Latest News

“Gold card” programs were supposed to make it easier for frustrated physicians to deal with insurers’ burdensome prior authorization demands.

The idea: Insurers would reward doctors whose past prior authorization requests were typically approved by exempting them from red tape in the future.

At least 10 states have required insurers to establish gold card programs amid mounting concerns nationwide that overuse of prior authorization jeopardizes patient health. Last month, leading insurers joined with the White House in a voluntary pledge to reduce their use of the practice, which they contend is necessary to control costs and minimize unnecessary care.

But Texas’ experience with gold card programs may signal the limits of that approach.

 

Only 3% of Clinicians Qualified

The Lone Star State was an early adopter, passing a 2021 law enabling health providers with a high prior authorization success rate to earn a “gold card” exemption from insurers.

But statewide, only 3% of providers met that bar, according to a testimony provided by the Texas Department of Insurance earlier this year.

“I think it’s safe to say that the impact of this law on prior authorizations for our physicians is underwhelming,” said Ezequiel “Zeke” Silva III, MD, a San Antonio-based interventional radiologist who chairs the Texas Medical Association’s Council on Legislation. “We would have hoped for a greater percentage of our physicians to have been granted the ‘gold card’ status.”

At least nine other states have enacted gold card laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

 

Care Delayed and Denied

Physicians maintain that excessive prior authorization paperwork impedes timely patient care, with clinicians and staffers devoting 13 hours weekly to documentation, according to a 2024 American Medical Association survey.

Insurers view the review as a guardrail against unnecessary care driving up costs. Studies show that restricting prior authorization could boost premiums by 5.6%-16.7%, a Texas Association of Health Plans official testified during the legislative session.

In June, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a revised version of the state’s “gold card” law — part of an emerging national attempt to streamline the prior review process. Cigna, Humana, UnitedHealthcare, and other large insurers have voluntarily committed to reducing the scope of claims involved, according to the America’s Health Insurance Plans trade group.

Meanwhile, federal officials have finalized requirements that direct some insurers, including Medicaid and Medicare Advantage programs, to speed up responses to prior authorization requests, among other measures. Some of those requirements begin in 2026.

 

Gold Card Designs

As in other states, Texas’ “gold card” legislation applies only to state-regulated insurers, which comprise about one fifth of the state’s market. Under HB 3812, which takes effect on September 1, insurers will evaluate health providers based on a year of prior authorization requests rather than 6 months under the 2021 law.

To be evaluated, providers must have submitted at least five requests for a specific health service during that period. To achieve “gold card” status, insurers must approve at least 90% of requests, the same threshold as set by the 2021 law. But the new law stipulates that insurers review a broader pool of requests, including those made directly to the health plan as well as any related affiliates, according to the Texas Department of Insurance. 

The new law continues to limit exemptions only to “top-performing physicians” who repeatedly provide cost-effective care, said Blake Hutson, director of public affairs at the Texas Association of Health Plans. “Even with the change to 1 year, and the bill also adds in a broader array of claims that will be looked at, you still have to meet 90%.”

A key addition requires insurers to release an annual report detailing how many exemptions they have granted or denied, making decisions more transparent to the public, Silva said. “Not just what’s being approved and what’s not being approved, but to potentially evaluate for trends that presently we just have no ability to evaluate,” he said.

Gold card laws vary from state to state, and some exclude prescription drugs, according to an NCSL legislative summary. Other states with gold card programs include Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

In Illinois, legislation passed last year targeted hospital services for Medicaid patients, as denial rates were routinely higher in that population, said Dave Gross, senior vice president of Government Relations and Communications at the Illinois Health and Hospital Association, Naperville, Illinois. “We’re not seeing this problem in the commercial space,” he noted.

 

Real-World Implications

To some degree, the “gold card” concept makes intuitive sense, recognizing physicians who have a track record of getting their medical care requests approved, said Ravi Gupta, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, who has studied prior authorization patterns.

But Gupta raised equity concerns. Physicians in large medical groups and hospital systems will have access to staff and other resources to better navigate the prior approval process than those in smaller private practices.

Plus, he added, there’s the potential that physicians who achieve exemptions may become “more indiscriminate” about the services that they recommend.

Insurers’ stated aim is to reduce unnecessary and low-value medical care through prior authorization gatekeeping, Gupta said. But a study he helped conduct, assessing policies across five Medicare Advantage insurers, found a significant lack of consensus on what treatments should be included. Treatments comprising only 12% of Medicare spending would have required prior authorization by all five insurers. Most of that consensus, he wrote, “was devoted to a small number of costly services.”

The administrative burdens affect patients as well. Two thirds of patients with cancer in one 2023 study become personally involved, including calling the insurer or appealing a denial. The patients also reported less trust in insurers and the health system overall, which could have worrisome downstream effects, Fumiko Chino, MD, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor of radiation oncology at Houston’s MD Anderson Cancer Center, said.

“If you don’t trust healthcare,” she said, “why on earth would you get a vaccine or get cancer screening or get your blood pressure checked?”

 

More Than X Percent?

Gupta views the leading health insurers’ pledge as encouraging in concept — but he notes that they are voluntary commitments without any accountability.

In the interim, gold carding remains no more than a workaround, he said.

“Gold cards aren’t really fixing that [prior authorization] problem,” he said. “They’re just rewarding certain clinicians who can demonstrate that they have been able to get through the prior authorization process successfully for X amount of time before they’re rewarded with a gold card.”

In Illinois, regulators are still hashing out gold card rules, including whether the required 90% approval threshold will be based on a specific hospital service or a broader pool of services, Gross said. The hospital association also will closely watch whether Illinois’ experience begins to mirror that in Texas, he said.

“We have some of the best hospitals in the country here in Chicago,” he said. “If we end up with a 3% approval rating of gold cards, we’re going to have to go back to the legislature.”

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

“Gold card” programs were supposed to make it easier for frustrated physicians to deal with insurers’ burdensome prior authorization demands.

The idea: Insurers would reward doctors whose past prior authorization requests were typically approved by exempting them from red tape in the future.

At least 10 states have required insurers to establish gold card programs amid mounting concerns nationwide that overuse of prior authorization jeopardizes patient health. Last month, leading insurers joined with the White House in a voluntary pledge to reduce their use of the practice, which they contend is necessary to control costs and minimize unnecessary care.

But Texas’ experience with gold card programs may signal the limits of that approach.

 

Only 3% of Clinicians Qualified

The Lone Star State was an early adopter, passing a 2021 law enabling health providers with a high prior authorization success rate to earn a “gold card” exemption from insurers.

But statewide, only 3% of providers met that bar, according to a testimony provided by the Texas Department of Insurance earlier this year.

“I think it’s safe to say that the impact of this law on prior authorizations for our physicians is underwhelming,” said Ezequiel “Zeke” Silva III, MD, a San Antonio-based interventional radiologist who chairs the Texas Medical Association’s Council on Legislation. “We would have hoped for a greater percentage of our physicians to have been granted the ‘gold card’ status.”

At least nine other states have enacted gold card laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

 

Care Delayed and Denied

Physicians maintain that excessive prior authorization paperwork impedes timely patient care, with clinicians and staffers devoting 13 hours weekly to documentation, according to a 2024 American Medical Association survey.

Insurers view the review as a guardrail against unnecessary care driving up costs. Studies show that restricting prior authorization could boost premiums by 5.6%-16.7%, a Texas Association of Health Plans official testified during the legislative session.

In June, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a revised version of the state’s “gold card” law — part of an emerging national attempt to streamline the prior review process. Cigna, Humana, UnitedHealthcare, and other large insurers have voluntarily committed to reducing the scope of claims involved, according to the America’s Health Insurance Plans trade group.

Meanwhile, federal officials have finalized requirements that direct some insurers, including Medicaid and Medicare Advantage programs, to speed up responses to prior authorization requests, among other measures. Some of those requirements begin in 2026.

 

Gold Card Designs

As in other states, Texas’ “gold card” legislation applies only to state-regulated insurers, which comprise about one fifth of the state’s market. Under HB 3812, which takes effect on September 1, insurers will evaluate health providers based on a year of prior authorization requests rather than 6 months under the 2021 law.

To be evaluated, providers must have submitted at least five requests for a specific health service during that period. To achieve “gold card” status, insurers must approve at least 90% of requests, the same threshold as set by the 2021 law. But the new law stipulates that insurers review a broader pool of requests, including those made directly to the health plan as well as any related affiliates, according to the Texas Department of Insurance. 

The new law continues to limit exemptions only to “top-performing physicians” who repeatedly provide cost-effective care, said Blake Hutson, director of public affairs at the Texas Association of Health Plans. “Even with the change to 1 year, and the bill also adds in a broader array of claims that will be looked at, you still have to meet 90%.”

A key addition requires insurers to release an annual report detailing how many exemptions they have granted or denied, making decisions more transparent to the public, Silva said. “Not just what’s being approved and what’s not being approved, but to potentially evaluate for trends that presently we just have no ability to evaluate,” he said.

Gold card laws vary from state to state, and some exclude prescription drugs, according to an NCSL legislative summary. Other states with gold card programs include Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

In Illinois, legislation passed last year targeted hospital services for Medicaid patients, as denial rates were routinely higher in that population, said Dave Gross, senior vice president of Government Relations and Communications at the Illinois Health and Hospital Association, Naperville, Illinois. “We’re not seeing this problem in the commercial space,” he noted.

 

Real-World Implications

To some degree, the “gold card” concept makes intuitive sense, recognizing physicians who have a track record of getting their medical care requests approved, said Ravi Gupta, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, who has studied prior authorization patterns.

But Gupta raised equity concerns. Physicians in large medical groups and hospital systems will have access to staff and other resources to better navigate the prior approval process than those in smaller private practices.

Plus, he added, there’s the potential that physicians who achieve exemptions may become “more indiscriminate” about the services that they recommend.

Insurers’ stated aim is to reduce unnecessary and low-value medical care through prior authorization gatekeeping, Gupta said. But a study he helped conduct, assessing policies across five Medicare Advantage insurers, found a significant lack of consensus on what treatments should be included. Treatments comprising only 12% of Medicare spending would have required prior authorization by all five insurers. Most of that consensus, he wrote, “was devoted to a small number of costly services.”

The administrative burdens affect patients as well. Two thirds of patients with cancer in one 2023 study become personally involved, including calling the insurer or appealing a denial. The patients also reported less trust in insurers and the health system overall, which could have worrisome downstream effects, Fumiko Chino, MD, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor of radiation oncology at Houston’s MD Anderson Cancer Center, said.

“If you don’t trust healthcare,” she said, “why on earth would you get a vaccine or get cancer screening or get your blood pressure checked?”

 

More Than X Percent?

Gupta views the leading health insurers’ pledge as encouraging in concept — but he notes that they are voluntary commitments without any accountability.

In the interim, gold carding remains no more than a workaround, he said.

“Gold cards aren’t really fixing that [prior authorization] problem,” he said. “They’re just rewarding certain clinicians who can demonstrate that they have been able to get through the prior authorization process successfully for X amount of time before they’re rewarded with a gold card.”

In Illinois, regulators are still hashing out gold card rules, including whether the required 90% approval threshold will be based on a specific hospital service or a broader pool of services, Gross said. The hospital association also will closely watch whether Illinois’ experience begins to mirror that in Texas, he said.

“We have some of the best hospitals in the country here in Chicago,” he said. “If we end up with a 3% approval rating of gold cards, we’re going to have to go back to the legislature.”

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

“Gold card” programs were supposed to make it easier for frustrated physicians to deal with insurers’ burdensome prior authorization demands.

The idea: Insurers would reward doctors whose past prior authorization requests were typically approved by exempting them from red tape in the future.

At least 10 states have required insurers to establish gold card programs amid mounting concerns nationwide that overuse of prior authorization jeopardizes patient health. Last month, leading insurers joined with the White House in a voluntary pledge to reduce their use of the practice, which they contend is necessary to control costs and minimize unnecessary care.

But Texas’ experience with gold card programs may signal the limits of that approach.

 

Only 3% of Clinicians Qualified

The Lone Star State was an early adopter, passing a 2021 law enabling health providers with a high prior authorization success rate to earn a “gold card” exemption from insurers.

But statewide, only 3% of providers met that bar, according to a testimony provided by the Texas Department of Insurance earlier this year.

“I think it’s safe to say that the impact of this law on prior authorizations for our physicians is underwhelming,” said Ezequiel “Zeke” Silva III, MD, a San Antonio-based interventional radiologist who chairs the Texas Medical Association’s Council on Legislation. “We would have hoped for a greater percentage of our physicians to have been granted the ‘gold card’ status.”

At least nine other states have enacted gold card laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL).

 

Care Delayed and Denied

Physicians maintain that excessive prior authorization paperwork impedes timely patient care, with clinicians and staffers devoting 13 hours weekly to documentation, according to a 2024 American Medical Association survey.

Insurers view the review as a guardrail against unnecessary care driving up costs. Studies show that restricting prior authorization could boost premiums by 5.6%-16.7%, a Texas Association of Health Plans official testified during the legislative session.

In June, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a revised version of the state’s “gold card” law — part of an emerging national attempt to streamline the prior review process. Cigna, Humana, UnitedHealthcare, and other large insurers have voluntarily committed to reducing the scope of claims involved, according to the America’s Health Insurance Plans trade group.

Meanwhile, federal officials have finalized requirements that direct some insurers, including Medicaid and Medicare Advantage programs, to speed up responses to prior authorization requests, among other measures. Some of those requirements begin in 2026.

 

Gold Card Designs

As in other states, Texas’ “gold card” legislation applies only to state-regulated insurers, which comprise about one fifth of the state’s market. Under HB 3812, which takes effect on September 1, insurers will evaluate health providers based on a year of prior authorization requests rather than 6 months under the 2021 law.

To be evaluated, providers must have submitted at least five requests for a specific health service during that period. To achieve “gold card” status, insurers must approve at least 90% of requests, the same threshold as set by the 2021 law. But the new law stipulates that insurers review a broader pool of requests, including those made directly to the health plan as well as any related affiliates, according to the Texas Department of Insurance. 

The new law continues to limit exemptions only to “top-performing physicians” who repeatedly provide cost-effective care, said Blake Hutson, director of public affairs at the Texas Association of Health Plans. “Even with the change to 1 year, and the bill also adds in a broader array of claims that will be looked at, you still have to meet 90%.”

A key addition requires insurers to release an annual report detailing how many exemptions they have granted or denied, making decisions more transparent to the public, Silva said. “Not just what’s being approved and what’s not being approved, but to potentially evaluate for trends that presently we just have no ability to evaluate,” he said.

Gold card laws vary from state to state, and some exclude prescription drugs, according to an NCSL legislative summary. Other states with gold card programs include Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

In Illinois, legislation passed last year targeted hospital services for Medicaid patients, as denial rates were routinely higher in that population, said Dave Gross, senior vice president of Government Relations and Communications at the Illinois Health and Hospital Association, Naperville, Illinois. “We’re not seeing this problem in the commercial space,” he noted.

 

Real-World Implications

To some degree, the “gold card” concept makes intuitive sense, recognizing physicians who have a track record of getting their medical care requests approved, said Ravi Gupta, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, who has studied prior authorization patterns.

But Gupta raised equity concerns. Physicians in large medical groups and hospital systems will have access to staff and other resources to better navigate the prior approval process than those in smaller private practices.

Plus, he added, there’s the potential that physicians who achieve exemptions may become “more indiscriminate” about the services that they recommend.

Insurers’ stated aim is to reduce unnecessary and low-value medical care through prior authorization gatekeeping, Gupta said. But a study he helped conduct, assessing policies across five Medicare Advantage insurers, found a significant lack of consensus on what treatments should be included. Treatments comprising only 12% of Medicare spending would have required prior authorization by all five insurers. Most of that consensus, he wrote, “was devoted to a small number of costly services.”

The administrative burdens affect patients as well. Two thirds of patients with cancer in one 2023 study become personally involved, including calling the insurer or appealing a denial. The patients also reported less trust in insurers and the health system overall, which could have worrisome downstream effects, Fumiko Chino, MD, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor of radiation oncology at Houston’s MD Anderson Cancer Center, said.

“If you don’t trust healthcare,” she said, “why on earth would you get a vaccine or get cancer screening or get your blood pressure checked?”

 

More Than X Percent?

Gupta views the leading health insurers’ pledge as encouraging in concept — but he notes that they are voluntary commitments without any accountability.

In the interim, gold carding remains no more than a workaround, he said.

“Gold cards aren’t really fixing that [prior authorization] problem,” he said. “They’re just rewarding certain clinicians who can demonstrate that they have been able to get through the prior authorization process successfully for X amount of time before they’re rewarded with a gold card.”

In Illinois, regulators are still hashing out gold card rules, including whether the required 90% approval threshold will be based on a specific hospital service or a broader pool of services, Gross said. The hospital association also will closely watch whether Illinois’ experience begins to mirror that in Texas, he said.

“We have some of the best hospitals in the country here in Chicago,” he said. “If we end up with a 3% approval rating of gold cards, we’re going to have to go back to the legislature.”

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

Despite concerns about cognitive decline after cancer treatment, most breast cancer survivors show no increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, and some may have a slightly lower risk than their cancer-free peers, according to a large retrospective study from Korea.

However, any apparent protective effect faded with time, the investigators reported online in JAMA Network Open.

Overall, this is “reassuring news for cancer survivors,” Tim Ahles, PhD, a psychologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, told  this news organization.

“I get this question from patients a lot,” Ahles said. And based on these findings, “it doesn’t look like a history of breast cancer and breast cancer treatment increases your risk for Alzheimer’s disease.”

Breast cancer survivors often report cancer-related cognitive impairment, such as difficulties with concentration and memory, both during and after cancer treatment. But evidence surrounding patients’ risk for Alzheimer’s disease is mixed. One large study based in Sweden, for instance, reported a 35% increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease among patients diagnosed with breast cancer after the age of 65 years, but not among younger patients. A population-based study from Taiwan, however, found no increase in the risk for dementia overall compared with cancer-free individuals but did note a lower dementia risk in patients who had received tamoxifen.

To help clarify the evidence, investigators assessed Alzheimer’s disease risk in a large cohort of patients and explored the association by treatment type, age, and important risk factors.

Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, the researchers matched 70,701 patients who underwent breast cancer surgery between 2010 and 2016 with 180,360 cancer-free control individuals.

The mean age of breast cancer survivors was 53.1 years. Overall, 72% received radiotherapy. Cyclophosphamide (57%) and anthracycline (50%) were the most commonly used chemotherapies, and tamoxifen (47%) and aromatase inhibitors (30%) were the most commonly used endocrine therapies.

The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of newly diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease, which was defined on the basis of at least one prescription for medications to manage dementia associated with Alzheimer’s disease (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine, or memantine).

During a median follow-up of about 7 years, 1229 newly diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease cases were detected in breast cancer survivors and 3430 cases in control individuals — incidence rates of 2.45 and 2.63 per 1000 person-years, respectively.

This corresponded to an 8% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease in breast cancer survivors compared with cancer-free control individuals at 6 months (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98). The association was especially notable in survivors older than 65 years (SHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99).

Looking at individual treatment modalities, only radiation therapy was associated with significantly lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease among breast cancer survivors (adjusted HR [aHR], 0.77).

Several risk factors were associated with a significantly higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease: current smoker vs never or ex-smokers (aHR, 2.04), diabetes (aHR, 1.58), and chronic kidney disease (aHR, 3.11). Notably, alcohol use, physical activity level, and hypertension were not associated with Alzheimer’s disease risk.

However, any potential protective effect may be short-lived. The reduced risk for Alzheimer’s disease was no longer significant at 1 year (SHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87-1.01), 3 years (SHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.05), or 5 years (SHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.08).

Even so, breast cancer survivors can still feel reassured by the findings.

“Concerns about chemobrain and the long-term adverse effects of breast cancer treatment on cognition are common, but our findings suggest that this treatment does not directly lead to Alzheimer’s disease,” wrote the authors, led by Su-Min Jeong, MD, with Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.

Ahles agreed. The general takeaway from this study is that there is “no strong evidence that the cancer treatment is going to increase your risk for developing Alzheimer’s,” Ahles said. When patients ask about the risk for Alzheimer’s disease, “I can say, ‘Here’s yet another new study that supports the idea that there’s no increased risk.’”

He cautioned, however, that the study doesn’t address whether people with a genetic predisposition to Alzheimer’s might develop it sooner due to cancer treatment.

“Does the cancer treatment increase your probability or nudge you along? The study doesn’t answer that question,” Ahles said.

The study reported having no commercial funding. Jeong and Ahles reported having no relevant disclosures.

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

Despite concerns about cognitive decline after cancer treatment, most breast cancer survivors show no increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, and some may have a slightly lower risk than their cancer-free peers, according to a large retrospective study from Korea.

However, any apparent protective effect faded with time, the investigators reported online in JAMA Network Open.

Overall, this is “reassuring news for cancer survivors,” Tim Ahles, PhD, a psychologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, told  this news organization.

“I get this question from patients a lot,” Ahles said. And based on these findings, “it doesn’t look like a history of breast cancer and breast cancer treatment increases your risk for Alzheimer’s disease.”

Breast cancer survivors often report cancer-related cognitive impairment, such as difficulties with concentration and memory, both during and after cancer treatment. But evidence surrounding patients’ risk for Alzheimer’s disease is mixed. One large study based in Sweden, for instance, reported a 35% increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease among patients diagnosed with breast cancer after the age of 65 years, but not among younger patients. A population-based study from Taiwan, however, found no increase in the risk for dementia overall compared with cancer-free individuals but did note a lower dementia risk in patients who had received tamoxifen.

To help clarify the evidence, investigators assessed Alzheimer’s disease risk in a large cohort of patients and explored the association by treatment type, age, and important risk factors.

Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, the researchers matched 70,701 patients who underwent breast cancer surgery between 2010 and 2016 with 180,360 cancer-free control individuals.

The mean age of breast cancer survivors was 53.1 years. Overall, 72% received radiotherapy. Cyclophosphamide (57%) and anthracycline (50%) were the most commonly used chemotherapies, and tamoxifen (47%) and aromatase inhibitors (30%) were the most commonly used endocrine therapies.

The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of newly diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease, which was defined on the basis of at least one prescription for medications to manage dementia associated with Alzheimer’s disease (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine, or memantine).

During a median follow-up of about 7 years, 1229 newly diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease cases were detected in breast cancer survivors and 3430 cases in control individuals — incidence rates of 2.45 and 2.63 per 1000 person-years, respectively.

This corresponded to an 8% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease in breast cancer survivors compared with cancer-free control individuals at 6 months (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98). The association was especially notable in survivors older than 65 years (SHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99).

Looking at individual treatment modalities, only radiation therapy was associated with significantly lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease among breast cancer survivors (adjusted HR [aHR], 0.77).

Several risk factors were associated with a significantly higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease: current smoker vs never or ex-smokers (aHR, 2.04), diabetes (aHR, 1.58), and chronic kidney disease (aHR, 3.11). Notably, alcohol use, physical activity level, and hypertension were not associated with Alzheimer’s disease risk.

However, any potential protective effect may be short-lived. The reduced risk for Alzheimer’s disease was no longer significant at 1 year (SHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87-1.01), 3 years (SHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.05), or 5 years (SHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.08).

Even so, breast cancer survivors can still feel reassured by the findings.

“Concerns about chemobrain and the long-term adverse effects of breast cancer treatment on cognition are common, but our findings suggest that this treatment does not directly lead to Alzheimer’s disease,” wrote the authors, led by Su-Min Jeong, MD, with Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.

Ahles agreed. The general takeaway from this study is that there is “no strong evidence that the cancer treatment is going to increase your risk for developing Alzheimer’s,” Ahles said. When patients ask about the risk for Alzheimer’s disease, “I can say, ‘Here’s yet another new study that supports the idea that there’s no increased risk.’”

He cautioned, however, that the study doesn’t address whether people with a genetic predisposition to Alzheimer’s might develop it sooner due to cancer treatment.

“Does the cancer treatment increase your probability or nudge you along? The study doesn’t answer that question,” Ahles said.

The study reported having no commercial funding. Jeong and Ahles reported having no relevant disclosures.

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

Despite concerns about cognitive decline after cancer treatment, most breast cancer survivors show no increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, and some may have a slightly lower risk than their cancer-free peers, according to a large retrospective study from Korea.

However, any apparent protective effect faded with time, the investigators reported online in JAMA Network Open.

Overall, this is “reassuring news for cancer survivors,” Tim Ahles, PhD, a psychologist with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, told  this news organization.

“I get this question from patients a lot,” Ahles said. And based on these findings, “it doesn’t look like a history of breast cancer and breast cancer treatment increases your risk for Alzheimer’s disease.”

Breast cancer survivors often report cancer-related cognitive impairment, such as difficulties with concentration and memory, both during and after cancer treatment. But evidence surrounding patients’ risk for Alzheimer’s disease is mixed. One large study based in Sweden, for instance, reported a 35% increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease among patients diagnosed with breast cancer after the age of 65 years, but not among younger patients. A population-based study from Taiwan, however, found no increase in the risk for dementia overall compared with cancer-free individuals but did note a lower dementia risk in patients who had received tamoxifen.

To help clarify the evidence, investigators assessed Alzheimer’s disease risk in a large cohort of patients and explored the association by treatment type, age, and important risk factors.

Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, the researchers matched 70,701 patients who underwent breast cancer surgery between 2010 and 2016 with 180,360 cancer-free control individuals.

The mean age of breast cancer survivors was 53.1 years. Overall, 72% received radiotherapy. Cyclophosphamide (57%) and anthracycline (50%) were the most commonly used chemotherapies, and tamoxifen (47%) and aromatase inhibitors (30%) were the most commonly used endocrine therapies.

The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of newly diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease, which was defined on the basis of at least one prescription for medications to manage dementia associated with Alzheimer’s disease (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine, or memantine).

During a median follow-up of about 7 years, 1229 newly diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease cases were detected in breast cancer survivors and 3430 cases in control individuals — incidence rates of 2.45 and 2.63 per 1000 person-years, respectively.

This corresponded to an 8% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease in breast cancer survivors compared with cancer-free control individuals at 6 months (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98). The association was especially notable in survivors older than 65 years (SHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99).

Looking at individual treatment modalities, only radiation therapy was associated with significantly lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease among breast cancer survivors (adjusted HR [aHR], 0.77).

Several risk factors were associated with a significantly higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease: current smoker vs never or ex-smokers (aHR, 2.04), diabetes (aHR, 1.58), and chronic kidney disease (aHR, 3.11). Notably, alcohol use, physical activity level, and hypertension were not associated with Alzheimer’s disease risk.

However, any potential protective effect may be short-lived. The reduced risk for Alzheimer’s disease was no longer significant at 1 year (SHR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87-1.01), 3 years (SHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.05), or 5 years (SHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.08).

Even so, breast cancer survivors can still feel reassured by the findings.

“Concerns about chemobrain and the long-term adverse effects of breast cancer treatment on cognition are common, but our findings suggest that this treatment does not directly lead to Alzheimer’s disease,” wrote the authors, led by Su-Min Jeong, MD, with Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.

Ahles agreed. The general takeaway from this study is that there is “no strong evidence that the cancer treatment is going to increase your risk for developing Alzheimer’s,” Ahles said. When patients ask about the risk for Alzheimer’s disease, “I can say, ‘Here’s yet another new study that supports the idea that there’s no increased risk.’”

He cautioned, however, that the study doesn’t address whether people with a genetic predisposition to Alzheimer’s might develop it sooner due to cancer treatment.

“Does the cancer treatment increase your probability or nudge you along? The study doesn’t answer that question,” Ahles said.

The study reported having no commercial funding. Jeong and Ahles reported having no relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with advanced ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery who received paclitaxel-based hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) during surgery appeared to have comparable overall survival and disease-free survival rates to those who received cisplatin-based HIPEC.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although the use of HIPEC remains controversial, cisplatin-based HIPEC during cytoreductive surgery may benefit patients with advanced ovarian cancer; however, there is less evidence for paclitaxel-based HIPEC, typically used in patients who are frail or intolerant to platinum agents.
• To compare the two regimens, researchers analyzed data from the National Registry of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis, which included 846 patients (mean age, 59 years) who underwent interval cytoreductive surgery with either cisplatin-based HIPEC (n = 325) or paclitaxel-based HIPEC (n = 521). After propensity score matching, there were 199 patients per group (total = 398).
• HIPEC was administered post-surgery with cisplatin (75-100 mg/m² for 90 minutes) or paclitaxel (120 mg/m² for 60 minutes), both at 42-43 °C.

TAKEAWAY:

• Using cisplatin as the reference group, the median overall survival was not significantly different between the two options (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .16); however, the median overall survival was 82 months in the paclitaxel group vs 58 months in the cisplatin group.
• Disease-free survival was also not significantly different between the 2 groups, with a median of 20 months in the cisplatin group and 21 months in the paclitaxel groups (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72-1.25; P = .70).
• Overall survival was comparable during the first 20 months of follow-up and disease-free survival was equivalent during the first 15 months of follow-up, based on a predefined equivalence margin of 0.1.
• Paclitaxel-based HIPEC was not associated with increased morbidity (odds ratio, 1.32; P = .06).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that cisplatin and paclitaxel are two safe and effective drugs to be used for HIPEC in [interval cytoreductive surgery] for advanced ovarian cancer. As cisplatin is the preferred drug according to strong evidence, paclitaxel could be a valuable alternative for patients with any contraindication to cisplatin, with similar oncological and perioperative outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Salud González Sánchez, MD, Reina Sofía University Hospital in Córdoba, Spain, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of this study limited causal inference. The BRCA mutation status was not captured in the national registry. Additionally, the matching procedure resulted in a moderate sample size, which could have led to residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not declare any funding information and reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with advanced ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery who received paclitaxel-based hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) during surgery appeared to have comparable overall survival and disease-free survival rates to those who received cisplatin-based HIPEC.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although the use of HIPEC remains controversial, cisplatin-based HIPEC during cytoreductive surgery may benefit patients with advanced ovarian cancer; however, there is less evidence for paclitaxel-based HIPEC, typically used in patients who are frail or intolerant to platinum agents.
• To compare the two regimens, researchers analyzed data from the National Registry of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis, which included 846 patients (mean age, 59 years) who underwent interval cytoreductive surgery with either cisplatin-based HIPEC (n = 325) or paclitaxel-based HIPEC (n = 521). After propensity score matching, there were 199 patients per group (total = 398).
• HIPEC was administered post-surgery with cisplatin (75-100 mg/m² for 90 minutes) or paclitaxel (120 mg/m² for 60 minutes), both at 42-43 °C.

TAKEAWAY:

• Using cisplatin as the reference group, the median overall survival was not significantly different between the two options (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .16); however, the median overall survival was 82 months in the paclitaxel group vs 58 months in the cisplatin group.
• Disease-free survival was also not significantly different between the 2 groups, with a median of 20 months in the cisplatin group and 21 months in the paclitaxel groups (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72-1.25; P = .70).
• Overall survival was comparable during the first 20 months of follow-up and disease-free survival was equivalent during the first 15 months of follow-up, based on a predefined equivalence margin of 0.1.
• Paclitaxel-based HIPEC was not associated with increased morbidity (odds ratio, 1.32; P = .06).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that cisplatin and paclitaxel are two safe and effective drugs to be used for HIPEC in [interval cytoreductive surgery] for advanced ovarian cancer. As cisplatin is the preferred drug according to strong evidence, paclitaxel could be a valuable alternative for patients with any contraindication to cisplatin, with similar oncological and perioperative outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Salud González Sánchez, MD, Reina Sofía University Hospital in Córdoba, Spain, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of this study limited causal inference. The BRCA mutation status was not captured in the national registry. Additionally, the matching procedure resulted in a moderate sample size, which could have led to residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not declare any funding information and reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with advanced ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery who received paclitaxel-based hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) during surgery appeared to have comparable overall survival and disease-free survival rates to those who received cisplatin-based HIPEC.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although the use of HIPEC remains controversial, cisplatin-based HIPEC during cytoreductive surgery may benefit patients with advanced ovarian cancer; however, there is less evidence for paclitaxel-based HIPEC, typically used in patients who are frail or intolerant to platinum agents.
• To compare the two regimens, researchers analyzed data from the National Registry of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis, which included 846 patients (mean age, 59 years) who underwent interval cytoreductive surgery with either cisplatin-based HIPEC (n = 325) or paclitaxel-based HIPEC (n = 521). After propensity score matching, there were 199 patients per group (total = 398).
• HIPEC was administered post-surgery with cisplatin (75-100 mg/m² for 90 minutes) or paclitaxel (120 mg/m² for 60 minutes), both at 42-43 °C.

TAKEAWAY:

• Using cisplatin as the reference group, the median overall survival was not significantly different between the two options (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .16); however, the median overall survival was 82 months in the paclitaxel group vs 58 months in the cisplatin group.
• Disease-free survival was also not significantly different between the 2 groups, with a median of 20 months in the cisplatin group and 21 months in the paclitaxel groups (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72-1.25; P = .70).
• Overall survival was comparable during the first 20 months of follow-up and disease-free survival was equivalent during the first 15 months of follow-up, based on a predefined equivalence margin of 0.1.
• Paclitaxel-based HIPEC was not associated with increased morbidity (odds ratio, 1.32; P = .06).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that cisplatin and paclitaxel are two safe and effective drugs to be used for HIPEC in [interval cytoreductive surgery] for advanced ovarian cancer. As cisplatin is the preferred drug according to strong evidence, paclitaxel could be a valuable alternative for patients with any contraindication to cisplatin, with similar oncological and perioperative outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Salud González Sánchez, MD, Reina Sofía University Hospital in Córdoba, Spain, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of this study limited causal inference. The BRCA mutation status was not captured in the national registry. Additionally, the matching procedure resulted in a moderate sample size, which could have led to residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not declare any funding information and reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

The initial plan to reduce the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) workforce by 15%—roughly 83,000 employees—has been revised. The VA announced that it expected to reduce its workforce by 30,000 positions through normal attrition, early retirements, and resignations by the end of fiscal year 2025, “eliminating the need for a large-scale reduction-in-force.” Most of the positions will not be replaced due to the federal hiring freeze, which has been extended for 3 months.

“Since March, we’ve been conducting a holistic review of the department centered on reducing bureaucracy and improving services to Veterans,” VA Secretary Doug Collins said in a press release. “A department-wide RIF is off the table, but that doesn’t mean we’re done improving VA.”

About 17,000 VA employees have left their jobs as of June 1. From now and Sept. 30, the department expects another reduction of nearly 12,000. Pete Kasperowicz, a VA spokesperson, said there would not be any reductions beyond the 30,000 planned.

The VA says it has multiple safeguards in place to ensure the reductions do not impact veteran care or benefits. All VA mission-critical positions are exempt from the voluntary early retirement authority and deferred resignation program, and > 350,000 positions are exempt from the federal hiring freeze. 

The release noted several other improvements regarding VA performance in 2025, among them that the disability claims backlog has been reduced by 30% and a record 2 million disability claims have been processed by June. More than 60,000 VA employees have also returned to the office, according to the release.

“As a result of our efforts, VA is headed in the right direction – both in terms of staff levels and customer service,” Collins said. “Our review has resulted in a host of new ideas for better serving Veterans that we will continue to pursue.” 

The initial plan to reduce the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) workforce by 15%—roughly 83,000 employees—has been revised. The VA announced that it expected to reduce its workforce by 30,000 positions through normal attrition, early retirements, and resignations by the end of fiscal year 2025, “eliminating the need for a large-scale reduction-in-force.” Most of the positions will not be replaced due to the federal hiring freeze, which has been extended for 3 months.

“Since March, we’ve been conducting a holistic review of the department centered on reducing bureaucracy and improving services to Veterans,” VA Secretary Doug Collins said in a press release. “A department-wide RIF is off the table, but that doesn’t mean we’re done improving VA.”

About 17,000 VA employees have left their jobs as of June 1. From now and Sept. 30, the department expects another reduction of nearly 12,000. Pete Kasperowicz, a VA spokesperson, said there would not be any reductions beyond the 30,000 planned.

The VA says it has multiple safeguards in place to ensure the reductions do not impact veteran care or benefits. All VA mission-critical positions are exempt from the voluntary early retirement authority and deferred resignation program, and > 350,000 positions are exempt from the federal hiring freeze. 

The release noted several other improvements regarding VA performance in 2025, among them that the disability claims backlog has been reduced by 30% and a record 2 million disability claims have been processed by June. More than 60,000 VA employees have also returned to the office, according to the release.

“As a result of our efforts, VA is headed in the right direction – both in terms of staff levels and customer service,” Collins said. “Our review has resulted in a host of new ideas for better serving Veterans that we will continue to pursue.” 

The initial plan to reduce the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) workforce by 15%—roughly 83,000 employees—has been revised. The VA announced that it expected to reduce its workforce by 30,000 positions through normal attrition, early retirements, and resignations by the end of fiscal year 2025, “eliminating the need for a large-scale reduction-in-force.” Most of the positions will not be replaced due to the federal hiring freeze, which has been extended for 3 months.

“Since March, we’ve been conducting a holistic review of the department centered on reducing bureaucracy and improving services to Veterans,” VA Secretary Doug Collins said in a press release. “A department-wide RIF is off the table, but that doesn’t mean we’re done improving VA.”

About 17,000 VA employees have left their jobs as of June 1. From now and Sept. 30, the department expects another reduction of nearly 12,000. Pete Kasperowicz, a VA spokesperson, said there would not be any reductions beyond the 30,000 planned.

The VA says it has multiple safeguards in place to ensure the reductions do not impact veteran care or benefits. All VA mission-critical positions are exempt from the voluntary early retirement authority and deferred resignation program, and > 350,000 positions are exempt from the federal hiring freeze. 

The release noted several other improvements regarding VA performance in 2025, among them that the disability claims backlog has been reduced by 30% and a record 2 million disability claims have been processed by June. More than 60,000 VA employees have also returned to the office, according to the release.

“As a result of our efforts, VA is headed in the right direction – both in terms of staff levels and customer service,” Collins said. “Our review has resulted in a host of new ideas for better serving Veterans that we will continue to pursue.” 

TOPLINE:

Dementia incidence varied significantly by US region in a new study, with the Southeast showing a 25% higher risk and the Northwest and Rocky Mountains each showing a 23% higher risk compared to the Mid-Atlantic. Investigators said the findings highlight the need for a geographically tailored approach to address dementia risk factors and diagnostic services.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cohort study using data from the US Veterans Health Administration for more than 1.2 million older adults without dementia (mean age, 73.9 years; 98%% men) from 1999 to 2021. The average follow-up was 12.6 years.
• Ten geographical regions across the US were defined using the CDC National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion definition.
• The diagnosis of dementia was made using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision codes from inpatient and outpatient visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• Dementia incidence rates per 1000 person-years were lowest in the Mid-Atlantic (11.2; 95% CI, 11.1-11.4) and highest in the Southeast (14.0; 95% CI, 13.8-14.2).
• After adjusting for demographics, compared with the Mid-Atlantic region, dementia incidence was highest in the Southeast (rate ratio [RR], 1.25), followed by the Northwest and Rocky Mountains (RR for both, 1.23), South (RR, 1.18), Southwest (RR, 1.13), and Midwest and South Atlantic (RR for both, 1.12). The Great Lakes and Northeast regions had < a 10% difference in incidence.
• Results remained consistent after adjusting for rurality and cardiovascular comorbidities, and after accounting for competing risk for death.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides valuable insights into the regional variation in dementia incidence among US veterans in that we observed more than 20% greater incidence in several regions compared with the Mid-Atlantic region,” the investigators wrote. 

“By identifying areas with the highest incidence rates, resources can be better allocated and targeted interventions designed to mitigate the impact of dementia on vulnerable populations,” they added.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Christina S. Dintica, PhD, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on June 9 in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study population was limited to US veterans, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Education level was defined using educational attainment rates in the participants’ zip codes rather than individual data. Additionally, because residential history was limited to a single location per participant, migration patterns could not be tracked. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Alzheimer’s Association, the National Institute on Aging, and the Department of Defense. One author reported serving on data and safety monitoring boards for studies sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, as well as holding advisory board membership and receiving personal fees from industry. Full details are listed in the original article. The other four investigators reported no relevant financial conflicts.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Dementia incidence varied significantly by US region in a new study, with the Southeast showing a 25% higher risk and the Northwest and Rocky Mountains each showing a 23% higher risk compared to the Mid-Atlantic. Investigators said the findings highlight the need for a geographically tailored approach to address dementia risk factors and diagnostic services.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cohort study using data from the US Veterans Health Administration for more than 1.2 million older adults without dementia (mean age, 73.9 years; 98%% men) from 1999 to 2021. The average follow-up was 12.6 years.
• Ten geographical regions across the US were defined using the CDC National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion definition.
• The diagnosis of dementia was made using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision codes from inpatient and outpatient visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• Dementia incidence rates per 1000 person-years were lowest in the Mid-Atlantic (11.2; 95% CI, 11.1-11.4) and highest in the Southeast (14.0; 95% CI, 13.8-14.2).
• After adjusting for demographics, compared with the Mid-Atlantic region, dementia incidence was highest in the Southeast (rate ratio [RR], 1.25), followed by the Northwest and Rocky Mountains (RR for both, 1.23), South (RR, 1.18), Southwest (RR, 1.13), and Midwest and South Atlantic (RR for both, 1.12). The Great Lakes and Northeast regions had < a 10% difference in incidence.
• Results remained consistent after adjusting for rurality and cardiovascular comorbidities, and after accounting for competing risk for death.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides valuable insights into the regional variation in dementia incidence among US veterans in that we observed more than 20% greater incidence in several regions compared with the Mid-Atlantic region,” the investigators wrote. 

“By identifying areas with the highest incidence rates, resources can be better allocated and targeted interventions designed to mitigate the impact of dementia on vulnerable populations,” they added.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Christina S. Dintica, PhD, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on June 9 in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study population was limited to US veterans, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Education level was defined using educational attainment rates in the participants’ zip codes rather than individual data. Additionally, because residential history was limited to a single location per participant, migration patterns could not be tracked. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Alzheimer’s Association, the National Institute on Aging, and the Department of Defense. One author reported serving on data and safety monitoring boards for studies sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, as well as holding advisory board membership and receiving personal fees from industry. Full details are listed in the original article. The other four investigators reported no relevant financial conflicts.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Dementia incidence varied significantly by US region in a new study, with the Southeast showing a 25% higher risk and the Northwest and Rocky Mountains each showing a 23% higher risk compared to the Mid-Atlantic. Investigators said the findings highlight the need for a geographically tailored approach to address dementia risk factors and diagnostic services.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cohort study using data from the US Veterans Health Administration for more than 1.2 million older adults without dementia (mean age, 73.9 years; 98%% men) from 1999 to 2021. The average follow-up was 12.6 years.
• Ten geographical regions across the US were defined using the CDC National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion definition.
• The diagnosis of dementia was made using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision codes from inpatient and outpatient visits.

TAKEAWAY:

• Dementia incidence rates per 1000 person-years were lowest in the Mid-Atlantic (11.2; 95% CI, 11.1-11.4) and highest in the Southeast (14.0; 95% CI, 13.8-14.2).
• After adjusting for demographics, compared with the Mid-Atlantic region, dementia incidence was highest in the Southeast (rate ratio [RR], 1.25), followed by the Northwest and Rocky Mountains (RR for both, 1.23), South (RR, 1.18), Southwest (RR, 1.13), and Midwest and South Atlantic (RR for both, 1.12). The Great Lakes and Northeast regions had < a 10% difference in incidence.
• Results remained consistent after adjusting for rurality and cardiovascular comorbidities, and after accounting for competing risk for death.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study provides valuable insights into the regional variation in dementia incidence among US veterans in that we observed more than 20% greater incidence in several regions compared with the Mid-Atlantic region,” the investigators wrote. 

“By identifying areas with the highest incidence rates, resources can be better allocated and targeted interventions designed to mitigate the impact of dementia on vulnerable populations,” they added.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Christina S. Dintica, PhD, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online on June 9 in JAMA Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study population was limited to US veterans, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Education level was defined using educational attainment rates in the participants’ zip codes rather than individual data. Additionally, because residential history was limited to a single location per participant, migration patterns could not be tracked. 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Alzheimer’s Association, the National Institute on Aging, and the Department of Defense. One author reported serving on data and safety monitoring boards for studies sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, as well as holding advisory board membership and receiving personal fees from industry. Full details are listed in the original article. The other four investigators reported no relevant financial conflicts.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

An 8-week smartphone-based mindfulness program using audio-guided meditation reduced anxiety and improved emotional well-being in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), also providing relief from stress, anxiety, and dyspnea following each session.

METHODOLOGY:

• A considerable proportion of patients with COPD experience clinically significant anxiety and depressive symptoms; psychological interventions that are easy to implement as add-on treatments can alleviate these symptoms.
• In this pilot study, 30 patients (mean age, 62.68 y; 60.5% women) with COPD and subclinical symptoms of anxiety or depression were enrolled and allocated to an 8-week self-administered digital mindfulness-based intervention (n = 14) or the waitlist control (n = 16).
• Patients in the intervention group had an introductory face-to-face session, followed by daily smartphone audio-guided meditation adapted for patients with COPD. The waitlist group received the same intervention after the study period ended.
• The primary endpoints were the feasibility of the intervention and its effects on anxiety and depression symptoms at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the intervention group practiced mindfulness on 81.38% of the 56 intervention days.
• After 8 weeks, the intervention group showed a significant reduction in anxiety (P = .010) compared with the waitlist group; however, no significant improvement was observed for depression.
• Similarly, significant improvements were reported for emotional functioning (P = .004), but no significant reductions in perceived stress and hair cortisol levels were observed after 8 weeks.
• Significant reductions were reported for momentary subjective stress (P < .001), anxiety (P = .022), and dyspnea (P < .001) immediately after meditation sessions.

IN PRACTICE:

“The investigated self-administered digital MBI [mindfulness-based intervention], including brief 10- to 15-minute meditations, was feasible and holds potential as low-threshold add-on treatment to alleviate anxiety after 8 weeks and reduce momentary subjective stress, anxiety, and dyspnea in everyday life,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hannah Tschenett, Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, and was published online in Respiratory Research.

LIMITATIONS:

This study had several limitations including a small sample size, lack of a true control group, and potential selection bias due to recruitment from centers with patients already interested in mindfulness, which may have inflated adherence. Additionally, generalizability to all patients with COPD was limited, as many were either ineligible or declined to participate.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Scientific Medical Fund of the City of Vienna and the Karl Landsteiner Institute (KLI) for Lung Research and Pulmonary Oncology. The KLI received funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Linde plc, Menarini Pharma, Novartis, and Vivisol Austria. Three authors reported being employees of KLI or receiving lecture fees from some of these pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

An 8-week smartphone-based mindfulness program using audio-guided meditation reduced anxiety and improved emotional well-being in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), also providing relief from stress, anxiety, and dyspnea following each session.

METHODOLOGY:

• A considerable proportion of patients with COPD experience clinically significant anxiety and depressive symptoms; psychological interventions that are easy to implement as add-on treatments can alleviate these symptoms.
• In this pilot study, 30 patients (mean age, 62.68 y; 60.5% women) with COPD and subclinical symptoms of anxiety or depression were enrolled and allocated to an 8-week self-administered digital mindfulness-based intervention (n = 14) or the waitlist control (n = 16).
• Patients in the intervention group had an introductory face-to-face session, followed by daily smartphone audio-guided meditation adapted for patients with COPD. The waitlist group received the same intervention after the study period ended.
• The primary endpoints were the feasibility of the intervention and its effects on anxiety and depression symptoms at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the intervention group practiced mindfulness on 81.38% of the 56 intervention days.
• After 8 weeks, the intervention group showed a significant reduction in anxiety (P = .010) compared with the waitlist group; however, no significant improvement was observed for depression.
• Similarly, significant improvements were reported for emotional functioning (P = .004), but no significant reductions in perceived stress and hair cortisol levels were observed after 8 weeks.
• Significant reductions were reported for momentary subjective stress (P < .001), anxiety (P = .022), and dyspnea (P < .001) immediately after meditation sessions.

IN PRACTICE:

“The investigated self-administered digital MBI [mindfulness-based intervention], including brief 10- to 15-minute meditations, was feasible and holds potential as low-threshold add-on treatment to alleviate anxiety after 8 weeks and reduce momentary subjective stress, anxiety, and dyspnea in everyday life,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hannah Tschenett, Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, and was published online in Respiratory Research.

LIMITATIONS:

This study had several limitations including a small sample size, lack of a true control group, and potential selection bias due to recruitment from centers with patients already interested in mindfulness, which may have inflated adherence. Additionally, generalizability to all patients with COPD was limited, as many were either ineligible or declined to participate.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Scientific Medical Fund of the City of Vienna and the Karl Landsteiner Institute (KLI) for Lung Research and Pulmonary Oncology. The KLI received funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Linde plc, Menarini Pharma, Novartis, and Vivisol Austria. Three authors reported being employees of KLI or receiving lecture fees from some of these pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

An 8-week smartphone-based mindfulness program using audio-guided meditation reduced anxiety and improved emotional well-being in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), also providing relief from stress, anxiety, and dyspnea following each session.

METHODOLOGY:

• A considerable proportion of patients with COPD experience clinically significant anxiety and depressive symptoms; psychological interventions that are easy to implement as add-on treatments can alleviate these symptoms.
• In this pilot study, 30 patients (mean age, 62.68 y; 60.5% women) with COPD and subclinical symptoms of anxiety or depression were enrolled and allocated to an 8-week self-administered digital mindfulness-based intervention (n = 14) or the waitlist control (n = 16).
• Patients in the intervention group had an introductory face-to-face session, followed by daily smartphone audio-guided meditation adapted for patients with COPD. The waitlist group received the same intervention after the study period ended.
• The primary endpoints were the feasibility of the intervention and its effects on anxiety and depression symptoms at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the intervention group practiced mindfulness on 81.38% of the 56 intervention days.
• After 8 weeks, the intervention group showed a significant reduction in anxiety (P = .010) compared with the waitlist group; however, no significant improvement was observed for depression.
• Similarly, significant improvements were reported for emotional functioning (P = .004), but no significant reductions in perceived stress and hair cortisol levels were observed after 8 weeks.
• Significant reductions were reported for momentary subjective stress (P < .001), anxiety (P = .022), and dyspnea (P < .001) immediately after meditation sessions.

IN PRACTICE:

“The investigated self-administered digital MBI [mindfulness-based intervention], including brief 10- to 15-minute meditations, was feasible and holds potential as low-threshold add-on treatment to alleviate anxiety after 8 weeks and reduce momentary subjective stress, anxiety, and dyspnea in everyday life,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Hannah Tschenett, Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, and was published online in Respiratory Research.

LIMITATIONS:

This study had several limitations including a small sample size, lack of a true control group, and potential selection bias due to recruitment from centers with patients already interested in mindfulness, which may have inflated adherence. Additionally, generalizability to all patients with COPD was limited, as many were either ineligible or declined to participate.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the Scientific Medical Fund of the City of Vienna and the Karl Landsteiner Institute (KLI) for Lung Research and Pulmonary Oncology. The KLI received funding from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Linde plc, Menarini Pharma, Novartis, and Vivisol Austria. Three authors reported being employees of KLI or receiving lecture fees from some of these pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

A recent study found that 3 months of resistance training did not worsen lymphedema in breast cancer survivors and instead significantly improved fluid balance and increased upper extremity muscle mass. The edema index also improved, suggesting potential therapeutic benefits of intense resistance training for managing lymphedema.

METHODOLOGY:

• Lymphedema is a common adverse effect of breast cancer treatment that can limit mobility. Although strength training can have multiple benefits for breast cancer survivors, such as increased bone density and metabolism, data on whether more intense resistance training exacerbates lymphedema in this population are limited. Worries that more intense training will lead to or worsen lymphedema have typically led to cautious recommendations.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study involving 115 women with breast cancer (median age, 54 years; 96% White; 4% Black) between September 2022 and March 2024. Most (83%) underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), while 12% had axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). At baseline, 13% had clinical lymphedema, including 37% in the ALND group and 8% in the SLNB group.
• Participants attended resistance training sessions three times a week, with intensity escalation over 3 months. Exercises involved hand weights, resistance bands, and body weight (eg, pushups) to promote strength, mobility, and muscle hypertrophy.
• Bioimpedance analysis measured intracellular water, extracellular water, and total body water before and after exercise. Lymphedema was defined as more than a 3% increase in arm circumference discrepancy relative to preoperative ipsilateral arm measurements, along with an elevated edema index (extracellular water to total body water ratio).

TAKEAWAY:

• No participants experienced subjective or clinical worsening of lymphedema after completing the resistance training regimen.
• Lean mass in the affected arm increased from a median of 5.45 lb to 5.64 lb (P < .001), while lean mass in the unaffected arm rose from 5.51 lb to 5.53 lb (P < .001) after the resistance training.
• Overall, participants’ fluid balance improved. The edema index in both arms showed a significant reduction at training completion (mean, 0.383) vs baseline (mean, 0.385), indicating reduced lymphedema. Subgroup analysis of women who underwent SLNB showed similar improvements in the edema index.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings highlight the safety of strength and resistance training in a large group of patients with breast cancer during and after treatment,” the authors wrote. Beyond that, the authors noted, the results point to a potential role for resistance training in reducing lymphedema.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Parisa Shamsesfandabadi, MD, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

A major limitation was the absence of a control group, which prevented a direct comparison between the effects of exercise and the natural progression of lymphedema. The 3-month intervention provided limited insight into the long-term sustainability of benefits. Patient-reported outcomes were not included. Additionally, potential confounding variables such as diet, medication use, and baseline physical activity levels were not controlled for in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. Several authors reported having ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent study found that 3 months of resistance training did not worsen lymphedema in breast cancer survivors and instead significantly improved fluid balance and increased upper extremity muscle mass. The edema index also improved, suggesting potential therapeutic benefits of intense resistance training for managing lymphedema.

METHODOLOGY:

• Lymphedema is a common adverse effect of breast cancer treatment that can limit mobility. Although strength training can have multiple benefits for breast cancer survivors, such as increased bone density and metabolism, data on whether more intense resistance training exacerbates lymphedema in this population are limited. Worries that more intense training will lead to or worsen lymphedema have typically led to cautious recommendations.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study involving 115 women with breast cancer (median age, 54 years; 96% White; 4% Black) between September 2022 and March 2024. Most (83%) underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), while 12% had axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). At baseline, 13% had clinical lymphedema, including 37% in the ALND group and 8% in the SLNB group.
• Participants attended resistance training sessions three times a week, with intensity escalation over 3 months. Exercises involved hand weights, resistance bands, and body weight (eg, pushups) to promote strength, mobility, and muscle hypertrophy.
• Bioimpedance analysis measured intracellular water, extracellular water, and total body water before and after exercise. Lymphedema was defined as more than a 3% increase in arm circumference discrepancy relative to preoperative ipsilateral arm measurements, along with an elevated edema index (extracellular water to total body water ratio).

TAKEAWAY:

• No participants experienced subjective or clinical worsening of lymphedema after completing the resistance training regimen.
• Lean mass in the affected arm increased from a median of 5.45 lb to 5.64 lb (P < .001), while lean mass in the unaffected arm rose from 5.51 lb to 5.53 lb (P < .001) after the resistance training.
• Overall, participants’ fluid balance improved. The edema index in both arms showed a significant reduction at training completion (mean, 0.383) vs baseline (mean, 0.385), indicating reduced lymphedema. Subgroup analysis of women who underwent SLNB showed similar improvements in the edema index.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings highlight the safety of strength and resistance training in a large group of patients with breast cancer during and after treatment,” the authors wrote. Beyond that, the authors noted, the results point to a potential role for resistance training in reducing lymphedema.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Parisa Shamsesfandabadi, MD, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

A major limitation was the absence of a control group, which prevented a direct comparison between the effects of exercise and the natural progression of lymphedema. The 3-month intervention provided limited insight into the long-term sustainability of benefits. Patient-reported outcomes were not included. Additionally, potential confounding variables such as diet, medication use, and baseline physical activity levels were not controlled for in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. Several authors reported having ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent study found that 3 months of resistance training did not worsen lymphedema in breast cancer survivors and instead significantly improved fluid balance and increased upper extremity muscle mass. The edema index also improved, suggesting potential therapeutic benefits of intense resistance training for managing lymphedema.

METHODOLOGY:

• Lymphedema is a common adverse effect of breast cancer treatment that can limit mobility. Although strength training can have multiple benefits for breast cancer survivors, such as increased bone density and metabolism, data on whether more intense resistance training exacerbates lymphedema in this population are limited. Worries that more intense training will lead to or worsen lymphedema have typically led to cautious recommendations.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study involving 115 women with breast cancer (median age, 54 years; 96% White; 4% Black) between September 2022 and March 2024. Most (83%) underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), while 12% had axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). At baseline, 13% had clinical lymphedema, including 37% in the ALND group and 8% in the SLNB group.
• Participants attended resistance training sessions three times a week, with intensity escalation over 3 months. Exercises involved hand weights, resistance bands, and body weight (eg, pushups) to promote strength, mobility, and muscle hypertrophy.
• Bioimpedance analysis measured intracellular water, extracellular water, and total body water before and after exercise. Lymphedema was defined as more than a 3% increase in arm circumference discrepancy relative to preoperative ipsilateral arm measurements, along with an elevated edema index (extracellular water to total body water ratio).

TAKEAWAY:

• No participants experienced subjective or clinical worsening of lymphedema after completing the resistance training regimen.
• Lean mass in the affected arm increased from a median of 5.45 lb to 5.64 lb (P < .001), while lean mass in the unaffected arm rose from 5.51 lb to 5.53 lb (P < .001) after the resistance training.
• Overall, participants’ fluid balance improved. The edema index in both arms showed a significant reduction at training completion (mean, 0.383) vs baseline (mean, 0.385), indicating reduced lymphedema. Subgroup analysis of women who underwent SLNB showed similar improvements in the edema index.

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings highlight the safety of strength and resistance training in a large group of patients with breast cancer during and after treatment,” the authors wrote. Beyond that, the authors noted, the results point to a potential role for resistance training in reducing lymphedema.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Parisa Shamsesfandabadi, MD, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

A major limitation was the absence of a control group, which prevented a direct comparison between the effects of exercise and the natural progression of lymphedema. The 3-month intervention provided limited insight into the long-term sustainability of benefits. Patient-reported outcomes were not included. Additionally, potential confounding variables such as diet, medication use, and baseline physical activity levels were not controlled for in the analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. Several authors reported having ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

While several cancers associated with immunosuppression are much more common in White men who have sex with men living with HIV (MSMWH) than in the male general population, they are even more frequently seen in Black and Hispanic MSMWH. 

This suggests that racial and ethnic disparities in access to antiretroviral therapy and viral suppression are playing a role, said the authors of an analysis published last month in AIDS.

“Disparities in cancer risk may serve as an important proxy for disparities in HIV care,” they wrote.

The researchers at the National Cancer Institute leveraged data from the HIV/AIDS Cancer Match Study, which covers 13 US states and the District of Columbia. For this analysis, they examined cancer incidence in over 350,000 MSMWH followed for 3.2 million person years, between 2001 and 2019.

They focused on Kaposi sarcoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, anal cancer, and liver cancer — all malignancies that are associated with viral infections and immunosuppression. They restricted their analysis to MSM because behavioral factors (such as anal sex) contribute to increased exposure to viral infections in this population.

The study’s intersectional lens is valuable, Gita Suneja, MD, said in an interview. “It is looking at racial and ethnic disparities within an already minoritized group, which is men who have sex with men living with HIV,” said the professor of radiation oncology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, who was not involved in the study.

“It’s really profound to me to sit back and think about how these disparities intersect, and how somebody can be so marginalized: it’s not just race or ethnicity, it’s not just having a stigmatized medical condition, it’s the confluence of all of these factors that leads to exclusion from care and poor outcomes.”

Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), using men of the same ethnicity and age in the general population as the comparator, were reported for MSMWH of different racial/ethnic groups. For non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the SIR was 3.11 for White MSMWH, rising to 4.84 for Black MSMWH and 5.46 for Hispanic MSMWH. 

For Hodgkin lymphoma, the SIRs were 6.35, 7.69, and 11.5, respectively. For Kaposi sarcoma, they were many orders of magnitude higher, at 417 for White MSMWH, 772 for Black MSMWH, and 887 for Hispanic MSMWH.

In contrast, for anal cancer and liver cancer, the highest SIRs were among White MSMWH.

Given the role of immunosuppression, the researchers wanted to see whether cancer incidence differed according to prior AIDS diagnosis. However, they found that within each racial/ethnic group, there were no statistically significant differences in SIR according to AIDS status.

“There were disparities across the board for [racially minoritized] groups, regardless of immunosuppression status, which leads us to believe that it isn’t just about the diagnosis of AIDS, but about many other factors that we’re not capturing in the paper,” first author Benton Meldrum, MPH, told this news organization.

One study limitation is that AIDS diagnosis is an imprecise proxy for immunosuppression. It does not capture the duration and severity of immunosuppression, nor the extent of immune restoration. Many people with a previous AIDS diagnosis are now virally suppressed.

Database studies have inherent limitations in terms of the range of parameters recorded. In an ideal world, Meldrum said, they would have had access to information on CD4 count and viral suppression over time, as well as socioeconomic factors such as income and insurance status.

Differences in timely HIV diagnosis, viral suppression, and continued engagement in care are thought to drive the differences in cancer incidence. “HIV control today helps mitigate the risk of cancer development down the road,” Suneja said.

While not addressed by this study, there may be additional differences in cancer survival. Differences in cancer care, including prompt diagnosis and access to effective treatment, could play a role.

In terms of practical interventions to address these disparities, Suneja highlights the value of programs which help patients navigate a complex healthcare system. This may include care coordination navigation, peer navigation, and delivering services in community settings.

Such interventions don’t only benefit marginalized groups but help improve healthcare access and outcomes for everyone, she said. Even people with insurance and high health literacy often struggle to remain engaged.

“When we design healthcare systems to best serve those that have been left furthest behind, we all do better,” Suneja said.



The study was funded by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute. Suneja and Meldrum reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

While several cancers associated with immunosuppression are much more common in White men who have sex with men living with HIV (MSMWH) than in the male general population, they are even more frequently seen in Black and Hispanic MSMWH. 

This suggests that racial and ethnic disparities in access to antiretroviral therapy and viral suppression are playing a role, said the authors of an analysis published last month in AIDS.

“Disparities in cancer risk may serve as an important proxy for disparities in HIV care,” they wrote.

The researchers at the National Cancer Institute leveraged data from the HIV/AIDS Cancer Match Study, which covers 13 US states and the District of Columbia. For this analysis, they examined cancer incidence in over 350,000 MSMWH followed for 3.2 million person years, between 2001 and 2019.

They focused on Kaposi sarcoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, anal cancer, and liver cancer — all malignancies that are associated with viral infections and immunosuppression. They restricted their analysis to MSM because behavioral factors (such as anal sex) contribute to increased exposure to viral infections in this population.

The study’s intersectional lens is valuable, Gita Suneja, MD, said in an interview. “It is looking at racial and ethnic disparities within an already minoritized group, which is men who have sex with men living with HIV,” said the professor of radiation oncology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, who was not involved in the study.

“It’s really profound to me to sit back and think about how these disparities intersect, and how somebody can be so marginalized: it’s not just race or ethnicity, it’s not just having a stigmatized medical condition, it’s the confluence of all of these factors that leads to exclusion from care and poor outcomes.”

Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), using men of the same ethnicity and age in the general population as the comparator, were reported for MSMWH of different racial/ethnic groups. For non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the SIR was 3.11 for White MSMWH, rising to 4.84 for Black MSMWH and 5.46 for Hispanic MSMWH. 

For Hodgkin lymphoma, the SIRs were 6.35, 7.69, and 11.5, respectively. For Kaposi sarcoma, they were many orders of magnitude higher, at 417 for White MSMWH, 772 for Black MSMWH, and 887 for Hispanic MSMWH.

In contrast, for anal cancer and liver cancer, the highest SIRs were among White MSMWH.

Given the role of immunosuppression, the researchers wanted to see whether cancer incidence differed according to prior AIDS diagnosis. However, they found that within each racial/ethnic group, there were no statistically significant differences in SIR according to AIDS status.

“There were disparities across the board for [racially minoritized] groups, regardless of immunosuppression status, which leads us to believe that it isn’t just about the diagnosis of AIDS, but about many other factors that we’re not capturing in the paper,” first author Benton Meldrum, MPH, told this news organization.

One study limitation is that AIDS diagnosis is an imprecise proxy for immunosuppression. It does not capture the duration and severity of immunosuppression, nor the extent of immune restoration. Many people with a previous AIDS diagnosis are now virally suppressed.

Database studies have inherent limitations in terms of the range of parameters recorded. In an ideal world, Meldrum said, they would have had access to information on CD4 count and viral suppression over time, as well as socioeconomic factors such as income and insurance status.

Differences in timely HIV diagnosis, viral suppression, and continued engagement in care are thought to drive the differences in cancer incidence. “HIV control today helps mitigate the risk of cancer development down the road,” Suneja said.

While not addressed by this study, there may be additional differences in cancer survival. Differences in cancer care, including prompt diagnosis and access to effective treatment, could play a role.

In terms of practical interventions to address these disparities, Suneja highlights the value of programs which help patients navigate a complex healthcare system. This may include care coordination navigation, peer navigation, and delivering services in community settings.

Such interventions don’t only benefit marginalized groups but help improve healthcare access and outcomes for everyone, she said. Even people with insurance and high health literacy often struggle to remain engaged.

“When we design healthcare systems to best serve those that have been left furthest behind, we all do better,” Suneja said.



The study was funded by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute. Suneja and Meldrum reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

While several cancers associated with immunosuppression are much more common in White men who have sex with men living with HIV (MSMWH) than in the male general population, they are even more frequently seen in Black and Hispanic MSMWH. 

This suggests that racial and ethnic disparities in access to antiretroviral therapy and viral suppression are playing a role, said the authors of an analysis published last month in AIDS.

“Disparities in cancer risk may serve as an important proxy for disparities in HIV care,” they wrote.

The researchers at the National Cancer Institute leveraged data from the HIV/AIDS Cancer Match Study, which covers 13 US states and the District of Columbia. For this analysis, they examined cancer incidence in over 350,000 MSMWH followed for 3.2 million person years, between 2001 and 2019.

They focused on Kaposi sarcoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, anal cancer, and liver cancer — all malignancies that are associated with viral infections and immunosuppression. They restricted their analysis to MSM because behavioral factors (such as anal sex) contribute to increased exposure to viral infections in this population.

The study’s intersectional lens is valuable, Gita Suneja, MD, said in an interview. “It is looking at racial and ethnic disparities within an already minoritized group, which is men who have sex with men living with HIV,” said the professor of radiation oncology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, who was not involved in the study.

“It’s really profound to me to sit back and think about how these disparities intersect, and how somebody can be so marginalized: it’s not just race or ethnicity, it’s not just having a stigmatized medical condition, it’s the confluence of all of these factors that leads to exclusion from care and poor outcomes.”

Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), using men of the same ethnicity and age in the general population as the comparator, were reported for MSMWH of different racial/ethnic groups. For non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the SIR was 3.11 for White MSMWH, rising to 4.84 for Black MSMWH and 5.46 for Hispanic MSMWH. 

For Hodgkin lymphoma, the SIRs were 6.35, 7.69, and 11.5, respectively. For Kaposi sarcoma, they were many orders of magnitude higher, at 417 for White MSMWH, 772 for Black MSMWH, and 887 for Hispanic MSMWH.

In contrast, for anal cancer and liver cancer, the highest SIRs were among White MSMWH.

Given the role of immunosuppression, the researchers wanted to see whether cancer incidence differed according to prior AIDS diagnosis. However, they found that within each racial/ethnic group, there were no statistically significant differences in SIR according to AIDS status.

“There were disparities across the board for [racially minoritized] groups, regardless of immunosuppression status, which leads us to believe that it isn’t just about the diagnosis of AIDS, but about many other factors that we’re not capturing in the paper,” first author Benton Meldrum, MPH, told this news organization.

One study limitation is that AIDS diagnosis is an imprecise proxy for immunosuppression. It does not capture the duration and severity of immunosuppression, nor the extent of immune restoration. Many people with a previous AIDS diagnosis are now virally suppressed.

Database studies have inherent limitations in terms of the range of parameters recorded. In an ideal world, Meldrum said, they would have had access to information on CD4 count and viral suppression over time, as well as socioeconomic factors such as income and insurance status.

Differences in timely HIV diagnosis, viral suppression, and continued engagement in care are thought to drive the differences in cancer incidence. “HIV control today helps mitigate the risk of cancer development down the road,” Suneja said.

While not addressed by this study, there may be additional differences in cancer survival. Differences in cancer care, including prompt diagnosis and access to effective treatment, could play a role.

In terms of practical interventions to address these disparities, Suneja highlights the value of programs which help patients navigate a complex healthcare system. This may include care coordination navigation, peer navigation, and delivering services in community settings.

Such interventions don’t only benefit marginalized groups but help improve healthcare access and outcomes for everyone, she said. Even people with insurance and high health literacy often struggle to remain engaged.

“When we design healthcare systems to best serve those that have been left furthest behind, we all do better,” Suneja said.



The study was funded by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute. Suneja and Meldrum reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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