive screening approach, potentially serving as a first-line tool to identify individuals who would then undergo follow-up colonoscopy.

“Although blood-based tests perform well at finding cancers, they do not do so well at finding precancerous polyps. This is relevant because colorectal cancer is one of the few cancers that we can prevent by finding and removing precancerous polyps,” Folasade P. May, MD, PhD, MPhil, said in an interview.

“Users must also understand that if the test result is abnormal, a colonoscopy is required to look for cancers and polyps that might have caused the abnormal result,” added Dr. May, associate professor at UCLA. She was not involved in the study.
 

Clinical Implications and Future Steps

According to the study published in the NEJM, colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, and early detection is crucial for effective treatment. However, over a third of eligible individuals are not up to date with recommended screening.

During her talk, Dr. Issaka noted that colonoscopy is the most commonly used screening method for colorectal cancer. What contributes to the low adherence to getting a colonoscopy among the eligible population is that some find it inconvenient, and the test is invasive, she added.

According to Dr. May, the key advantage of cfDNA-based screening is that many people will find it easier to complete a blood test than the currently available screening tests.

“This option may allow us to screen individuals that we have previously struggled to convince to get screened for colorectal cancer,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Issaka acknowledged that the potential public health impact of any noninvasive screening test depends on how many people with abnormal results complete a follow-up colonoscopy. “This is an important quality metric to track,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Issaka emphasized that comparing this cfDNA blood test with emerging blood tests and other noninvasive screening strategies will empower patients and clinicians to select the right test at the right time for the right patient.

She added that the study was conducted in an average-risk screening population and that further research is needed to evaluate the test’s performance in higher-risk groups and to assess its real-world impact on screening adherence and colorectal cancer-related outcomes.

Commenting on potential challenges with implementing this cfDNA blood test in clinical practice, Dr. May said, “As we consider incorporating blood-based tests into clinical practice, some challenges include cost, equitable access to tests and follow-up, performance in young adults who are newly eligible for screening, and follow-up after abnormal results.”

She added that, if there is uptake of these tests, it will be important to track how that impacts colorectal cancer screening rates, stage at diagnosis, and whether there is stage migration, incidence, and mortality.

“At this time, I feel that these tests are appropriate for individuals who will not or cannot participate in one of the currently recommended screening tests. These include colonoscopy and stool-based tests, like FIT and FIT-DNA,” Dr. May concluded.

Dr. Issaka reported financial relationships with the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, American College of Gastroenterology, and Guardant Health Inc. Dr. May reported financial relationships with Takeda, Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Saint Supply, Exact Sciences, Freenome, Geneoscopy, Guardant Health, InterVenn, Natura, National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, Veterans Affairs HSR&D, Broad Institute, Stand up to Cancer, and NRG Oncology.

The advent of new immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations for urothelial carcinoma has yielded dramatic changes in patient care, according to Thomas W. Flaig, MD, vice chancellor for research at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

Combination therapies involving enfortumab and nivolumab are demonstrating success in recent studies and have been incorporated into the latest guidelines, Dr. Flaig said in a presentation at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) annual conference.
 

What's New in The Updated Guidelines?

Advances in the treatment options for metastatic urothelial carcinoma in the last decade have been dramatic, with ongoing developments and new emerging treatment options, Dr. Flaig told the audience of his session.

This has led to the identification of new and effective immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations. Consequently, immune checkpoint inhibitors are currently included in all preferred/other recommended first-line treatment regimens, he said.

“Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab is now the sole preferred first-line regimen for locally advanced or metastatic disease.” Based on the recent research, the mindset regarding cisplatin-eligible patient selection may be changing, he added.

“We have used cisplatin eligibility as a key factor in determining first-line therapy for years, and that paradigm is now shifting with the emergence of enfortumab plus pembrolizumab, a new non–cisplatin containing regimen” Dr. Flaig noted.

Although the optimal choice for second- or third-line therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitors is not well-defined, options include platinum regimens, antibody-drug conjugate, and erdafitinib in eligible patients, he said.
 

Other Current Strategies for Localized Bladder Cancer Management

The incidence of bladder cancer has been stable for decades, with minimal therapeutic developments until the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the last decade, Dr. Flaig said.

Bladder cancer is more common in older adults, with an average onset age of 73 years, and most patients (75%) are male, he said. Comorbid disease is common in these patients, and many have a history of smoking, Dr. Flaig added.

The traditional medical approach to treating bladder cancer has been based on combination therapies including cisplatin. This has also reflected the approach used in the treatment of lung cancer, historically, Dr. Flaig said.

Cisplatin, while effective, is a challenging therapy to administer and is not an option for all bladder cancer patients because of potential adverse effects, he noted. Antibody drug conjugates and immune checkpoint inhibitors are new alternatives for some who are not able to receive cisplatin.

What are the New Options for Treating Metastatic Urothelial Bladder Cancer?

The approval of antibody drug conjugates offers new treatment with a “specific target and therapeutic payload,” said Dr. Flaig in his presentation. Two antibody drug conjugates, enfortumab vedotin and sacituzumab govitecan, have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), he said. Enforumab vedotin was approved by the FDA in 2021 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer for subsequent line therapy in select patients. In a 2021 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the primary outcome of overall response rate was significantly greater in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who were treated with enfortumab vedotin than in those treated with standard chemotherapy (overall response rate [ORR] 40.6% vs 17.9%, respectively).

Side effects associated with enfortumab vedotin “are intrinsic to the payload toxicity and the target distribution. Ideally, the target would be present on all of the cancer cells and none of the normal tissue,” said Dr. Flaig. With enfortumab, specific toxicities included neuropathy, skin reactions, and blood glucose elevation/diabetic ketoacidosis, he said.

A second agent, sacituzumab govitecan, was approved by the FDA for metastatic urothelial cancer patients in 2021, based on data from the TROPHY-U-O1 phase 2 open-label study of 113 individuals. In that study, the ORR was 27% at a median follow-up of 9.1 months. Adverse events included neutropenia, leukopenia, and diarrhea.
 

What Do the Latest Studies of Combination Therapy Show?

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations are significantly changing the landscape of bladder cancer treatment, Dr. Flaig explained.

A recent phase 3 study published in 2024 in The New England Journal of Medicine comparing enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab to platinum-based combination chemotherapy showed an overall response rate of 67.7% vs 44.4% in favor of enfortumab/pembrolizumab, said Dr. Flaig. In addition, the risk of disease progression or death was approximately 55% lower in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group vs the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; P less than .001) and the median progression-free survival was approximately doubled (12.5 months vs 6.3 months).

Dr. Flaig described this study as “very notable”because “the enfortumab plus pembrolizumab arm was clearly more effective than the long-standing chemotherapy arm, now becoming the preferred, first-line treatment in the NCCN guidelines. Based on preliminary results of the study, this combination was approved by the FDA in 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer patients regardless of their eligibility for cisplatin.

Another promising combination, nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin, was associated with significantly longer overall and progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, Dr. Flaig said. The therapy was approved by the FDA in March 2024 for first-line therapy.

In a study of 608 patients published in The New England Journal of Medicine, median overall survival was 21.7 months for the nivolumab group vs 18.9 months for the gemcitabine-cisplatin alone group. The overall response rates were 57.6% in the nivolumab group vs 43.1% in the gemcitabine-cisplatin–alone group, and complete response rates were 21.7% and 11.8%, respectively. Serious adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between the groups (61.8% and 51.7%, respectively).
 

What About Targeted Therapy?

Erdafitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR1–4, was approved by the FDA in January 2024 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had susceptible FGFR3 genetic alterations, said Dr. Flaig, during his presentation. The limitation of this treatment to only those patients with an FGFR3 mutation is a recent update in its use, he noted.

“Up to 20% of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma have FGFR alterations,” he said. In an open-label phase 2 study of 99 individuals with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, past chemotherapy, and FGFR alterations, confirmed response to erdafitinib was 40% with a median overall survival of 13.8 months.

Dr. Flaig disclosed grant/research support from Agensys; Astellas Pharma US; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Bristol Myers Squibb; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP; Merck & Co.; Sanofi-Aventis U.S.; and SeaGen. He also disclosed equity interest/stock options and intellectual property rights in Aurora Oncology, and serving as a consultant or scientific advisor for Janssen Pharmaceutica Product, LP, and Criterium, Inc.

The advent of new immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations for urothelial carcinoma has yielded dramatic changes in patient care, according to Thomas W. Flaig, MD, vice chancellor for research at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

Combination therapies involving enfortumab and nivolumab are demonstrating success in recent studies and have been incorporated into the latest guidelines, Dr. Flaig said in a presentation at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) annual conference.
 

What's New in The Updated Guidelines?

Advances in the treatment options for metastatic urothelial carcinoma in the last decade have been dramatic, with ongoing developments and new emerging treatment options, Dr. Flaig told the audience of his session.

This has led to the identification of new and effective immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations. Consequently, immune checkpoint inhibitors are currently included in all preferred/other recommended first-line treatment regimens, he said.

“Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab is now the sole preferred first-line regimen for locally advanced or metastatic disease.” Based on the recent research, the mindset regarding cisplatin-eligible patient selection may be changing, he added.

“We have used cisplatin eligibility as a key factor in determining first-line therapy for years, and that paradigm is now shifting with the emergence of enfortumab plus pembrolizumab, a new non–cisplatin containing regimen” Dr. Flaig noted.

Although the optimal choice for second- or third-line therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitors is not well-defined, options include platinum regimens, antibody-drug conjugate, and erdafitinib in eligible patients, he said.
 

Other Current Strategies for Localized Bladder Cancer Management

The incidence of bladder cancer has been stable for decades, with minimal therapeutic developments until the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the last decade, Dr. Flaig said.

Bladder cancer is more common in older adults, with an average onset age of 73 years, and most patients (75%) are male, he said. Comorbid disease is common in these patients, and many have a history of smoking, Dr. Flaig added.

The traditional medical approach to treating bladder cancer has been based on combination therapies including cisplatin. This has also reflected the approach used in the treatment of lung cancer, historically, Dr. Flaig said.

Cisplatin, while effective, is a challenging therapy to administer and is not an option for all bladder cancer patients because of potential adverse effects, he noted. Antibody drug conjugates and immune checkpoint inhibitors are new alternatives for some who are not able to receive cisplatin.

What are the New Options for Treating Metastatic Urothelial Bladder Cancer?

The approval of antibody drug conjugates offers new treatment with a “specific target and therapeutic payload,” said Dr. Flaig in his presentation. Two antibody drug conjugates, enfortumab vedotin and sacituzumab govitecan, have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), he said. Enforumab vedotin was approved by the FDA in 2021 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer for subsequent line therapy in select patients. In a 2021 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the primary outcome of overall response rate was significantly greater in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who were treated with enfortumab vedotin than in those treated with standard chemotherapy (overall response rate [ORR] 40.6% vs 17.9%, respectively).

Side effects associated with enfortumab vedotin “are intrinsic to the payload toxicity and the target distribution. Ideally, the target would be present on all of the cancer cells and none of the normal tissue,” said Dr. Flaig. With enfortumab, specific toxicities included neuropathy, skin reactions, and blood glucose elevation/diabetic ketoacidosis, he said.

A second agent, sacituzumab govitecan, was approved by the FDA for metastatic urothelial cancer patients in 2021, based on data from the TROPHY-U-O1 phase 2 open-label study of 113 individuals. In that study, the ORR was 27% at a median follow-up of 9.1 months. Adverse events included neutropenia, leukopenia, and diarrhea.
 

What Do the Latest Studies of Combination Therapy Show?

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations are significantly changing the landscape of bladder cancer treatment, Dr. Flaig explained.

A recent phase 3 study published in 2024 in The New England Journal of Medicine comparing enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab to platinum-based combination chemotherapy showed an overall response rate of 67.7% vs 44.4% in favor of enfortumab/pembrolizumab, said Dr. Flaig. In addition, the risk of disease progression or death was approximately 55% lower in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group vs the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; P less than .001) and the median progression-free survival was approximately doubled (12.5 months vs 6.3 months).

Dr. Flaig described this study as “very notable”because “the enfortumab plus pembrolizumab arm was clearly more effective than the long-standing chemotherapy arm, now becoming the preferred, first-line treatment in the NCCN guidelines. Based on preliminary results of the study, this combination was approved by the FDA in 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer patients regardless of their eligibility for cisplatin.

Another promising combination, nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin, was associated with significantly longer overall and progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, Dr. Flaig said. The therapy was approved by the FDA in March 2024 for first-line therapy.

In a study of 608 patients published in The New England Journal of Medicine, median overall survival was 21.7 months for the nivolumab group vs 18.9 months for the gemcitabine-cisplatin alone group. The overall response rates were 57.6% in the nivolumab group vs 43.1% in the gemcitabine-cisplatin–alone group, and complete response rates were 21.7% and 11.8%, respectively. Serious adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between the groups (61.8% and 51.7%, respectively).
 

What About Targeted Therapy?

Erdafitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR1–4, was approved by the FDA in January 2024 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had susceptible FGFR3 genetic alterations, said Dr. Flaig, during his presentation. The limitation of this treatment to only those patients with an FGFR3 mutation is a recent update in its use, he noted.

“Up to 20% of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma have FGFR alterations,” he said. In an open-label phase 2 study of 99 individuals with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, past chemotherapy, and FGFR alterations, confirmed response to erdafitinib was 40% with a median overall survival of 13.8 months.

Dr. Flaig disclosed grant/research support from Agensys; Astellas Pharma US; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Bristol Myers Squibb; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP; Merck & Co.; Sanofi-Aventis U.S.; and SeaGen. He also disclosed equity interest/stock options and intellectual property rights in Aurora Oncology, and serving as a consultant or scientific advisor for Janssen Pharmaceutica Product, LP, and Criterium, Inc.

The advent of new immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations for urothelial carcinoma has yielded dramatic changes in patient care, according to Thomas W. Flaig, MD, vice chancellor for research at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora.

Combination therapies involving enfortumab and nivolumab are demonstrating success in recent studies and have been incorporated into the latest guidelines, Dr. Flaig said in a presentation at the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) annual conference.
 

What's New in The Updated Guidelines?

Advances in the treatment options for metastatic urothelial carcinoma in the last decade have been dramatic, with ongoing developments and new emerging treatment options, Dr. Flaig told the audience of his session.

This has led to the identification of new and effective immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations. Consequently, immune checkpoint inhibitors are currently included in all preferred/other recommended first-line treatment regimens, he said.

“Enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab is now the sole preferred first-line regimen for locally advanced or metastatic disease.” Based on the recent research, the mindset regarding cisplatin-eligible patient selection may be changing, he added.

“We have used cisplatin eligibility as a key factor in determining first-line therapy for years, and that paradigm is now shifting with the emergence of enfortumab plus pembrolizumab, a new non–cisplatin containing regimen” Dr. Flaig noted.

Although the optimal choice for second- or third-line therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitors is not well-defined, options include platinum regimens, antibody-drug conjugate, and erdafitinib in eligible patients, he said.
 

Other Current Strategies for Localized Bladder Cancer Management

The incidence of bladder cancer has been stable for decades, with minimal therapeutic developments until the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors in the last decade, Dr. Flaig said.

Bladder cancer is more common in older adults, with an average onset age of 73 years, and most patients (75%) are male, he said. Comorbid disease is common in these patients, and many have a history of smoking, Dr. Flaig added.

The traditional medical approach to treating bladder cancer has been based on combination therapies including cisplatin. This has also reflected the approach used in the treatment of lung cancer, historically, Dr. Flaig said.

Cisplatin, while effective, is a challenging therapy to administer and is not an option for all bladder cancer patients because of potential adverse effects, he noted. Antibody drug conjugates and immune checkpoint inhibitors are new alternatives for some who are not able to receive cisplatin.

What are the New Options for Treating Metastatic Urothelial Bladder Cancer?

The approval of antibody drug conjugates offers new treatment with a “specific target and therapeutic payload,” said Dr. Flaig in his presentation. Two antibody drug conjugates, enfortumab vedotin and sacituzumab govitecan, have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), he said. Enforumab vedotin was approved by the FDA in 2021 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer for subsequent line therapy in select patients. In a 2021 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the primary outcome of overall response rate was significantly greater in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who were treated with enfortumab vedotin than in those treated with standard chemotherapy (overall response rate [ORR] 40.6% vs 17.9%, respectively).

Side effects associated with enfortumab vedotin “are intrinsic to the payload toxicity and the target distribution. Ideally, the target would be present on all of the cancer cells and none of the normal tissue,” said Dr. Flaig. With enfortumab, specific toxicities included neuropathy, skin reactions, and blood glucose elevation/diabetic ketoacidosis, he said.

A second agent, sacituzumab govitecan, was approved by the FDA for metastatic urothelial cancer patients in 2021, based on data from the TROPHY-U-O1 phase 2 open-label study of 113 individuals. In that study, the ORR was 27% at a median follow-up of 9.1 months. Adverse events included neutropenia, leukopenia, and diarrhea.
 

What Do the Latest Studies of Combination Therapy Show?

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations are significantly changing the landscape of bladder cancer treatment, Dr. Flaig explained.

A recent phase 3 study published in 2024 in The New England Journal of Medicine comparing enfortumab vedotin plus pembrolizumab to platinum-based combination chemotherapy showed an overall response rate of 67.7% vs 44.4% in favor of enfortumab/pembrolizumab, said Dr. Flaig. In addition, the risk of disease progression or death was approximately 55% lower in the enfortumab vedotin-pembrolizumab group vs the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; P less than .001) and the median progression-free survival was approximately doubled (12.5 months vs 6.3 months).

Dr. Flaig described this study as “very notable”because “the enfortumab plus pembrolizumab arm was clearly more effective than the long-standing chemotherapy arm, now becoming the preferred, first-line treatment in the NCCN guidelines. Based on preliminary results of the study, this combination was approved by the FDA in 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer patients regardless of their eligibility for cisplatin.

Another promising combination, nivolumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin, was associated with significantly longer overall and progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, Dr. Flaig said. The therapy was approved by the FDA in March 2024 for first-line therapy.

In a study of 608 patients published in The New England Journal of Medicine, median overall survival was 21.7 months for the nivolumab group vs 18.9 months for the gemcitabine-cisplatin alone group. The overall response rates were 57.6% in the nivolumab group vs 43.1% in the gemcitabine-cisplatin–alone group, and complete response rates were 21.7% and 11.8%, respectively. Serious adverse events (grade 3 or higher) were similar between the groups (61.8% and 51.7%, respectively).
 

What About Targeted Therapy?

Erdafitinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of FGFR1–4, was approved by the FDA in January 2024 for adults with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma who had susceptible FGFR3 genetic alterations, said Dr. Flaig, during his presentation. The limitation of this treatment to only those patients with an FGFR3 mutation is a recent update in its use, he noted.

“Up to 20% of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma have FGFR alterations,” he said. In an open-label phase 2 study of 99 individuals with unresectable or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, past chemotherapy, and FGFR alterations, confirmed response to erdafitinib was 40% with a median overall survival of 13.8 months.

Dr. Flaig disclosed grant/research support from Agensys; Astellas Pharma US; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; Bristol Myers Squibb; Genentech, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP; Merck & Co.; Sanofi-Aventis U.S.; and SeaGen. He also disclosed equity interest/stock options and intellectual property rights in Aurora Oncology, and serving as a consultant or scientific advisor for Janssen Pharmaceutica Product, LP, and Criterium, Inc.

A panel of US government advisers unanimously backed use of highly sensitive tests that check for minimal residual disease (MRD) in efforts to accelerate approvals of drugs for multiple myeloma, an incurable blood cancer.

The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) voted 12-0 on April 12 on the following question: Does the evidence support the use of MRD as an accelerated approval endpoint in multiple myeloma clinical trials?

The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its panels, but often does so.

ODAC panelists said they felt comfortable in this recommendation because they expected the FDA to mandate confirmatory studies of any drugs to be given accelerated approval based on MRD data.

There’s a risk that MRD results might mislead regulators into clearing a drug later found to lack benefit, said Christopher Hourigan, DM, DPhil, an ODAC panelist and a physician-scientist at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, who treats people with blood cancer. Further tests would ultimately show if drugs cleared based on MRD data actually delivered benefits such as extending progression-free survival (PFS).

“That’s why we’re talking about accelerated approval,” Dr. Hourigan said. “There is harm to inaction. We’re not currently curing people in multiple myeloma. I’m not willing to make patients wait on principle for a theoretical perfect that may never come.”

“Our responsibility is to accept the world as messy and be agile enough to adapt and iterate that the evidence develops rather than create barriers to the work of discovering effective new therapies for these patients,” he added.

Advances in testing now allow for detection of the presence of malignant cells at orders of magnitude below previous assessments. MRD assays used in tracking what’s happening with myeloma generally have a sensitivity level of 10^-5, or a detection capacity of one cell of 100,000, said Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, during a presentation at the meeting.

The April 12 meeting was somewhat unusual for ODAC.

Instead of reviewing the benefits and risks of a specific drug, the panel reviewed results from two separate major research efforts done to see how MRD could be used in development of drugs.

These were Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE (Evaluating minimal residual disease as an intermediate clinical endpoint for multiple myeloma) meta-analysis, and the similar work of the i2TEAMM group, affiliated with the International Myeloma Foundation.

In its review, the FDA staff noted differences in the approaches of the two groups. In its analysis, the i2TEAMM removed information about patients with missing MRD data, while the University of Miami team retained information about these kinds of patients in the analyses and assigned their status to be MRD positive.

The FDA staff also noted in their review and presentations weaknesses in the case for MRD. For example, the FDA staff noted that the treatment effect on MRD negativity was not statistically significant in 4 of the 8 treatment comparisons in the work from Dr. Landgren and colleagues.

The FDA staff looked at what these analyses suggested at both an individual level and trial level. The data from these two research projects taken as a whole showed “strong individual-level” associations between negative MRD findings and later positive outcomes for patients, although trial-level associations were “weak to moderate” in some cases, the staff wrote.

The FDA staff concluded that the research appeared to support arguments in favor of the “prognostic value,” even with outstanding questions about how best to use this test.

In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA also emphasized the need for new treatments.

Multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease with a 5-year relative survival rate of 59.8%, even after significant recent progress in treatment, the agency said. In the past decade, the FDA has approved 15 new drugs and greater than 20 new indications have been approved for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

The FDA has been working with drugmakers and academic researchers for several years to address the potential of MRD in development of blood cancers. The agency in 2020 issued a guidance document on this issue.

Several ODAC members praised the i2TEAMM and Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE teams for their work, which took place across several nations and extended over many years.

“This was a herculean effort. It really changes the playbook for how we think about biomarkers across all cancer types,” said ODAC panelist Neil Vasan, MD, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, NY. “To me, the important word was reasonable. Is this a reasonable surrogate endpoint? Is this a reasonable intermediate endpoint? I think it is more than reasonable.”

Still, ODAC panelist Jorge Nieva, MD, raised a point of concern about how use of MRD as an endpoint could change the design of studies. He urged caution among researchers about potential ramping up of collection of MRD tests in search of more robust data, which could lead to more testing for patients.

“I have this tremendous fear that this is going to mean every myeloma protocol has a marrow biopsy every six weeks on the patients forever,” said Dr. Nieva of the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “I just don’t want to see that happen. So I think we need to balance these two things.”

A panel of US government advisers unanimously backed use of highly sensitive tests that check for minimal residual disease (MRD) in efforts to accelerate approvals of drugs for multiple myeloma, an incurable blood cancer.

The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) voted 12-0 on April 12 on the following question: Does the evidence support the use of MRD as an accelerated approval endpoint in multiple myeloma clinical trials?

The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its panels, but often does so.

ODAC panelists said they felt comfortable in this recommendation because they expected the FDA to mandate confirmatory studies of any drugs to be given accelerated approval based on MRD data.

There’s a risk that MRD results might mislead regulators into clearing a drug later found to lack benefit, said Christopher Hourigan, DM, DPhil, an ODAC panelist and a physician-scientist at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, who treats people with blood cancer. Further tests would ultimately show if drugs cleared based on MRD data actually delivered benefits such as extending progression-free survival (PFS).

“That’s why we’re talking about accelerated approval,” Dr. Hourigan said. “There is harm to inaction. We’re not currently curing people in multiple myeloma. I’m not willing to make patients wait on principle for a theoretical perfect that may never come.”

“Our responsibility is to accept the world as messy and be agile enough to adapt and iterate that the evidence develops rather than create barriers to the work of discovering effective new therapies for these patients,” he added.

Advances in testing now allow for detection of the presence of malignant cells at orders of magnitude below previous assessments. MRD assays used in tracking what’s happening with myeloma generally have a sensitivity level of 10^-5, or a detection capacity of one cell of 100,000, said Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, during a presentation at the meeting.

The April 12 meeting was somewhat unusual for ODAC.

Instead of reviewing the benefits and risks of a specific drug, the panel reviewed results from two separate major research efforts done to see how MRD could be used in development of drugs.

These were Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE (Evaluating minimal residual disease as an intermediate clinical endpoint for multiple myeloma) meta-analysis, and the similar work of the i2TEAMM group, affiliated with the International Myeloma Foundation.

In its review, the FDA staff noted differences in the approaches of the two groups. In its analysis, the i2TEAMM removed information about patients with missing MRD data, while the University of Miami team retained information about these kinds of patients in the analyses and assigned their status to be MRD positive.

The FDA staff also noted in their review and presentations weaknesses in the case for MRD. For example, the FDA staff noted that the treatment effect on MRD negativity was not statistically significant in 4 of the 8 treatment comparisons in the work from Dr. Landgren and colleagues.

The FDA staff looked at what these analyses suggested at both an individual level and trial level. The data from these two research projects taken as a whole showed “strong individual-level” associations between negative MRD findings and later positive outcomes for patients, although trial-level associations were “weak to moderate” in some cases, the staff wrote.

The FDA staff concluded that the research appeared to support arguments in favor of the “prognostic value,” even with outstanding questions about how best to use this test.

In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA also emphasized the need for new treatments.

Multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease with a 5-year relative survival rate of 59.8%, even after significant recent progress in treatment, the agency said. In the past decade, the FDA has approved 15 new drugs and greater than 20 new indications have been approved for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

The FDA has been working with drugmakers and academic researchers for several years to address the potential of MRD in development of blood cancers. The agency in 2020 issued a guidance document on this issue.

Several ODAC members praised the i2TEAMM and Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE teams for their work, which took place across several nations and extended over many years.

“This was a herculean effort. It really changes the playbook for how we think about biomarkers across all cancer types,” said ODAC panelist Neil Vasan, MD, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, NY. “To me, the important word was reasonable. Is this a reasonable surrogate endpoint? Is this a reasonable intermediate endpoint? I think it is more than reasonable.”

Still, ODAC panelist Jorge Nieva, MD, raised a point of concern about how use of MRD as an endpoint could change the design of studies. He urged caution among researchers about potential ramping up of collection of MRD tests in search of more robust data, which could lead to more testing for patients.

“I have this tremendous fear that this is going to mean every myeloma protocol has a marrow biopsy every six weeks on the patients forever,” said Dr. Nieva of the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “I just don’t want to see that happen. So I think we need to balance these two things.”

A panel of US government advisers unanimously backed use of highly sensitive tests that check for minimal residual disease (MRD) in efforts to accelerate approvals of drugs for multiple myeloma, an incurable blood cancer.

The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) voted 12-0 on April 12 on the following question: Does the evidence support the use of MRD as an accelerated approval endpoint in multiple myeloma clinical trials?

The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its panels, but often does so.

ODAC panelists said they felt comfortable in this recommendation because they expected the FDA to mandate confirmatory studies of any drugs to be given accelerated approval based on MRD data.

There’s a risk that MRD results might mislead regulators into clearing a drug later found to lack benefit, said Christopher Hourigan, DM, DPhil, an ODAC panelist and a physician-scientist at Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, who treats people with blood cancer. Further tests would ultimately show if drugs cleared based on MRD data actually delivered benefits such as extending progression-free survival (PFS).

“That’s why we’re talking about accelerated approval,” Dr. Hourigan said. “There is harm to inaction. We’re not currently curing people in multiple myeloma. I’m not willing to make patients wait on principle for a theoretical perfect that may never come.”

“Our responsibility is to accept the world as messy and be agile enough to adapt and iterate that the evidence develops rather than create barriers to the work of discovering effective new therapies for these patients,” he added.

Advances in testing now allow for detection of the presence of malignant cells at orders of magnitude below previous assessments. MRD assays used in tracking what’s happening with myeloma generally have a sensitivity level of 10^-5, or a detection capacity of one cell of 100,000, said Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of the University of Miami, Miami, Florida, during a presentation at the meeting.

The April 12 meeting was somewhat unusual for ODAC.

Instead of reviewing the benefits and risks of a specific drug, the panel reviewed results from two separate major research efforts done to see how MRD could be used in development of drugs.

These were Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE (Evaluating minimal residual disease as an intermediate clinical endpoint for multiple myeloma) meta-analysis, and the similar work of the i2TEAMM group, affiliated with the International Myeloma Foundation.

In its review, the FDA staff noted differences in the approaches of the two groups. In its analysis, the i2TEAMM removed information about patients with missing MRD data, while the University of Miami team retained information about these kinds of patients in the analyses and assigned their status to be MRD positive.

The FDA staff also noted in their review and presentations weaknesses in the case for MRD. For example, the FDA staff noted that the treatment effect on MRD negativity was not statistically significant in 4 of the 8 treatment comparisons in the work from Dr. Landgren and colleagues.

The FDA staff looked at what these analyses suggested at both an individual level and trial level. The data from these two research projects taken as a whole showed “strong individual-level” associations between negative MRD findings and later positive outcomes for patients, although trial-level associations were “weak to moderate” in some cases, the staff wrote.

The FDA staff concluded that the research appeared to support arguments in favor of the “prognostic value,” even with outstanding questions about how best to use this test.

In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA also emphasized the need for new treatments.

Multiple myeloma remains an incurable disease with a 5-year relative survival rate of 59.8%, even after significant recent progress in treatment, the agency said. In the past decade, the FDA has approved 15 new drugs and greater than 20 new indications have been approved for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma.

The FDA has been working with drugmakers and academic researchers for several years to address the potential of MRD in development of blood cancers. The agency in 2020 issued a guidance document on this issue.

Several ODAC members praised the i2TEAMM and Dr. Landgren’s EVIDENCE teams for their work, which took place across several nations and extended over many years.

“This was a herculean effort. It really changes the playbook for how we think about biomarkers across all cancer types,” said ODAC panelist Neil Vasan, MD, PhD, of Columbia University, New York, NY. “To me, the important word was reasonable. Is this a reasonable surrogate endpoint? Is this a reasonable intermediate endpoint? I think it is more than reasonable.”

Still, ODAC panelist Jorge Nieva, MD, raised a point of concern about how use of MRD as an endpoint could change the design of studies. He urged caution among researchers about potential ramping up of collection of MRD tests in search of more robust data, which could lead to more testing for patients.

“I have this tremendous fear that this is going to mean every myeloma protocol has a marrow biopsy every six weeks on the patients forever,” said Dr. Nieva of the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “I just don’t want to see that happen. So I think we need to balance these two things.”

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a 2023 study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, European researchers fed the AI system ChatGPT information on 30 ER patients. Details included physician notes on the patients’ symptoms, physical exams, and lab results. ChatGPT made the correct diagnosis in 97% of patients compared to 87% for human doctors.

AI 1, Physicians 0

JAMA Cardiology reported in 2021 that an AI trained on nearly a million ECGs performed comparably to or exceeded cardiologist clinical diagnoses and the MUSE (GE Healthcare) system›s automated ECG analysis for most diagnostic classes.

AI 2, Physicians 0

Google’s medically focused AI model (Med-PaLM2) scored 85%+ when answering US Medical Licensing Examination–style questions. That›s an «expert» physician level and far beyond the accuracy threshold needed to pass the actual exam.

AI 3, Physicians 0

A new AI tool that uses an online finger-tapping test outperformed primary care physicians when assessing the severity of Parkinson’s disease.

AI 4, Physicians 0

JAMA Ophthalmology reported in 2024 that a chatbot outperformed glaucoma specialists and matched retina specialists in diagnostic and treatment accuracy.

AI 5, Physicians 0

Should we stop? Because we could go on. In the last few years, these AI vs Physician studies have proliferated, and guess who’s winning?

65% of Doctors are Concerned

Now, the standard answer with anything AI-and-Medicine goes something like this: AI is coming, and it will be a transformative tool for physicians and improve patient care.

But the underlying unanswered question is: Physicians spend many years and a lot of money to become really good at what they do. How, exactly, should a doctor feel about a machine that can suddenly do the job better and faster?

The Medscape 2023 Physician and AI Report surveyed 1043 US physicians about their views on AI. In total, 65% are concerned about AI making diagnosis and treatment decisions, but 56% are enthusiastic about having it as an adjunct.

Cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and radiologists are most enthusiastic about AI, whereas family physicians and pediatricians are the least enthusiastic.

To get a more personal view of how physicians and other healthcare professionals are feeling about this transformative tech, I spoke with a variety of practicing doctors, a psychotherapist, and a third-year Harvard Medical School student.

‘Abysmally Poor Understanding’

Alfredo A. Sadun, MD, PhD, has been a neuro-ophthalmologist for nearly 50 years. A graduate of MIT and vice-chair of ophthalmology at UCLA, he’s long been fascinated by AI’s march into medicine. He’s watched it accomplish things that no ophthalmologist can do, such as identify gender, age, and risk for heart attack and stroke from retinal scans. But he doesn›t see the same level of interest and comprehension among the medical community.

“There’s still an abysmally poor understanding of AI among physicians in general,” he said. “It’s striking because these are intelligent, well-educated people. But we tend to draw conclusions based on what we’re familiar with, and most doctors’ experience with computers involves EHRs [electronic health records] and administrative garbage. It’s the reason they’re burning out.”

Easing the Burden

Anthony Philippakis, MD, PhD, left his cardiology practice in 2015 to become the chief data officer at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. While there, he helped develop an AI-based method for identifying patients at risk for atrial fibrillation. Now, he’s a general partner at Google Ventures with the goal of bridging the gap between data sciences and medicine. His perspective on AI is unique, given that he’s seen the issue from both sides.

“I am not a bitter physician, but to be honest, when I was practicing, way too much of my time was spent staring at screens and not enough laying hands on patients,” he said. “Can you imagine what it would be like to speak to the EHR naturally and say, ‘Please order the following labs for this patient and notify me when the results come in.’ Boy, would that improve healthcare and physician satisfaction. Every physician I know is excited and optimistic about that. Almost everyone I’ve talked to feels like AI could take a lot of the stuff they don’t like doing off their plates.”

Indeed, the dividing line between physician support for AI and physician suspicion or skepticism of AI is just that. In our survey, more than three quarters of physicians said they would consider using AI for office administrative tasks, scheduling, EHRs, researching medical conditions, and even summarizing a patient’s record before a visit. But far fewer are supportive of it delivering diagnoses and treatments. This, despite an estimated 800,000 Americans dying or becoming permanently disabled each year because of diagnostic error.

Could AI Have Diagnosed This?

John D. Nuschke, MD, has been a primary care physician in Allentown, Pennsylvania, for 40 years. He’s a jovial general physician who insists his patients call him Jack. He’s recently started using an AI medical scribe called Freed. With the patient’s permission, it listens in on the visit and generates notes, saving Dr. Nuschke time and helping him focus on the person. He likes that type of assistance, but when it comes to AI replacing him, he’s skeptical.

“I had this patient I diagnosed with prostate cancer,” he explained. “He got treated and was fine for 5 years. Then, he started losing weight and feeling awful — got weak as a kitten. He went back to his urologist and oncologist who thought he had metastatic prostate cancer. He went through PET scans and blood work, but there was no sign his cancer had returned. So the specialists sent him back to me, and the second he walked in, I saw he was floridly hyperthyroid. I could tell across the room just by looking at him. Would AI have been able to make that diagnosis? Does AI do physical exams?”

Dr. Nuschke said he’s also had several instances where patients received their cancer diagnosis from the lab through an automated patient-portal system rather than from him. “That’s an AI of sorts, and I found it distressing,” he said.

Empathy From a Robot

All the doctors I spoke to were hopeful that by freeing them from the burden of administrative work, they would be able to return to the reason they got into this business in the first place — to spend more time with patients in need and support them with grace and compassion.

But suppose AI could do that too?

In a 2023 study conducted at the University of California San Diego and published in JAMA Internal Medicine, three licensed healthcare professionals compared the responses of ChatGPT and physicians to real-world health questions. The panel rated the AI’s answers nearly four times higher in quality and almost 10 times more empathetic than physicians’ replies.

A similar 2024 study in Nature found that Google’s large-language model AI matched or surpassed physician diagnostic accuracy in all six of the medical specialties considered. Plus, it outperformed doctors in 24 of 26 criteria for conversation quality, including politeness, explanation, honesty, and expressing care and commitment.

Nathaniel Chin, MD, is a gerontologist at the University of Wisconsin and advisory board member for the Alzheimer’s Foundation of America. Although he admits that studies like these “sadden me,” he’s also a realist. “There was hesitation among physicians at the beginning of the pandemic to virtual care because we missed the human connection,” he explained, “but we worked our way around that. We need to remember that what makes a chatbot strong is that it’s nothuman. It doesn’t burn out, it doesn’t get tired, it can look at data very quickly, and it doesn’t have to go home to a family and try to balance work with other aspects of life. A human being is very complex, whereas a chatbot has one single purpose.”

“Even if you don’t have AI in your space now or don’t like the idea of it, that doesn’t matter,” he added. “It’s coming. But it needs to be done right. If AI is implemented by clinicians for clinicians, it has great potential. But if it’s implemented by businesspeople for business reasons, perhaps not.”

‘The Ones Who Use the Tools the Best Will Be the Best’

One branch of medicine that stands to be dramatically affected by AI is mental health. Because bots are natural data-crunchers, they are becoming adept at analyzing the many subtle clues (phrasing in social media posts and text messages, smartwatch biometrics, therapy session videos…) that could indicate depression or other psychological disorders. In fact, its availability via smartphone apps could help democratize and destigmatize the practice.

“There is a day ahead — probably within 5 years — when a patient won’t be able to tell the difference between a real therapist and an AI therapist,” said Ken Mallon, MS, LMFT, a clinical psychotherapist and data scientist in San Jose, California. “That doesn’t worry me, though. It’s hard on therapists’ egos, but new technologies get developed. Things change. People who embrace these tools will benefit from them. The ones who use the tools the best will be the best.”

Time to Restructure Med School

Aditya Jain is in his third year at Harvard Medical School. At age 24, he’s heading into this brave new medical world with excitement and anxiety. Excitement because he sees AI revolutionizing healthcare on every level. Although the current generations of physicians and patients may grumble about its onset, he believes younger ones will feel comfortable with “DocGPT.” He’s excited that his generation of physicians will be the “translators and managers of this transition” and redefine “what it means to be a doctor.”

His anxiety, however, stems from the fact that AI has come on so fast that “it has not yet crossed the threshold of medical education,” he said. “Medical schools still largely prepare students to work as solo clinical decision makers. Most of my first 2 years were spent on pattern recognition and rote memorization, skills that AI can and will master.”

Indeed, Mr. Jain said AI was not a part of his first- or second-year curriculum. “I talk to students who are a year older than me, graduating, heading to residency, and they tell me they wish they had gotten a better grasp of how to use these technologies in medicine and in their practice. They were surprised to hear that people in my year hadn’t started using ChatGPT. We need to expend a lot more effort within the field, within academia, within practicing physicians, to figure out what our role will be in a world where AI is matching or even exceeding human intelligence. And then we need to restructure the medical education to better accomplish these goals.”

So Are You Ready for AI to Be a Better Doctor Than You?

“Yes, I am,” said Dr. Philippakis without hesitation. “When I was going through my medical training, I was continually confronted with the reality that I personally was not smart enough to keep all the information in my head that could be used to make a good decision for a patient. We have now reached a point where the amount of information that is important and useful in the practice of medicine outstrips what a human being can know. The opportunity to enable physicians with AI to remedy that situation is a good thing for doctors and, most importantly, a good thing for patients. I believe the future of medicine belongs not so much to the AI practitioner but to the AI-enabled practitioner.”

“Quick story,” added Dr. Chin. “I asked ChatGPT two questions. The first was ‘Explain the difference between Alzheimer’s and dementia’ because that’s the most common misconception in my field. And it gave me a pretty darn good answer — one I would use in a presentation with some tweaking. Then I asked it, ‘Are you a better doctor than me?’ And it replied, ‘My purpose is not to replace you, my purpose is to be supportive of you and enhance your ability.’ ”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A new blood test that combines cell-free DNA fragmentomes and protein biomarkers to screen for ovarian cancer shows promising results, according to an initial analysis. 

The test, under development by Delfi Diagnostics, “looks very sensitive for detecting ovarian cancer early,” said company founder and board member Victor E. Velculescu, MD, PhD, codirector of Cancer Genetics and Epigenetics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. 

The assay uses machine learning to integrate cell-free DNA fragment patterns with concentrations of two ovarian cancer biomarkers — CA125 and HE4 — to detect tumors. 

While fragmentation patterns are organized in healthy people, they are chaotic in cancer and reveal both its presence and location, said Velculescu who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The researchers tested the assay in 134 women with ovarian cancer, 204 women without cancer, and 203 women with benign adnexal masses. The approach identified 69% of stage 1 cancers, 76% of stage 2, 85% of stage 3, and 100% of stage 4 at a specificity of over 99% and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97.

The test identified 91% of high-grade serous ovarian cancers — the most common type of ovarian cancer.

The AUC for distinguishing benign masses from cancer was 0.87, with 60% of ovarian cancers detected at a specificity of 95%. 

“In the preoperative setting where lower specificity is acceptable, this approach may improve management of adnexal masses,” the investigators said in their abstract.

Dr. Velculescu cautioned that the report “is an initial analysis” and that his team is working on validating the finding on a larger scale in both average and high-risk women.

If validated, the test “could enable population-wide ovarian cancer screening,” he added.

Delfi recently launched a lung cancer screening blood test — FirstLook Lung— that also uses a “fragmentomics” approach to detect tumors. The company is hopeful it will reach the market with a similar test for ovarian cancer, but it’s not a certainty. 

With lung cancer, we know screening helps. For ovarian cancer, however, it’s unclear whether this will help or not, said Dr. Velculescu. But based on the study findings, but “we are now optimistic that this could make an impact. We have more work to do.” 

This presentation was one of many at the meeting about liquid biopsies using DNA, RNA, and proteins to detect cancer, including a new assay for pancreatic cancer, another cancer that like ovarian cancer is difficult to detect in the early stages. 

“This is the future,” said study moderator Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. 

He called liquid biopsy “a great advance” in many oncology settings, including cancer screening because finding tumors early offers the best chance at cure. 

However, one of the main concerns about rolling out liquid biopsies for wide-scale cancer screening is the possibility that a test will come back positive, but no tumor will be seen on diagnostic imaging, said Herbst. It won’t be clear if the test was a false positive or if the patient has a brewing tumor that can’t be located and treated, a difficult situation for both patients and doctors. 

What to do in that situation is “a policy question that the entire country is asking now as liquid biopsies are moving forward,” he said. We are going to have to come together to figure it out and learn how to use these tests.

The work was funded by Delfi Diagnostics, the National Institutes of Health, and others. Dr. Velculescu, in addition to founding Delfi, holds patents on the technology. Dr. Herbst is a consultant, researcher, and/or holds stock in many companies, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Checkpoint Therapeutics. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

SAN DIEGO — A new blood test that combines cell-free DNA fragmentomes and protein biomarkers to screen for ovarian cancer shows promising results, according to an initial analysis. 

The test, under development by Delfi Diagnostics, “looks very sensitive for detecting ovarian cancer early,” said company founder and board member Victor E. Velculescu, MD, PhD, codirector of Cancer Genetics and Epigenetics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. 

The assay uses machine learning to integrate cell-free DNA fragment patterns with concentrations of two ovarian cancer biomarkers — CA125 and HE4 — to detect tumors. 

While fragmentation patterns are organized in healthy people, they are chaotic in cancer and reveal both its presence and location, said Velculescu who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The researchers tested the assay in 134 women with ovarian cancer, 204 women without cancer, and 203 women with benign adnexal masses. The approach identified 69% of stage 1 cancers, 76% of stage 2, 85% of stage 3, and 100% of stage 4 at a specificity of over 99% and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97.

The test identified 91% of high-grade serous ovarian cancers — the most common type of ovarian cancer.

The AUC for distinguishing benign masses from cancer was 0.87, with 60% of ovarian cancers detected at a specificity of 95%. 

“In the preoperative setting where lower specificity is acceptable, this approach may improve management of adnexal masses,” the investigators said in their abstract.

Dr. Velculescu cautioned that the report “is an initial analysis” and that his team is working on validating the finding on a larger scale in both average and high-risk women.

If validated, the test “could enable population-wide ovarian cancer screening,” he added.

Delfi recently launched a lung cancer screening blood test — FirstLook Lung— that also uses a “fragmentomics” approach to detect tumors. The company is hopeful it will reach the market with a similar test for ovarian cancer, but it’s not a certainty. 

With lung cancer, we know screening helps. For ovarian cancer, however, it’s unclear whether this will help or not, said Dr. Velculescu. But based on the study findings, but “we are now optimistic that this could make an impact. We have more work to do.” 

This presentation was one of many at the meeting about liquid biopsies using DNA, RNA, and proteins to detect cancer, including a new assay for pancreatic cancer, another cancer that like ovarian cancer is difficult to detect in the early stages. 

“This is the future,” said study moderator Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. 

He called liquid biopsy “a great advance” in many oncology settings, including cancer screening because finding tumors early offers the best chance at cure. 

However, one of the main concerns about rolling out liquid biopsies for wide-scale cancer screening is the possibility that a test will come back positive, but no tumor will be seen on diagnostic imaging, said Herbst. It won’t be clear if the test was a false positive or if the patient has a brewing tumor that can’t be located and treated, a difficult situation for both patients and doctors. 

What to do in that situation is “a policy question that the entire country is asking now as liquid biopsies are moving forward,” he said. We are going to have to come together to figure it out and learn how to use these tests.

The work was funded by Delfi Diagnostics, the National Institutes of Health, and others. Dr. Velculescu, in addition to founding Delfi, holds patents on the technology. Dr. Herbst is a consultant, researcher, and/or holds stock in many companies, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Checkpoint Therapeutics. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

SAN DIEGO — A new blood test that combines cell-free DNA fragmentomes and protein biomarkers to screen for ovarian cancer shows promising results, according to an initial analysis. 

The test, under development by Delfi Diagnostics, “looks very sensitive for detecting ovarian cancer early,” said company founder and board member Victor E. Velculescu, MD, PhD, codirector of Cancer Genetics and Epigenetics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. 

The assay uses machine learning to integrate cell-free DNA fragment patterns with concentrations of two ovarian cancer biomarkers — CA125 and HE4 — to detect tumors. 

While fragmentation patterns are organized in healthy people, they are chaotic in cancer and reveal both its presence and location, said Velculescu who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The researchers tested the assay in 134 women with ovarian cancer, 204 women without cancer, and 203 women with benign adnexal masses. The approach identified 69% of stage 1 cancers, 76% of stage 2, 85% of stage 3, and 100% of stage 4 at a specificity of over 99% and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97.

The test identified 91% of high-grade serous ovarian cancers — the most common type of ovarian cancer.

The AUC for distinguishing benign masses from cancer was 0.87, with 60% of ovarian cancers detected at a specificity of 95%. 

“In the preoperative setting where lower specificity is acceptable, this approach may improve management of adnexal masses,” the investigators said in their abstract.

Dr. Velculescu cautioned that the report “is an initial analysis” and that his team is working on validating the finding on a larger scale in both average and high-risk women.

If validated, the test “could enable population-wide ovarian cancer screening,” he added.

Delfi recently launched a lung cancer screening blood test — FirstLook Lung— that also uses a “fragmentomics” approach to detect tumors. The company is hopeful it will reach the market with a similar test for ovarian cancer, but it’s not a certainty. 

With lung cancer, we know screening helps. For ovarian cancer, however, it’s unclear whether this will help or not, said Dr. Velculescu. But based on the study findings, but “we are now optimistic that this could make an impact. We have more work to do.” 

This presentation was one of many at the meeting about liquid biopsies using DNA, RNA, and proteins to detect cancer, including a new assay for pancreatic cancer, another cancer that like ovarian cancer is difficult to detect in the early stages. 

“This is the future,” said study moderator Roy S. Herbst, MD, PhD, chief of medical oncology at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. 

He called liquid biopsy “a great advance” in many oncology settings, including cancer screening because finding tumors early offers the best chance at cure. 

However, one of the main concerns about rolling out liquid biopsies for wide-scale cancer screening is the possibility that a test will come back positive, but no tumor will be seen on diagnostic imaging, said Herbst. It won’t be clear if the test was a false positive or if the patient has a brewing tumor that can’t be located and treated, a difficult situation for both patients and doctors. 

What to do in that situation is “a policy question that the entire country is asking now as liquid biopsies are moving forward,” he said. We are going to have to come together to figure it out and learn how to use these tests.

The work was funded by Delfi Diagnostics, the National Institutes of Health, and others. Dr. Velculescu, in addition to founding Delfi, holds patents on the technology. Dr. Herbst is a consultant, researcher, and/or holds stock in many companies, including AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Checkpoint Therapeutics. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For individuals aged 45-49 years at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in screening colonoscopies is 28%, which is comparable with rates seen in those aged 50-54 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• The rising incidence of CRC in younger populations prompted most guidelines to recommend screening to start at age 45. The impact of lowering the screening age on adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rates remains unclear, however.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies; all studies were retrospective except one.
• Patients aged 45-49 years undergoing colonoscopy for any indication were included, with a separate analysis of patients in that age group at average CRC risk undergoing screening colonoscopies.
• The primary outcome was the overall detection rates of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions for colonoscopies performed for any indication.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across 15 studies, 41,709 adenomas were detected in 150,436 colonoscopies performed for any indication, resulting in a pooled overall ADR of 23.1%.
• Across six studies, 1162 sessile serrated lesions were reported in 11,457 colonoscopies performed for any indication, with a pooled detection rate of 6.3%.
• Across seven studies, the pooled ADR in screening colonoscopies performed on individuals with average CRC risk was 28.2%, which is comparable with that of 50- to 54-year-old individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. There was not enough data to calculate the sessile serrated lesion detection rate in average-risk patients.
• The ADR was higher in the United States and Canada (26.1%) compared with studies from Asia (16.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The comparable detection rates of precancerous lesions in this age group to those 50 to 54 years old support starting CRC screening at 45 years of age,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Mohamed Abdallah, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The inclusion of retrospective studies has an inherent bias. The heterogeneity between studies may limit the generalizability of the findings. Some studies that reported detection rates included individuals at both average and high risk for CRC, so they could not be used to evaluate ADRs in individuals with an average risk for CRC. Data duplication could not be ruled out.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For individuals aged 45-49 years at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in screening colonoscopies is 28%, which is comparable with rates seen in those aged 50-54 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• The rising incidence of CRC in younger populations prompted most guidelines to recommend screening to start at age 45. The impact of lowering the screening age on adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rates remains unclear, however.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies; all studies were retrospective except one.
• Patients aged 45-49 years undergoing colonoscopy for any indication were included, with a separate analysis of patients in that age group at average CRC risk undergoing screening colonoscopies.
• The primary outcome was the overall detection rates of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions for colonoscopies performed for any indication.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across 15 studies, 41,709 adenomas were detected in 150,436 colonoscopies performed for any indication, resulting in a pooled overall ADR of 23.1%.
• Across six studies, 1162 sessile serrated lesions were reported in 11,457 colonoscopies performed for any indication, with a pooled detection rate of 6.3%.
• Across seven studies, the pooled ADR in screening colonoscopies performed on individuals with average CRC risk was 28.2%, which is comparable with that of 50- to 54-year-old individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. There was not enough data to calculate the sessile serrated lesion detection rate in average-risk patients.
• The ADR was higher in the United States and Canada (26.1%) compared with studies from Asia (16.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The comparable detection rates of precancerous lesions in this age group to those 50 to 54 years old support starting CRC screening at 45 years of age,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Mohamed Abdallah, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The inclusion of retrospective studies has an inherent bias. The heterogeneity between studies may limit the generalizability of the findings. Some studies that reported detection rates included individuals at both average and high risk for CRC, so they could not be used to evaluate ADRs in individuals with an average risk for CRC. Data duplication could not be ruled out.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

For individuals aged 45-49 years at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in screening colonoscopies is 28%, which is comparable with rates seen in those aged 50-54 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• The rising incidence of CRC in younger populations prompted most guidelines to recommend screening to start at age 45. The impact of lowering the screening age on adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rates remains unclear, however.
• Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies; all studies were retrospective except one.
• Patients aged 45-49 years undergoing colonoscopy for any indication were included, with a separate analysis of patients in that age group at average CRC risk undergoing screening colonoscopies.
• The primary outcome was the overall detection rates of adenomas and sessile serrated lesions for colonoscopies performed for any indication.

TAKEAWAY:

• Across 15 studies, 41,709 adenomas were detected in 150,436 colonoscopies performed for any indication, resulting in a pooled overall ADR of 23.1%.
• Across six studies, 1162 sessile serrated lesions were reported in 11,457 colonoscopies performed for any indication, with a pooled detection rate of 6.3%.
• Across seven studies, the pooled ADR in screening colonoscopies performed on individuals with average CRC risk was 28.2%, which is comparable with that of 50- to 54-year-old individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy. There was not enough data to calculate the sessile serrated lesion detection rate in average-risk patients.
• The ADR was higher in the United States and Canada (26.1%) compared with studies from Asia (16.9%).

IN PRACTICE:

“The comparable detection rates of precancerous lesions in this age group to those 50 to 54 years old support starting CRC screening at 45 years of age,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Mohamed Abdallah, MD, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

LIMITATIONS:

The inclusion of retrospective studies has an inherent bias. The heterogeneity between studies may limit the generalizability of the findings. Some studies that reported detection rates included individuals at both average and high risk for CRC, so they could not be used to evaluate ADRs in individuals with an average risk for CRC. Data duplication could not be ruled out.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.