One year after a single treatment of cellulite with the Rapid Acoustic Pulse (RAP) device, 42 out of 43 patients said that they felt good about the results, an interim analysis from a multicenter study showed.

Iuliia Mikhalitskaia/Getty Images

“I think this speaks to the duration of improvement” associated with this treatment, lead study author Elizabeth L. Tanzi, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

The study is an extension of a prospective pivotal clinical trial that Dr. Tanzi first presented during late-breaking abstract session at the 2020 virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. For the trial, she and her colleagues at four sites evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the RAP device in 62 women who were treated with a single, rapid acoustic pulse treatment comprised of 1-2 minutes on each identified dimple or large ridge of cellulite. In February 2021, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the device for the short-term improvement in the appearance of cellulite.

“The high peak pressure and fast repetition rate of this device will exploit the viscoelastic tissue compared to other acoustic wave devices that are on the market,” said Dr. Tanzi, associate clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “Those compressed pulses from electronic filtering and reflector shape eliminate cavitation, heat, and pain. So, what we see physically is fiber septa disruption, as well as other nonthermal physical effects.”

She and her colleagues used a specific photography and fixed lighting setup to record the treated areas at baseline, 12 weeks, and 52 weeks, and administered a patient satisfaction questionnaire at 12 and 52 weeks. Prior to treatment, the investigators marked the dimples and ridges intended for treatment. After placing a hydrogel dressing, it took 45-60 minutes to treat both buttocks and thighs with the RAP device. “It was completely noninvasive,” said Dr. Tanzi, who practices in Chevy Chase, Md. “There was no anesthesia used: no incisions and no needles.”

Among 57 patients who were evaluated at 12 weeks, the pain score on a scale of 0-10 was 2.4, while 61.5% strongly agreed and 35.9% agreed that their cellulite appeared improved. In addition, three blinded assessors were able to correctly identify the treated thigh 96% of the time and physician-graded Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale assessments showed 90% improvement of cellulite.

Follow-up analysis

For the current subject satisfaction analysis, the investigators evaluated results from 43 patients in the trial who were followed for at least 52 weeks (a mean of 60 weeks). Of the 43 patients, 30 (69.8%) strongly agreed and 13 (30.2%) agreed that their cellulite “appears improved.” In addition, 29 (67.4%) strongly agreed, 13 (30.2%) agreed, and 1 (2.3%) disagreed with the statement “I feel there is good improvement” of their cellulite.

“Currently, we are evaluating the blinded assessors’ view of these patients and not just going with [findings from] the patient satisfaction survey, but I think these are encouraging results,” Dr. Tanzi said. “We found that 42 out of 43 patients said, ‘yes; I feel that there was good improvement of the area at 52 weeks.’ ”

Dr. Tanzi disclosed that she is a member of the speakers bureau for Eucerin. She is a member of the advisory board for Allergan, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Pulse Biosciences, Sciton, and Soliton. Soliton markets the RAP device.

[email protected]

One year after a single treatment of cellulite with the Rapid Acoustic Pulse (RAP) device, 42 out of 43 patients said that they felt good about the results, an interim analysis from a multicenter study showed.

Iuliia Mikhalitskaia/Getty Images

“I think this speaks to the duration of improvement” associated with this treatment, lead study author Elizabeth L. Tanzi, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

The study is an extension of a prospective pivotal clinical trial that Dr. Tanzi first presented during late-breaking abstract session at the 2020 virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. For the trial, she and her colleagues at four sites evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the RAP device in 62 women who were treated with a single, rapid acoustic pulse treatment comprised of 1-2 minutes on each identified dimple or large ridge of cellulite. In February 2021, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the device for the short-term improvement in the appearance of cellulite.

“The high peak pressure and fast repetition rate of this device will exploit the viscoelastic tissue compared to other acoustic wave devices that are on the market,” said Dr. Tanzi, associate clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “Those compressed pulses from electronic filtering and reflector shape eliminate cavitation, heat, and pain. So, what we see physically is fiber septa disruption, as well as other nonthermal physical effects.”

She and her colleagues used a specific photography and fixed lighting setup to record the treated areas at baseline, 12 weeks, and 52 weeks, and administered a patient satisfaction questionnaire at 12 and 52 weeks. Prior to treatment, the investigators marked the dimples and ridges intended for treatment. After placing a hydrogel dressing, it took 45-60 minutes to treat both buttocks and thighs with the RAP device. “It was completely noninvasive,” said Dr. Tanzi, who practices in Chevy Chase, Md. “There was no anesthesia used: no incisions and no needles.”

Among 57 patients who were evaluated at 12 weeks, the pain score on a scale of 0-10 was 2.4, while 61.5% strongly agreed and 35.9% agreed that their cellulite appeared improved. In addition, three blinded assessors were able to correctly identify the treated thigh 96% of the time and physician-graded Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale assessments showed 90% improvement of cellulite.

Follow-up analysis

For the current subject satisfaction analysis, the investigators evaluated results from 43 patients in the trial who were followed for at least 52 weeks (a mean of 60 weeks). Of the 43 patients, 30 (69.8%) strongly agreed and 13 (30.2%) agreed that their cellulite “appears improved.” In addition, 29 (67.4%) strongly agreed, 13 (30.2%) agreed, and 1 (2.3%) disagreed with the statement “I feel there is good improvement” of their cellulite.

“Currently, we are evaluating the blinded assessors’ view of these patients and not just going with [findings from] the patient satisfaction survey, but I think these are encouraging results,” Dr. Tanzi said. “We found that 42 out of 43 patients said, ‘yes; I feel that there was good improvement of the area at 52 weeks.’ ”

Dr. Tanzi disclosed that she is a member of the speakers bureau for Eucerin. She is a member of the advisory board for Allergan, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Pulse Biosciences, Sciton, and Soliton. Soliton markets the RAP device.

[email protected]

One year after a single treatment of cellulite with the Rapid Acoustic Pulse (RAP) device, 42 out of 43 patients said that they felt good about the results, an interim analysis from a multicenter study showed.

Iuliia Mikhalitskaia/Getty Images

“I think this speaks to the duration of improvement” associated with this treatment, lead study author Elizabeth L. Tanzi, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

The study is an extension of a prospective pivotal clinical trial that Dr. Tanzi first presented during late-breaking abstract session at the 2020 virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. For the trial, she and her colleagues at four sites evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the RAP device in 62 women who were treated with a single, rapid acoustic pulse treatment comprised of 1-2 minutes on each identified dimple or large ridge of cellulite. In February 2021, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the device for the short-term improvement in the appearance of cellulite.

“The high peak pressure and fast repetition rate of this device will exploit the viscoelastic tissue compared to other acoustic wave devices that are on the market,” said Dr. Tanzi, associate clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “Those compressed pulses from electronic filtering and reflector shape eliminate cavitation, heat, and pain. So, what we see physically is fiber septa disruption, as well as other nonthermal physical effects.”

She and her colleagues used a specific photography and fixed lighting setup to record the treated areas at baseline, 12 weeks, and 52 weeks, and administered a patient satisfaction questionnaire at 12 and 52 weeks. Prior to treatment, the investigators marked the dimples and ridges intended for treatment. After placing a hydrogel dressing, it took 45-60 minutes to treat both buttocks and thighs with the RAP device. “It was completely noninvasive,” said Dr. Tanzi, who practices in Chevy Chase, Md. “There was no anesthesia used: no incisions and no needles.”

Among 57 patients who were evaluated at 12 weeks, the pain score on a scale of 0-10 was 2.4, while 61.5% strongly agreed and 35.9% agreed that their cellulite appeared improved. In addition, three blinded assessors were able to correctly identify the treated thigh 96% of the time and physician-graded Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale assessments showed 90% improvement of cellulite.

Follow-up analysis

For the current subject satisfaction analysis, the investigators evaluated results from 43 patients in the trial who were followed for at least 52 weeks (a mean of 60 weeks). Of the 43 patients, 30 (69.8%) strongly agreed and 13 (30.2%) agreed that their cellulite “appears improved.” In addition, 29 (67.4%) strongly agreed, 13 (30.2%) agreed, and 1 (2.3%) disagreed with the statement “I feel there is good improvement” of their cellulite.

“Currently, we are evaluating the blinded assessors’ view of these patients and not just going with [findings from] the patient satisfaction survey, but I think these are encouraging results,” Dr. Tanzi said. “We found that 42 out of 43 patients said, ‘yes; I feel that there was good improvement of the area at 52 weeks.’ ”

Dr. Tanzi disclosed that she is a member of the speakers bureau for Eucerin. She is a member of the advisory board for Allergan, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Pulse Biosciences, Sciton, and Soliton. Soliton markets the RAP device.

[email protected]

In 2020, the world was rocked by a global pandemic; our response was to provide COVID-19 community service grants to some of the most vulnerable populations. The CHEST Foundation, with support from donors and the Feldman Family Foundation, was able to provide $120,000 to support communities in need of essential items. Personal protective equipment, cleaning supplies, emergency food purchases, and more were purchased with these grants to aid communities disproportionately affected by the pandemic.

Without you, these grants would not have been possible. CHEST’s NetWorks worked all summer of 2020 to raise funds to make a tangible impact on at-risk communities in the wake of the pandemic. We’re counting on you again to help us raise money this year for more community service grants.

The NetWorks Challenge 2021 will fund community-based projects focused on health disparities and disproportionately underserved communities. Get ready to compete in the challenge to directly make an impact on those who could otherwise not afford access to health care.

This offering, dubbed Rita’s Fund, will award $2,500 to $10,000 to community-based projects providing resources to individuals to drastically change their quality of life. Medical equipment, transportation, and technology access aren’t available to all, but through this grant, they will be provided to those who need it most.

Rita’s Fund originated after hearing the story of Rita Castro during the virtual Listening Tour and our initiative to listen and identify barriers to trust, access, and equity in our most underserved communities. The CHEST Foundation was inspired by her story, as she was fighting a rapidly progressing lung condition with no support. Through donations she was able to receive the care she needed, and her diagnosis improved.

Your work during the NetWorks Challenge will help fund grants through Rita’s Fund and travel grants to attend this year’s CHEST Annual Meeting. We need your help to ensure individuals like Rita have access to better health and resources they can trust.

To learn more about this initiative and this year’s NetWorks Challenge, visit the CHEST Foundation’s website at https://foundation.chestnet.org.

In 2020, the world was rocked by a global pandemic; our response was to provide COVID-19 community service grants to some of the most vulnerable populations. The CHEST Foundation, with support from donors and the Feldman Family Foundation, was able to provide $120,000 to support communities in need of essential items. Personal protective equipment, cleaning supplies, emergency food purchases, and more were purchased with these grants to aid communities disproportionately affected by the pandemic.

Without you, these grants would not have been possible. CHEST’s NetWorks worked all summer of 2020 to raise funds to make a tangible impact on at-risk communities in the wake of the pandemic. We’re counting on you again to help us raise money this year for more community service grants.

The NetWorks Challenge 2021 will fund community-based projects focused on health disparities and disproportionately underserved communities. Get ready to compete in the challenge to directly make an impact on those who could otherwise not afford access to health care.

This offering, dubbed Rita’s Fund, will award $2,500 to $10,000 to community-based projects providing resources to individuals to drastically change their quality of life. Medical equipment, transportation, and technology access aren’t available to all, but through this grant, they will be provided to those who need it most.

Rita’s Fund originated after hearing the story of Rita Castro during the virtual Listening Tour and our initiative to listen and identify barriers to trust, access, and equity in our most underserved communities. The CHEST Foundation was inspired by her story, as she was fighting a rapidly progressing lung condition with no support. Through donations she was able to receive the care she needed, and her diagnosis improved.

Your work during the NetWorks Challenge will help fund grants through Rita’s Fund and travel grants to attend this year’s CHEST Annual Meeting. We need your help to ensure individuals like Rita have access to better health and resources they can trust.

To learn more about this initiative and this year’s NetWorks Challenge, visit the CHEST Foundation’s website at https://foundation.chestnet.org.

In 2020, the world was rocked by a global pandemic; our response was to provide COVID-19 community service grants to some of the most vulnerable populations. The CHEST Foundation, with support from donors and the Feldman Family Foundation, was able to provide $120,000 to support communities in need of essential items. Personal protective equipment, cleaning supplies, emergency food purchases, and more were purchased with these grants to aid communities disproportionately affected by the pandemic.

Without you, these grants would not have been possible. CHEST’s NetWorks worked all summer of 2020 to raise funds to make a tangible impact on at-risk communities in the wake of the pandemic. We’re counting on you again to help us raise money this year for more community service grants.

The NetWorks Challenge 2021 will fund community-based projects focused on health disparities and disproportionately underserved communities. Get ready to compete in the challenge to directly make an impact on those who could otherwise not afford access to health care.

This offering, dubbed Rita’s Fund, will award $2,500 to $10,000 to community-based projects providing resources to individuals to drastically change their quality of life. Medical equipment, transportation, and technology access aren’t available to all, but through this grant, they will be provided to those who need it most.

Rita’s Fund originated after hearing the story of Rita Castro during the virtual Listening Tour and our initiative to listen and identify barriers to trust, access, and equity in our most underserved communities. The CHEST Foundation was inspired by her story, as she was fighting a rapidly progressing lung condition with no support. Through donations she was able to receive the care she needed, and her diagnosis improved.

Your work during the NetWorks Challenge will help fund grants through Rita’s Fund and travel grants to attend this year’s CHEST Annual Meeting. We need your help to ensure individuals like Rita have access to better health and resources they can trust.

To learn more about this initiative and this year’s NetWorks Challenge, visit the CHEST Foundation’s website at https://foundation.chestnet.org.

A new survey of sexual harassment among U.S. oncologists has found that 70% reported incidents from peers and/or supervisors in the previous 12 months.

The incidence was higher among women than men (80% vs. 56%), a difference that was statistically significant (P < .0001).

However, after experiencing sexual harassment from coworkers, men and women were alike in terms of reporting similarly negative outcomes in mental health, sense of safety, and turnover intentions (e.g., leaving or quitting).

“Our findings demonstrate that the impact of sexual harassment on both men and women is tangible and is not different,” said lead author Ishwaria Subbiah, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, during her presentation of the study on June 5 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2021. The meeting was held virtually because of the pandemic.

“The survey’s recall period [about harassment] was in the previous 12 months. The respondents weren’t reflecting on a lifetime of events,” Dr. Subbiah said in an interview. “That’s part of what makes the findings that much more sobering.”

The release of the survey results roughly coincided with a furor within oncology circles over details that have now come to light about Axel Grothey, MD, a high-profile medical oncologist who was forced out of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., after having unethical sexual relations with mentees – only to move on to another major center with more mentees.

The new survey, which included 153 women and 118 men, was conducted in 2020.

Overall, 69% of respondents reported gender-based harassment, 17% reported unwanted sexual attention, and 3% reported sexual coercion from peers/supervisors. For the three types of sexual harassment, women reported higher rates of incidence; the greatest proportional disparity was in unwanted sexual attention (22% of women vs. 9% of men).

The types of sexual harassment are defined in a landmark 2018 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Gender harassment is nonverbal or verbal behaviors that are hostile, objectifying, and excluding of or conveying second-class status about a gender. Unwanted sexual attention is advances, including touching, and seeking a sexual relationship despite discouragement. Sexual coercion involves seeking compliance with sexual demands by making job-related threats or promising job-related benefits.

The commonality in the three harassments is their being “unwanted,” Dr. Subbiah explained.

Another commonality is that “sexual harassment is a tool of power that one person yields over another,” commented Marina Stasenko, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

Dr. Stasenko led a 2018 study that found that 64% of U.S. gynecologic oncologists reported sexual harassment during training or practice, a much longer recall period than the 1 year in Dr. Subbiah’s study.

However, things may be changing regarding sexual harassment – at least in terms of victims speaking out, said Dr. Stasenko. Perhaps discussing personal experience “is becoming less taboo,” she told this news organization. “The media spotlight on sexual harassment within medicine has been bright [recently].”

That was borne out last week – a number of oncologists who had been harassed told their stories on Twitter in reaction to the report about Dr. Grothey at one of America’s top medical centers. Also, in another sign of the moment, an academic oncologist publicly said that rumors about Dr. Grothey were long-standing. “Heard from many colleagues that this behavior was known in the field and went on for years. Years,” tweeted Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Other outcomes seem to make Dr. Grothey’s behavior at Mayo, which multiple oncologists said has occurred at every center, a watershed moment. Namely, he has been muted or dismissed by an array of organizations since the story broke.

ASCO disallowed Dr. Grothey from making presentations at the annual meeting (he was an author on 12 studies), the National Cancer Institute removed him from his position as co-chair of an influential steering committee that helps determine grant funding for research, and the OneOncology community care network dropped him as medical director of their research arm, as reported by The Cancer Letter. He was also removed from the OncoAlert Network, a global network of oncology professionals, and from the medical advisory board of Fight CRC, an advocacy group for patients with colorectal cancer, as reported by this news organization. His current employer, West Cancer Center, in Germantown, Tennessee, has also started an investigation.

In her presentation, Dr. Subbiah acknowledged a changing landscape, with “increasing attention in recent years” to sexual harassment thanks to the “broader cultural movements” of #metoo and #TIMESUP social media–based campaigns.

Another oncologist nodded to the recent news about Dr. Grothey at the Mayo Clinic and suggested Dr. Subbiah’s study was part of a historic struggle for equity for women. “Sadly, both timely and timeless,” tweeted medical oncologist Tatiana Prowell, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, about the new study.
 

Academia has a problem

To conduct their survey, Dr. Subbiah and her coinvestigators reached out to 1,000 randomly selected U.S. members of ASCO via the organization’s research survey pool, as well as through Twitter and Facebook. The invitation to participate described the survey as being about the “workplace experience of oncologists” and that it aimed to mitigate response bias.

Of the 271 survey respondents, 250 were oncologists in practice and 21 were residents/fellows. Nearly all were heterosexual (94%) and U.S. citizens (87%). A majority (53%) were White, 35% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 11% were Black or Hispanic. Most (68%) were more than 5 years out from training.

Most of the respondents (62%) were from academia.

“There is a big problem of sexual harassment in academic medicine,” said Pamela Kunz, MD, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., who was asked for comment. Dr. Kunz left Stanford University in 2020 after 19 years, citing repeated harassment.

“The institutions tend to protect the brand rather than the victim. Perpetrators are often not disciplined and may leave an institution under cover of a resignation only to go on and receive a better leadership role at another institution,” she said in an interview.

A “revolution” is needed to address the problem, Dr. Kunz said, citing needs to routinely discuss the topic, systems to measure and track it, methods to hold perpetrators accountable, and meaningful educational opportunities.
 

Harassment from patients/families also tallied

The new survey also queried participants with regard to sexual harassment from patients and/or families, which was reported by 67% of women and 35% of men (P < .0001).

As with harassment from peers/supervisors, gender harassment was the most common form and was reported by significantly higher percentages of women.

And as with coworkers, sexual harassment from patients/families was also significantly associated with detriments to mental health, workplace safety, and turnover intentions.

Sexual harassment from “insiders” (P = .001) but not patients (P = .55) was significantly associated with a decrease in a fourth metric in the study – job satisfaction.

“The goal of medicine and oncology is ‘ultimately to ease suffering,’” Dr. Subbiah said. That holds true for workplace wellness, including addressing harassment. “There should be no hesitation to go there and look at what is truly impacting the workplace,” she said.

“This is a difficult topic,” Dr. Subbiah acknowledged, adding that “the findings are sobering and merit open, global conversation among all oncology stakeholders.”

The study authors, Dr. Ganz, and Dr. Stasenko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new survey of sexual harassment among U.S. oncologists has found that 70% reported incidents from peers and/or supervisors in the previous 12 months.

The incidence was higher among women than men (80% vs. 56%), a difference that was statistically significant (P < .0001).

However, after experiencing sexual harassment from coworkers, men and women were alike in terms of reporting similarly negative outcomes in mental health, sense of safety, and turnover intentions (e.g., leaving or quitting).

“Our findings demonstrate that the impact of sexual harassment on both men and women is tangible and is not different,” said lead author Ishwaria Subbiah, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, during her presentation of the study on June 5 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2021. The meeting was held virtually because of the pandemic.

“The survey’s recall period [about harassment] was in the previous 12 months. The respondents weren’t reflecting on a lifetime of events,” Dr. Subbiah said in an interview. “That’s part of what makes the findings that much more sobering.”

The release of the survey results roughly coincided with a furor within oncology circles over details that have now come to light about Axel Grothey, MD, a high-profile medical oncologist who was forced out of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., after having unethical sexual relations with mentees – only to move on to another major center with more mentees.

The new survey, which included 153 women and 118 men, was conducted in 2020.

Overall, 69% of respondents reported gender-based harassment, 17% reported unwanted sexual attention, and 3% reported sexual coercion from peers/supervisors. For the three types of sexual harassment, women reported higher rates of incidence; the greatest proportional disparity was in unwanted sexual attention (22% of women vs. 9% of men).

The types of sexual harassment are defined in a landmark 2018 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Gender harassment is nonverbal or verbal behaviors that are hostile, objectifying, and excluding of or conveying second-class status about a gender. Unwanted sexual attention is advances, including touching, and seeking a sexual relationship despite discouragement. Sexual coercion involves seeking compliance with sexual demands by making job-related threats or promising job-related benefits.

The commonality in the three harassments is their being “unwanted,” Dr. Subbiah explained.

Another commonality is that “sexual harassment is a tool of power that one person yields over another,” commented Marina Stasenko, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

Dr. Stasenko led a 2018 study that found that 64% of U.S. gynecologic oncologists reported sexual harassment during training or practice, a much longer recall period than the 1 year in Dr. Subbiah’s study.

However, things may be changing regarding sexual harassment – at least in terms of victims speaking out, said Dr. Stasenko. Perhaps discussing personal experience “is becoming less taboo,” she told this news organization. “The media spotlight on sexual harassment within medicine has been bright [recently].”

That was borne out last week – a number of oncologists who had been harassed told their stories on Twitter in reaction to the report about Dr. Grothey at one of America’s top medical centers. Also, in another sign of the moment, an academic oncologist publicly said that rumors about Dr. Grothey were long-standing. “Heard from many colleagues that this behavior was known in the field and went on for years. Years,” tweeted Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Other outcomes seem to make Dr. Grothey’s behavior at Mayo, which multiple oncologists said has occurred at every center, a watershed moment. Namely, he has been muted or dismissed by an array of organizations since the story broke.

ASCO disallowed Dr. Grothey from making presentations at the annual meeting (he was an author on 12 studies), the National Cancer Institute removed him from his position as co-chair of an influential steering committee that helps determine grant funding for research, and the OneOncology community care network dropped him as medical director of their research arm, as reported by The Cancer Letter. He was also removed from the OncoAlert Network, a global network of oncology professionals, and from the medical advisory board of Fight CRC, an advocacy group for patients with colorectal cancer, as reported by this news organization. His current employer, West Cancer Center, in Germantown, Tennessee, has also started an investigation.

In her presentation, Dr. Subbiah acknowledged a changing landscape, with “increasing attention in recent years” to sexual harassment thanks to the “broader cultural movements” of #metoo and #TIMESUP social media–based campaigns.

Another oncologist nodded to the recent news about Dr. Grothey at the Mayo Clinic and suggested Dr. Subbiah’s study was part of a historic struggle for equity for women. “Sadly, both timely and timeless,” tweeted medical oncologist Tatiana Prowell, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, about the new study.
 

Academia has a problem

To conduct their survey, Dr. Subbiah and her coinvestigators reached out to 1,000 randomly selected U.S. members of ASCO via the organization’s research survey pool, as well as through Twitter and Facebook. The invitation to participate described the survey as being about the “workplace experience of oncologists” and that it aimed to mitigate response bias.

Of the 271 survey respondents, 250 were oncologists in practice and 21 were residents/fellows. Nearly all were heterosexual (94%) and U.S. citizens (87%). A majority (53%) were White, 35% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 11% were Black or Hispanic. Most (68%) were more than 5 years out from training.

Most of the respondents (62%) were from academia.

“There is a big problem of sexual harassment in academic medicine,” said Pamela Kunz, MD, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., who was asked for comment. Dr. Kunz left Stanford University in 2020 after 19 years, citing repeated harassment.

“The institutions tend to protect the brand rather than the victim. Perpetrators are often not disciplined and may leave an institution under cover of a resignation only to go on and receive a better leadership role at another institution,” she said in an interview.

A “revolution” is needed to address the problem, Dr. Kunz said, citing needs to routinely discuss the topic, systems to measure and track it, methods to hold perpetrators accountable, and meaningful educational opportunities.
 

Harassment from patients/families also tallied

The new survey also queried participants with regard to sexual harassment from patients and/or families, which was reported by 67% of women and 35% of men (P < .0001).

As with harassment from peers/supervisors, gender harassment was the most common form and was reported by significantly higher percentages of women.

And as with coworkers, sexual harassment from patients/families was also significantly associated with detriments to mental health, workplace safety, and turnover intentions.

Sexual harassment from “insiders” (P = .001) but not patients (P = .55) was significantly associated with a decrease in a fourth metric in the study – job satisfaction.

“The goal of medicine and oncology is ‘ultimately to ease suffering,’” Dr. Subbiah said. That holds true for workplace wellness, including addressing harassment. “There should be no hesitation to go there and look at what is truly impacting the workplace,” she said.

“This is a difficult topic,” Dr. Subbiah acknowledged, adding that “the findings are sobering and merit open, global conversation among all oncology stakeholders.”

The study authors, Dr. Ganz, and Dr. Stasenko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new survey of sexual harassment among U.S. oncologists has found that 70% reported incidents from peers and/or supervisors in the previous 12 months.

The incidence was higher among women than men (80% vs. 56%), a difference that was statistically significant (P < .0001).

However, after experiencing sexual harassment from coworkers, men and women were alike in terms of reporting similarly negative outcomes in mental health, sense of safety, and turnover intentions (e.g., leaving or quitting).

“Our findings demonstrate that the impact of sexual harassment on both men and women is tangible and is not different,” said lead author Ishwaria Subbiah, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, during her presentation of the study on June 5 at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2021. The meeting was held virtually because of the pandemic.

“The survey’s recall period [about harassment] was in the previous 12 months. The respondents weren’t reflecting on a lifetime of events,” Dr. Subbiah said in an interview. “That’s part of what makes the findings that much more sobering.”

The release of the survey results roughly coincided with a furor within oncology circles over details that have now come to light about Axel Grothey, MD, a high-profile medical oncologist who was forced out of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., after having unethical sexual relations with mentees – only to move on to another major center with more mentees.

The new survey, which included 153 women and 118 men, was conducted in 2020.

Overall, 69% of respondents reported gender-based harassment, 17% reported unwanted sexual attention, and 3% reported sexual coercion from peers/supervisors. For the three types of sexual harassment, women reported higher rates of incidence; the greatest proportional disparity was in unwanted sexual attention (22% of women vs. 9% of men).

The types of sexual harassment are defined in a landmark 2018 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Gender harassment is nonverbal or verbal behaviors that are hostile, objectifying, and excluding of or conveying second-class status about a gender. Unwanted sexual attention is advances, including touching, and seeking a sexual relationship despite discouragement. Sexual coercion involves seeking compliance with sexual demands by making job-related threats or promising job-related benefits.

The commonality in the three harassments is their being “unwanted,” Dr. Subbiah explained.

Another commonality is that “sexual harassment is a tool of power that one person yields over another,” commented Marina Stasenko, MD, a gynecologic oncologist at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center.

Dr. Stasenko led a 2018 study that found that 64% of U.S. gynecologic oncologists reported sexual harassment during training or practice, a much longer recall period than the 1 year in Dr. Subbiah’s study.

However, things may be changing regarding sexual harassment – at least in terms of victims speaking out, said Dr. Stasenko. Perhaps discussing personal experience “is becoming less taboo,” she told this news organization. “The media spotlight on sexual harassment within medicine has been bright [recently].”

That was borne out last week – a number of oncologists who had been harassed told their stories on Twitter in reaction to the report about Dr. Grothey at one of America’s top medical centers. Also, in another sign of the moment, an academic oncologist publicly said that rumors about Dr. Grothey were long-standing. “Heard from many colleagues that this behavior was known in the field and went on for years. Years,” tweeted Charu Aggarwal, MD, MPH, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Other outcomes seem to make Dr. Grothey’s behavior at Mayo, which multiple oncologists said has occurred at every center, a watershed moment. Namely, he has been muted or dismissed by an array of organizations since the story broke.

ASCO disallowed Dr. Grothey from making presentations at the annual meeting (he was an author on 12 studies), the National Cancer Institute removed him from his position as co-chair of an influential steering committee that helps determine grant funding for research, and the OneOncology community care network dropped him as medical director of their research arm, as reported by The Cancer Letter. He was also removed from the OncoAlert Network, a global network of oncology professionals, and from the medical advisory board of Fight CRC, an advocacy group for patients with colorectal cancer, as reported by this news organization. His current employer, West Cancer Center, in Germantown, Tennessee, has also started an investigation.

In her presentation, Dr. Subbiah acknowledged a changing landscape, with “increasing attention in recent years” to sexual harassment thanks to the “broader cultural movements” of #metoo and #TIMESUP social media–based campaigns.

Another oncologist nodded to the recent news about Dr. Grothey at the Mayo Clinic and suggested Dr. Subbiah’s study was part of a historic struggle for equity for women. “Sadly, both timely and timeless,” tweeted medical oncologist Tatiana Prowell, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, about the new study.
 

Academia has a problem

To conduct their survey, Dr. Subbiah and her coinvestigators reached out to 1,000 randomly selected U.S. members of ASCO via the organization’s research survey pool, as well as through Twitter and Facebook. The invitation to participate described the survey as being about the “workplace experience of oncologists” and that it aimed to mitigate response bias.

Of the 271 survey respondents, 250 were oncologists in practice and 21 were residents/fellows. Nearly all were heterosexual (94%) and U.S. citizens (87%). A majority (53%) were White, 35% were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 11% were Black or Hispanic. Most (68%) were more than 5 years out from training.

Most of the respondents (62%) were from academia.

“There is a big problem of sexual harassment in academic medicine,” said Pamela Kunz, MD, of Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, Conn., who was asked for comment. Dr. Kunz left Stanford University in 2020 after 19 years, citing repeated harassment.

“The institutions tend to protect the brand rather than the victim. Perpetrators are often not disciplined and may leave an institution under cover of a resignation only to go on and receive a better leadership role at another institution,” she said in an interview.

A “revolution” is needed to address the problem, Dr. Kunz said, citing needs to routinely discuss the topic, systems to measure and track it, methods to hold perpetrators accountable, and meaningful educational opportunities.
 

Harassment from patients/families also tallied

The new survey also queried participants with regard to sexual harassment from patients and/or families, which was reported by 67% of women and 35% of men (P < .0001).

As with harassment from peers/supervisors, gender harassment was the most common form and was reported by significantly higher percentages of women.

And as with coworkers, sexual harassment from patients/families was also significantly associated with detriments to mental health, workplace safety, and turnover intentions.

Sexual harassment from “insiders” (P = .001) but not patients (P = .55) was significantly associated with a decrease in a fourth metric in the study – job satisfaction.

“The goal of medicine and oncology is ‘ultimately to ease suffering,’” Dr. Subbiah said. That holds true for workplace wellness, including addressing harassment. “There should be no hesitation to go there and look at what is truly impacting the workplace,” she said.

“This is a difficult topic,” Dr. Subbiah acknowledged, adding that “the findings are sobering and merit open, global conversation among all oncology stakeholders.”

The study authors, Dr. Ganz, and Dr. Stasenko have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Music has to be one of humanity’s most unique traits, and, at the same time, one of neurology’s greatest mysteries.

Where did it come from, and why? Rhythmic sounds are part of the universe, from heartbeats to spinning pulsars. Somehow, though, they became ingrained into the very structure of our brains to where having music around is part of our existence.

When it started, we can only guess. The first known musical instrument is a flute carved from bear bone, made 67,000 years ago, but music is certainly older. The first instruments were probably clapped hands, then rocks and sticks.

Tens of thousands of cultures have developed over the course of human history. And, to date, not a single one is known that didn’t have music.

It takes energy to create music, too: to make and play instruments, think of songs, sing ... So at some point having music became an evolutionary advantage of some sort (one can imagine Bill and Ted saying “Dude, chicks dig it”) or it wouldn’t have lasted. Then, as people spread out, music forms got mixed and matched among cultures. Always changing, never leaving, and now somehow woven into the DNA of our brains.

The physics principles behind music are limited and simple: percussion, a vibrating string, air movement in a tube ... But from such simple things the human brain has adapted thousands of natural, and now synthetic, objects, to create an endless variety of unique sounds.

There are plenty of articles out there about how music can be relaxing or stimulating, capable of distracting you or helping you concentrate. Music can help you forget a bad day or remember a good one. They talk about PET scans and cortical activation and many other interesting things that show the effect of music on the remarkable human brain.

But at some level it doesn’t matter to me. I don’t try to understand music any more than I try to understand my dogs. I just know I couldn’t live without either. I’m not alone. Look around you: How many people on the train, or plane, or in the gym have earbuds on?

I have iTunes on my office computer, with roughly 5,000 songs covering the majority of genres from classical to rock. It’s the first program I switch on early each morning when I start the day. It gets me focused on the work at hand, and adds an enjoyable element to the day.

I’m not a musician. I took a few guitar lessons as a kid, but never really learned it. I used to joke that the only instrument I could play was the stereo (now I guess it’s iTunes). Coming from a maternal line of excellent musicians, it’s embarrassing to admit my lack of talent. But my inability to perform it myself doesn’t keep me from enjoying it.

There is no better example of the remarkable human memory than its ability to instantly recall the lyrics of songs you haven’t heard for 20, 30, 40, or more years. A few notes and it’s like you heard them yesterday. At this point, almost 30 years since my medical school graduation, I’ve likely forgotten a large portion of what I learned there. But 70s or 80s pop from my youth? Still there, and immediately recalled.

We process music everywhere – at stores, in elevators, in the car – without realizing it, like driving down the street and automatically reading signs as we pass them. But no matter where it is in our level of realization at the time, it’s a key part of our everyday lives.

Another marvel of the remarkable human brain.

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

Music has to be one of humanity’s most unique traits, and, at the same time, one of neurology’s greatest mysteries.

Where did it come from, and why? Rhythmic sounds are part of the universe, from heartbeats to spinning pulsars. Somehow, though, they became ingrained into the very structure of our brains to where having music around is part of our existence.

When it started, we can only guess. The first known musical instrument is a flute carved from bear bone, made 67,000 years ago, but music is certainly older. The first instruments were probably clapped hands, then rocks and sticks.

Tens of thousands of cultures have developed over the course of human history. And, to date, not a single one is known that didn’t have music.

It takes energy to create music, too: to make and play instruments, think of songs, sing ... So at some point having music became an evolutionary advantage of some sort (one can imagine Bill and Ted saying “Dude, chicks dig it”) or it wouldn’t have lasted. Then, as people spread out, music forms got mixed and matched among cultures. Always changing, never leaving, and now somehow woven into the DNA of our brains.

The physics principles behind music are limited and simple: percussion, a vibrating string, air movement in a tube ... But from such simple things the human brain has adapted thousands of natural, and now synthetic, objects, to create an endless variety of unique sounds.

There are plenty of articles out there about how music can be relaxing or stimulating, capable of distracting you or helping you concentrate. Music can help you forget a bad day or remember a good one. They talk about PET scans and cortical activation and many other interesting things that show the effect of music on the remarkable human brain.

But at some level it doesn’t matter to me. I don’t try to understand music any more than I try to understand my dogs. I just know I couldn’t live without either. I’m not alone. Look around you: How many people on the train, or plane, or in the gym have earbuds on?

I have iTunes on my office computer, with roughly 5,000 songs covering the majority of genres from classical to rock. It’s the first program I switch on early each morning when I start the day. It gets me focused on the work at hand, and adds an enjoyable element to the day.

I’m not a musician. I took a few guitar lessons as a kid, but never really learned it. I used to joke that the only instrument I could play was the stereo (now I guess it’s iTunes). Coming from a maternal line of excellent musicians, it’s embarrassing to admit my lack of talent. But my inability to perform it myself doesn’t keep me from enjoying it.

There is no better example of the remarkable human memory than its ability to instantly recall the lyrics of songs you haven’t heard for 20, 30, 40, or more years. A few notes and it’s like you heard them yesterday. At this point, almost 30 years since my medical school graduation, I’ve likely forgotten a large portion of what I learned there. But 70s or 80s pop from my youth? Still there, and immediately recalled.

We process music everywhere – at stores, in elevators, in the car – without realizing it, like driving down the street and automatically reading signs as we pass them. But no matter where it is in our level of realization at the time, it’s a key part of our everyday lives.

Another marvel of the remarkable human brain.

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

Music has to be one of humanity’s most unique traits, and, at the same time, one of neurology’s greatest mysteries.

Where did it come from, and why? Rhythmic sounds are part of the universe, from heartbeats to spinning pulsars. Somehow, though, they became ingrained into the very structure of our brains to where having music around is part of our existence.

When it started, we can only guess. The first known musical instrument is a flute carved from bear bone, made 67,000 years ago, but music is certainly older. The first instruments were probably clapped hands, then rocks and sticks.

Tens of thousands of cultures have developed over the course of human history. And, to date, not a single one is known that didn’t have music.

It takes energy to create music, too: to make and play instruments, think of songs, sing ... So at some point having music became an evolutionary advantage of some sort (one can imagine Bill and Ted saying “Dude, chicks dig it”) or it wouldn’t have lasted. Then, as people spread out, music forms got mixed and matched among cultures. Always changing, never leaving, and now somehow woven into the DNA of our brains.

The physics principles behind music are limited and simple: percussion, a vibrating string, air movement in a tube ... But from such simple things the human brain has adapted thousands of natural, and now synthetic, objects, to create an endless variety of unique sounds.

There are plenty of articles out there about how music can be relaxing or stimulating, capable of distracting you or helping you concentrate. Music can help you forget a bad day or remember a good one. They talk about PET scans and cortical activation and many other interesting things that show the effect of music on the remarkable human brain.

But at some level it doesn’t matter to me. I don’t try to understand music any more than I try to understand my dogs. I just know I couldn’t live without either. I’m not alone. Look around you: How many people on the train, or plane, or in the gym have earbuds on?

I have iTunes on my office computer, with roughly 5,000 songs covering the majority of genres from classical to rock. It’s the first program I switch on early each morning when I start the day. It gets me focused on the work at hand, and adds an enjoyable element to the day.

I’m not a musician. I took a few guitar lessons as a kid, but never really learned it. I used to joke that the only instrument I could play was the stereo (now I guess it’s iTunes). Coming from a maternal line of excellent musicians, it’s embarrassing to admit my lack of talent. But my inability to perform it myself doesn’t keep me from enjoying it.

There is no better example of the remarkable human memory than its ability to instantly recall the lyrics of songs you haven’t heard for 20, 30, 40, or more years. A few notes and it’s like you heard them yesterday. At this point, almost 30 years since my medical school graduation, I’ve likely forgotten a large portion of what I learned there. But 70s or 80s pop from my youth? Still there, and immediately recalled.

We process music everywhere – at stores, in elevators, in the car – without realizing it, like driving down the street and automatically reading signs as we pass them. But no matter where it is in our level of realization at the time, it’s a key part of our everyday lives.

Another marvel of the remarkable human brain.

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

Increased intake of meat was linked to the risk of coronary heart disease, and substituting plant protein for red or processed meat appeared to reduce that risk, in a study from pooled cohorts totaling more than a million persons.

Fuse/Thinkstock

“We know that red and processed meat intake has been associated with higher risks of fatal coronary heart disease,” said Laila Al-Shaar, PhD, of Penn State University, Hershey. However, very few studies have evaluated substitution of alternative protein sources for red and processed meat in relation to fatal CHD risk, she said.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, Dr. Al-Shaar and colleagues reviewed individual-level data from the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer, which included 16 prospective cohorts totaling 1,364,211 participants. The average age of the participants was 57 years, and 40% were men. Individuals with a history of cancer or cardiovascular disease were excluded. The participants were followed for 7-32 years. Diet was assessed in each cohort using baselines questionnaires, and cases were identified through medical records.

Total red meat included processed meat and unprocessed red meat; animal protein sources included seafood, poultry, eggs, and low- and high-fat dairy products; and plant protein sources included nuts and beans.

The researchers identified 51,176 fatal CHD cases during the study period. After controlling for dietary and nondietary factors, they found that an increase of 100 g per day of total red meat intake was associated with a 7% increased risk of fatal coronary heart disease (relative risk, 1.07).

However, substituting 200 calories (kcal) per day from nuts, low- and high-fat dairy products, and poultry for 200 calories per day from total red meat was associated with a 6%-14% lower risk of fatal CHD, Dr. Al-Shaar added at the meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association.

These associations were stronger when substituting the alternative protein sources for processed meat, especially among women; risk was reduced by 17%-24%, on the basis of 14,888 cases.

The researchers also found that substituting 200 calories per day from eggs for 200 calories per day for total red meat and unprocessed red meat was associated with 8% and 14% higher risk of fatal CHD, respectively; but this substitution of eggs for processed meat was not significant (4%).

“When we did the association by gender, the results were even stronger in women,” said Dr. Al-Shaar. However, “these are very preliminary results” that should be interpreted with caution, and more analysis is needed, she said. “We are planning to include other cohorts with other protein sources such as soy protein,” she noted. However, the results provide additional evidence that consumption of red and processed meat contributes to an increased risk of coronary heart disease, and that substituting some red and processed meat with nuts, dairy products, or poultry may reduce this risk, she concluded.
 

Women especially benefit from red meat reduction

The study is important because of the continuing interest in various sources of dietary protein intake, Linda Van Horn, PhD, RD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“The investigators studied associations of substituting other animal and plant protein sources for total red meat, unprocessed red meat, and processed meat in relation to risk of fatal CHD,” she said.

The researchers found that swapping as little as 200 calories per day of total red meat for nuts, low- or high-fat dairy products, or poultry were associated with a 6%-14% reduced risk of fatal CHD, said Dr. Van Horn. “Alternatively, if those 200 calories per day for red meat were substituted with eggs, they saw as much as 14% higher risk of fatal CHD,” she noted.

The message for both consumers and clinicians is that the findings from this large study support recommendations for plant-based and lean animal sources of protein instead of red and processed meat or eggs, as these sources “offer significantly lower risk for CHD mortality,” Dr. Van Horn said. “This may be especially true for women, but the total population is likely to benefit from this approach,” she said.

Additional research is needed, Dr. Van Horn emphasized. “Prospective lifetime data, starting in utero and over the life course, are needed to better establish recommended dietary patterns at every age and among all ethnicities and diverse socioeconomic groups,” she said.

Dr. Al-Shaar had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Van Horn had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Increased intake of meat was linked to the risk of coronary heart disease, and substituting plant protein for red or processed meat appeared to reduce that risk, in a study from pooled cohorts totaling more than a million persons.

Fuse/Thinkstock

“We know that red and processed meat intake has been associated with higher risks of fatal coronary heart disease,” said Laila Al-Shaar, PhD, of Penn State University, Hershey. However, very few studies have evaluated substitution of alternative protein sources for red and processed meat in relation to fatal CHD risk, she said.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, Dr. Al-Shaar and colleagues reviewed individual-level data from the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer, which included 16 prospective cohorts totaling 1,364,211 participants. The average age of the participants was 57 years, and 40% were men. Individuals with a history of cancer or cardiovascular disease were excluded. The participants were followed for 7-32 years. Diet was assessed in each cohort using baselines questionnaires, and cases were identified through medical records.

Total red meat included processed meat and unprocessed red meat; animal protein sources included seafood, poultry, eggs, and low- and high-fat dairy products; and plant protein sources included nuts and beans.

The researchers identified 51,176 fatal CHD cases during the study period. After controlling for dietary and nondietary factors, they found that an increase of 100 g per day of total red meat intake was associated with a 7% increased risk of fatal coronary heart disease (relative risk, 1.07).

However, substituting 200 calories (kcal) per day from nuts, low- and high-fat dairy products, and poultry for 200 calories per day from total red meat was associated with a 6%-14% lower risk of fatal CHD, Dr. Al-Shaar added at the meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association.

These associations were stronger when substituting the alternative protein sources for processed meat, especially among women; risk was reduced by 17%-24%, on the basis of 14,888 cases.

The researchers also found that substituting 200 calories per day from eggs for 200 calories per day for total red meat and unprocessed red meat was associated with 8% and 14% higher risk of fatal CHD, respectively; but this substitution of eggs for processed meat was not significant (4%).

“When we did the association by gender, the results were even stronger in women,” said Dr. Al-Shaar. However, “these are very preliminary results” that should be interpreted with caution, and more analysis is needed, she said. “We are planning to include other cohorts with other protein sources such as soy protein,” she noted. However, the results provide additional evidence that consumption of red and processed meat contributes to an increased risk of coronary heart disease, and that substituting some red and processed meat with nuts, dairy products, or poultry may reduce this risk, she concluded.
 

Women especially benefit from red meat reduction

The study is important because of the continuing interest in various sources of dietary protein intake, Linda Van Horn, PhD, RD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“The investigators studied associations of substituting other animal and plant protein sources for total red meat, unprocessed red meat, and processed meat in relation to risk of fatal CHD,” she said.

The researchers found that swapping as little as 200 calories per day of total red meat for nuts, low- or high-fat dairy products, or poultry were associated with a 6%-14% reduced risk of fatal CHD, said Dr. Van Horn. “Alternatively, if those 200 calories per day for red meat were substituted with eggs, they saw as much as 14% higher risk of fatal CHD,” she noted.

The message for both consumers and clinicians is that the findings from this large study support recommendations for plant-based and lean animal sources of protein instead of red and processed meat or eggs, as these sources “offer significantly lower risk for CHD mortality,” Dr. Van Horn said. “This may be especially true for women, but the total population is likely to benefit from this approach,” she said.

Additional research is needed, Dr. Van Horn emphasized. “Prospective lifetime data, starting in utero and over the life course, are needed to better establish recommended dietary patterns at every age and among all ethnicities and diverse socioeconomic groups,” she said.

Dr. Al-Shaar had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Van Horn had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Increased intake of meat was linked to the risk of coronary heart disease, and substituting plant protein for red or processed meat appeared to reduce that risk, in a study from pooled cohorts totaling more than a million persons.

Fuse/Thinkstock

“We know that red and processed meat intake has been associated with higher risks of fatal coronary heart disease,” said Laila Al-Shaar, PhD, of Penn State University, Hershey. However, very few studies have evaluated substitution of alternative protein sources for red and processed meat in relation to fatal CHD risk, she said.

In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, Dr. Al-Shaar and colleagues reviewed individual-level data from the Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer, which included 16 prospective cohorts totaling 1,364,211 participants. The average age of the participants was 57 years, and 40% were men. Individuals with a history of cancer or cardiovascular disease were excluded. The participants were followed for 7-32 years. Diet was assessed in each cohort using baselines questionnaires, and cases were identified through medical records.

Total red meat included processed meat and unprocessed red meat; animal protein sources included seafood, poultry, eggs, and low- and high-fat dairy products; and plant protein sources included nuts and beans.

The researchers identified 51,176 fatal CHD cases during the study period. After controlling for dietary and nondietary factors, they found that an increase of 100 g per day of total red meat intake was associated with a 7% increased risk of fatal coronary heart disease (relative risk, 1.07).

However, substituting 200 calories (kcal) per day from nuts, low- and high-fat dairy products, and poultry for 200 calories per day from total red meat was associated with a 6%-14% lower risk of fatal CHD, Dr. Al-Shaar added at the meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association.

These associations were stronger when substituting the alternative protein sources for processed meat, especially among women; risk was reduced by 17%-24%, on the basis of 14,888 cases.

The researchers also found that substituting 200 calories per day from eggs for 200 calories per day for total red meat and unprocessed red meat was associated with 8% and 14% higher risk of fatal CHD, respectively; but this substitution of eggs for processed meat was not significant (4%).

“When we did the association by gender, the results were even stronger in women,” said Dr. Al-Shaar. However, “these are very preliminary results” that should be interpreted with caution, and more analysis is needed, she said. “We are planning to include other cohorts with other protein sources such as soy protein,” she noted. However, the results provide additional evidence that consumption of red and processed meat contributes to an increased risk of coronary heart disease, and that substituting some red and processed meat with nuts, dairy products, or poultry may reduce this risk, she concluded.
 

Women especially benefit from red meat reduction

The study is important because of the continuing interest in various sources of dietary protein intake, Linda Van Horn, PhD, RD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.

“The investigators studied associations of substituting other animal and plant protein sources for total red meat, unprocessed red meat, and processed meat in relation to risk of fatal CHD,” she said.

The researchers found that swapping as little as 200 calories per day of total red meat for nuts, low- or high-fat dairy products, or poultry were associated with a 6%-14% reduced risk of fatal CHD, said Dr. Van Horn. “Alternatively, if those 200 calories per day for red meat were substituted with eggs, they saw as much as 14% higher risk of fatal CHD,” she noted.

The message for both consumers and clinicians is that the findings from this large study support recommendations for plant-based and lean animal sources of protein instead of red and processed meat or eggs, as these sources “offer significantly lower risk for CHD mortality,” Dr. Van Horn said. “This may be especially true for women, but the total population is likely to benefit from this approach,” she said.

Additional research is needed, Dr. Van Horn emphasized. “Prospective lifetime data, starting in utero and over the life course, are needed to better establish recommended dietary patterns at every age and among all ethnicities and diverse socioeconomic groups,” she said.

Dr. Al-Shaar had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Van Horn had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The addition of nivolumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not impede the feasibility or timing of surgery in patients with resectable lung cancer, according to results from the phase 3 CheckMate 816 trial.

Adding nivolumab to chemotherapy was tolerable and did not increase the rate of surgical complications, investigator Jonathan Spicer, FRCPC, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

His presentation comes about 2 months after the reporting of primary endpoint results of CheckMate 816 (NCT02998528). CheckMate 816 demonstrated that adding nivolumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved pathological complete response (pCR) in patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to results presented earlier at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

“The safety and surgical outcome data reported thus far from CheckMate 816, along with significant improvement in pathological complete response, support nivolumab in combination with chemotherapy as an attractive neoadjuvant option for patients with resectable NSCLC,” said Dr. Spicer (Abstract 8503).
 

Building on previous experience

The CheckMate 816 study builds on extensive experience in advanced NSCLC that has consistently shown better outcomes, including overall survival, with combinations of chemotherapy and immuno-oncology (IO) agents, compared to chemotherapy alone, said discussant Valerie W. Rusch, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rusch called out “salient and interesting results” regarding surgical management in CheckMate 816, including a lower rate of surgery cancellations and shorter surgical duration in the chemotherapy-plus-IO arm, compared to the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Furthermore, fewer patients required a pneumonectomy and more patients had a complete resection in the chemotherapy-plus-IO arm, compared to chemotherapy alone, she noted.

“These excellent surgical results, along with the data previously presented at AACR regarding the primary endpoint, help to establish a new standard of neoadjuvant care,” Dr. Rusch said in her presentation.
 

Study details

CheckMate 816 included 358 patients with newly diagnosed, resectable, stage IB-IIIA NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, and no known EGFR mutations or ALK alterations. Patients were randomized to receive nivolumab and platinum-doublet chemotherapy (nivolumab/chemotherapy) or chemotherapy alone every 3 weeks, with surgery to be performed within 6 weeks of the last dose of neoadjuvant treatment.

The median age of patients was 64 years in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 65 years in the chemotherapy-alone arm. About one-third of patients had ECOG performance status of one, and about half had squamous tumor histology, Dr. Spicer said in his report. Almost two-thirds of patients had stage IIIA disease.

In the study results previously presented at the AACR meeting, both pCR and major pathologic response were significantly better following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and IO treatment, compared to chemotherapy alone.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, 24.0% of patients treated with nivolumab/chemotherapy achieved a pCR, compared to 2.2% in the chemotherapy arm, amounting to an approximate 12-fold increase in pCR, Dr. Spicer said. Similarly, the rate of major pathologic response in the intention-to-treat analysis was 36.9% and 8.9% for the nivolumab/chemotherapy and chemotherapy arms, respectively.
 

Surgical results

In his ASCO presentation, Dr. Spicer reported that definitive surgery was canceled in 16% of patients in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm, and 21% of the chemotherapy arm. Reasons for surgery cancellation generally included patients declining surgery, unresectable disease, and poor lung function. “Cancellation of surgery due to neoadjuvant therapy toxicity was rare,” Dr. Spicer said in his presentation.

Among patients who did proceed to surgery, the median duration of the procedure was 184 minutes in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 217 minutes in the chemotherapy arm. That half-hour difference in favor of the combination arm suggests that the complexity of surgery was not increased by the addition of nivolumab, Dr. Spicer said.

Median time to surgery was about 5 weeks in both arms, which was “well within accepted standards for a neoadjuvant therapeutic approach,” Dr. Spicer said. Most delays beyond 6 weeks were due to administrative issues, and occurred in similar proportions (21% of the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 18% of the chemotherapy arm).

The addition of nivolumab to chemotherapy improved pCR rates regardless of baseline stage of disease, according to Dr. Spicer. Furthermore, the depth of pathological regression in the primary tumor was “dramatically different” across stage groupings, he said. Median residual viable tumor percentage in stage IB/II patients was 28% for nivolumab/chemotherapy and 79% for chemotherapy, and in stage IIIA patients, it was 8% for nivolumab/chemotherapy and 70% for chemotherapy.

Overall, thoracotomy was the most frequent surgical approach in this international phase 3 trial, Dr. Spicer said. However, among patients with stage IIIA disease, minimally invasive approaches were used 30% of the time in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 19% in the chemotherapy arm. Conversely, the rate of conversion from a minimally invasive to open approach in patients with stage IIIA disease was 11% for nivolumab/chemotherapy and 20% for chemotherapy alone.

Lobectomy was more frequent in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm (77%) compared to the chemotherapy arm (61%), a difference that Dr. Spicer described as clinically important. He said the difference appears to be attributable to a lower rate of pneumonectomy in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm (17%) than in the chemotherapy arm (25%).

Despite less extensive lung resection being required, the rate of R0 resection was numerically higher in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm (83%) than in the chemotherapy arm (78%), said Dr. Spicer.

Length of hospital stay was “within expected ranges” from geographic regions represented in the trial, Dr. Spicer said. Median length of stay was 4.0 and 6.0 days, respectively, for nivolumab/chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone in North America, 9.5 and 13.0 days in Europe, and 11.0 and 13.0 days in Asia.

Likewise, 90-day surgical complications were well within expected ranges, according to the investigator, with anemia, pain, and wound complications being the most commonly reported. Rates were generally similar between study arms, other than a twofold higher rate of pain in the chemotherapy arm, possibly due to the lower rate of minimally invasive surgery or higher rate of conversion to an open procedure, compared to the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm, he said.
 

Awaiting survival

Rates of 30- and 90-day mortality are expected to be evaluated when survival endpoints are available, according to Dr. Spicer. Beyond pCR rate, event-free survival is also a primary endpoint of the study, while overall survival is a secondary endpoint.

The study was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Spicer reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Rusch reported research funding with Genelux and Genentech, and travel expenses from Intuitive Surgical.

The addition of nivolumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not impede the feasibility or timing of surgery in patients with resectable lung cancer, according to results from the phase 3 CheckMate 816 trial.

Adding nivolumab to chemotherapy was tolerable and did not increase the rate of surgical complications, investigator Jonathan Spicer, FRCPC, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

His presentation comes about 2 months after the reporting of primary endpoint results of CheckMate 816 (NCT02998528). CheckMate 816 demonstrated that adding nivolumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved pathological complete response (pCR) in patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to results presented earlier at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

“The safety and surgical outcome data reported thus far from CheckMate 816, along with significant improvement in pathological complete response, support nivolumab in combination with chemotherapy as an attractive neoadjuvant option for patients with resectable NSCLC,” said Dr. Spicer (Abstract 8503).
 

Building on previous experience

The CheckMate 816 study builds on extensive experience in advanced NSCLC that has consistently shown better outcomes, including overall survival, with combinations of chemotherapy and immuno-oncology (IO) agents, compared to chemotherapy alone, said discussant Valerie W. Rusch, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rusch called out “salient and interesting results” regarding surgical management in CheckMate 816, including a lower rate of surgery cancellations and shorter surgical duration in the chemotherapy-plus-IO arm, compared to the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Furthermore, fewer patients required a pneumonectomy and more patients had a complete resection in the chemotherapy-plus-IO arm, compared to chemotherapy alone, she noted.

“These excellent surgical results, along with the data previously presented at AACR regarding the primary endpoint, help to establish a new standard of neoadjuvant care,” Dr. Rusch said in her presentation.
 

Study details

CheckMate 816 included 358 patients with newly diagnosed, resectable, stage IB-IIIA NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, and no known EGFR mutations or ALK alterations. Patients were randomized to receive nivolumab and platinum-doublet chemotherapy (nivolumab/chemotherapy) or chemotherapy alone every 3 weeks, with surgery to be performed within 6 weeks of the last dose of neoadjuvant treatment.

The median age of patients was 64 years in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 65 years in the chemotherapy-alone arm. About one-third of patients had ECOG performance status of one, and about half had squamous tumor histology, Dr. Spicer said in his report. Almost two-thirds of patients had stage IIIA disease.

In the study results previously presented at the AACR meeting, both pCR and major pathologic response were significantly better following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and IO treatment, compared to chemotherapy alone.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, 24.0% of patients treated with nivolumab/chemotherapy achieved a pCR, compared to 2.2% in the chemotherapy arm, amounting to an approximate 12-fold increase in pCR, Dr. Spicer said. Similarly, the rate of major pathologic response in the intention-to-treat analysis was 36.9% and 8.9% for the nivolumab/chemotherapy and chemotherapy arms, respectively.
 

Surgical results

In his ASCO presentation, Dr. Spicer reported that definitive surgery was canceled in 16% of patients in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm, and 21% of the chemotherapy arm. Reasons for surgery cancellation generally included patients declining surgery, unresectable disease, and poor lung function. “Cancellation of surgery due to neoadjuvant therapy toxicity was rare,” Dr. Spicer said in his presentation.

Among patients who did proceed to surgery, the median duration of the procedure was 184 minutes in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 217 minutes in the chemotherapy arm. That half-hour difference in favor of the combination arm suggests that the complexity of surgery was not increased by the addition of nivolumab, Dr. Spicer said.

Median time to surgery was about 5 weeks in both arms, which was “well within accepted standards for a neoadjuvant therapeutic approach,” Dr. Spicer said. Most delays beyond 6 weeks were due to administrative issues, and occurred in similar proportions (21% of the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 18% of the chemotherapy arm).

The addition of nivolumab to chemotherapy improved pCR rates regardless of baseline stage of disease, according to Dr. Spicer. Furthermore, the depth of pathological regression in the primary tumor was “dramatically different” across stage groupings, he said. Median residual viable tumor percentage in stage IB/II patients was 28% for nivolumab/chemotherapy and 79% for chemotherapy, and in stage IIIA patients, it was 8% for nivolumab/chemotherapy and 70% for chemotherapy.

Overall, thoracotomy was the most frequent surgical approach in this international phase 3 trial, Dr. Spicer said. However, among patients with stage IIIA disease, minimally invasive approaches were used 30% of the time in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 19% in the chemotherapy arm. Conversely, the rate of conversion from a minimally invasive to open approach in patients with stage IIIA disease was 11% for nivolumab/chemotherapy and 20% for chemotherapy alone.

Lobectomy was more frequent in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm (77%) compared to the chemotherapy arm (61%), a difference that Dr. Spicer described as clinically important. He said the difference appears to be attributable to a lower rate of pneumonectomy in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm (17%) than in the chemotherapy arm (25%).

Despite less extensive lung resection being required, the rate of R0 resection was numerically higher in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm (83%) than in the chemotherapy arm (78%), said Dr. Spicer.

Length of hospital stay was “within expected ranges” from geographic regions represented in the trial, Dr. Spicer said. Median length of stay was 4.0 and 6.0 days, respectively, for nivolumab/chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone in North America, 9.5 and 13.0 days in Europe, and 11.0 and 13.0 days in Asia.

Likewise, 90-day surgical complications were well within expected ranges, according to the investigator, with anemia, pain, and wound complications being the most commonly reported. Rates were generally similar between study arms, other than a twofold higher rate of pain in the chemotherapy arm, possibly due to the lower rate of minimally invasive surgery or higher rate of conversion to an open procedure, compared to the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm, he said.
 

Awaiting survival

Rates of 30- and 90-day mortality are expected to be evaluated when survival endpoints are available, according to Dr. Spicer. Beyond pCR rate, event-free survival is also a primary endpoint of the study, while overall survival is a secondary endpoint.

The study was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Spicer reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Rusch reported research funding with Genelux and Genentech, and travel expenses from Intuitive Surgical.

The addition of nivolumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not impede the feasibility or timing of surgery in patients with resectable lung cancer, according to results from the phase 3 CheckMate 816 trial.

Adding nivolumab to chemotherapy was tolerable and did not increase the rate of surgical complications, investigator Jonathan Spicer, FRCPC, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

His presentation comes about 2 months after the reporting of primary endpoint results of CheckMate 816 (NCT02998528). CheckMate 816 demonstrated that adding nivolumab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved pathological complete response (pCR) in patients with resectable non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), according to results presented earlier at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

“The safety and surgical outcome data reported thus far from CheckMate 816, along with significant improvement in pathological complete response, support nivolumab in combination with chemotherapy as an attractive neoadjuvant option for patients with resectable NSCLC,” said Dr. Spicer (Abstract 8503).
 

Building on previous experience

The CheckMate 816 study builds on extensive experience in advanced NSCLC that has consistently shown better outcomes, including overall survival, with combinations of chemotherapy and immuno-oncology (IO) agents, compared to chemotherapy alone, said discussant Valerie W. Rusch, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rusch called out “salient and interesting results” regarding surgical management in CheckMate 816, including a lower rate of surgery cancellations and shorter surgical duration in the chemotherapy-plus-IO arm, compared to the chemotherapy-alone arm.

Furthermore, fewer patients required a pneumonectomy and more patients had a complete resection in the chemotherapy-plus-IO arm, compared to chemotherapy alone, she noted.

“These excellent surgical results, along with the data previously presented at AACR regarding the primary endpoint, help to establish a new standard of neoadjuvant care,” Dr. Rusch said in her presentation.
 

Study details

CheckMate 816 included 358 patients with newly diagnosed, resectable, stage IB-IIIA NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, and no known EGFR mutations or ALK alterations. Patients were randomized to receive nivolumab and platinum-doublet chemotherapy (nivolumab/chemotherapy) or chemotherapy alone every 3 weeks, with surgery to be performed within 6 weeks of the last dose of neoadjuvant treatment.

The median age of patients was 64 years in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 65 years in the chemotherapy-alone arm. About one-third of patients had ECOG performance status of one, and about half had squamous tumor histology, Dr. Spicer said in his report. Almost two-thirds of patients had stage IIIA disease.

In the study results previously presented at the AACR meeting, both pCR and major pathologic response were significantly better following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and IO treatment, compared to chemotherapy alone.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, 24.0% of patients treated with nivolumab/chemotherapy achieved a pCR, compared to 2.2% in the chemotherapy arm, amounting to an approximate 12-fold increase in pCR, Dr. Spicer said. Similarly, the rate of major pathologic response in the intention-to-treat analysis was 36.9% and 8.9% for the nivolumab/chemotherapy and chemotherapy arms, respectively.
 

Surgical results

In his ASCO presentation, Dr. Spicer reported that definitive surgery was canceled in 16% of patients in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm, and 21% of the chemotherapy arm. Reasons for surgery cancellation generally included patients declining surgery, unresectable disease, and poor lung function. “Cancellation of surgery due to neoadjuvant therapy toxicity was rare,” Dr. Spicer said in his presentation.

Among patients who did proceed to surgery, the median duration of the procedure was 184 minutes in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 217 minutes in the chemotherapy arm. That half-hour difference in favor of the combination arm suggests that the complexity of surgery was not increased by the addition of nivolumab, Dr. Spicer said.

Median time to surgery was about 5 weeks in both arms, which was “well within accepted standards for a neoadjuvant therapeutic approach,” Dr. Spicer said. Most delays beyond 6 weeks were due to administrative issues, and occurred in similar proportions (21% of the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 18% of the chemotherapy arm).

The addition of nivolumab to chemotherapy improved pCR rates regardless of baseline stage of disease, according to Dr. Spicer. Furthermore, the depth of pathological regression in the primary tumor was “dramatically different” across stage groupings, he said. Median residual viable tumor percentage in stage IB/II patients was 28% for nivolumab/chemotherapy and 79% for chemotherapy, and in stage IIIA patients, it was 8% for nivolumab/chemotherapy and 70% for chemotherapy.

Overall, thoracotomy was the most frequent surgical approach in this international phase 3 trial, Dr. Spicer said. However, among patients with stage IIIA disease, minimally invasive approaches were used 30% of the time in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm and 19% in the chemotherapy arm. Conversely, the rate of conversion from a minimally invasive to open approach in patients with stage IIIA disease was 11% for nivolumab/chemotherapy and 20% for chemotherapy alone.

Lobectomy was more frequent in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm (77%) compared to the chemotherapy arm (61%), a difference that Dr. Spicer described as clinically important. He said the difference appears to be attributable to a lower rate of pneumonectomy in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm (17%) than in the chemotherapy arm (25%).

Despite less extensive lung resection being required, the rate of R0 resection was numerically higher in the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm (83%) than in the chemotherapy arm (78%), said Dr. Spicer.

Length of hospital stay was “within expected ranges” from geographic regions represented in the trial, Dr. Spicer said. Median length of stay was 4.0 and 6.0 days, respectively, for nivolumab/chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone in North America, 9.5 and 13.0 days in Europe, and 11.0 and 13.0 days in Asia.

Likewise, 90-day surgical complications were well within expected ranges, according to the investigator, with anemia, pain, and wound complications being the most commonly reported. Rates were generally similar between study arms, other than a twofold higher rate of pain in the chemotherapy arm, possibly due to the lower rate of minimally invasive surgery or higher rate of conversion to an open procedure, compared to the nivolumab/chemotherapy arm, he said.
 

Awaiting survival

Rates of 30- and 90-day mortality are expected to be evaluated when survival endpoints are available, according to Dr. Spicer. Beyond pCR rate, event-free survival is also a primary endpoint of the study, while overall survival is a secondary endpoint.

The study was supported by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Spicer reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation, Merck, and Roche. Dr. Rusch reported research funding with Genelux and Genentech, and travel expenses from Intuitive Surgical.

Background: Providing hospital-level care at home for select patients has proven to reduce health care cost, usage, and readmission rates, while maintaining quality and safety in other developed countries but few studies exist in the United States.

Dr. Persaud is a hospitalist, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and instructor in medicine, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Background: Providing hospital-level care at home for select patients has proven to reduce health care cost, usage, and readmission rates, while maintaining quality and safety in other developed countries but few studies exist in the United States.

Dr. Persaud is a hospitalist, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and instructor in medicine, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

Background: Providing hospital-level care at home for select patients has proven to reduce health care cost, usage, and readmission rates, while maintaining quality and safety in other developed countries but few studies exist in the United States.

Dr. Persaud is a hospitalist, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and instructor in medicine, Harvard Medical School, both in Boston.

A new immunotherapy, toripalimab, has the potential to change practice in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), say experts.

The drug is a monoclonal antibody that blocks programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), developed in China and recently approved there for the third-line treatment of NPC, among other indications. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted it a breakthrough therapy designation for recurrent/metastatic NPC, as well as fast-track and orphan drug status for other tumor types.

New results show that when toripalimab was added onto chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin in the first line for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma, there was a significant improvement in both  progression-free survival and overall survival.

The results come from the phase 3 trial dubbed JUPITER-02 and will be presented at the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting this Sunday; some details were released earlier at a press briefing

The trial randomly assigned 146 patients to toripalimab and 143 to placebo on a background of gemcitabine and cisplatin, the current standard of care for recurrent/metastatic NPC.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.7 months with toripalimab vs. 8 months with placebo, a significant improvement (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.74. P = .0003). Overall survival was not mature at reporting but favored toripalimab with 25 deaths versus 39 in the placebo group, a 40% risk reduction (P = .0462).

The results “support the use of toripalimab in combination with [gemcitabine and cisplatin] as a new standard of care for first-line treatment of recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma,” said lead investigator and medical oncologist Rui-Hua Xu, MD, PhD, of the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.
 

Potential to change practice

The significance of the study is that it used immunotherapy in the first-line setting for NPC instead of the second line where it’s frequently used today, commented Jared Weiss, MD, an associate professor of oncology and a head and neck cancer specialist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

If FDA approves toripalimab for the indication, it “would change [first-line] standard of care to the triplet regimen,” he said in an interview.   

The discussant for this presentation, Julie Gralow, MD, agreed. “This is one of the first studies in metastatic or recurrent NPC to show a benefit” for combining a PD-1 inhibitor with chemotherapy.

“With FDA approval, these findings should prove practice-changing,” said Dr. Gralow, a professor of breast medical oncology at the University of Washington, Seattle, and ASCO’s chief medical officer.

Toripalimab, dosed at 240 mg in the trial, or placebo were administered with gemcitabine and cisplatin every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles, followed by toripalimab or placebo maintenance every 3 weeks until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or completion of 2 years of treatment.

The overall response rate was 77.4% with toripalimab and 66.4% with placebo, and the median duration of response in the toripalimab group was 10 months vs. 5.7 months with placebo.

One-year PFS was 49.4% with toripalimab versus 27.9% with placebo; improved PFS was observed with toripalimab across PD-L1 subgroups.

Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in slightly less than 90% of both groups, with fatal adverse events occurring in slightly less than 3% in both.

Adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 7.5% of the study group and 4.9% on placebo. As expected with immunotherapy, immune-related adverse events such as hypothyroidism were more common with toripalimab (39.7% vs. 18.9%), as were grade 3 or worse immune-related adverse events (7.5% vs. 0.7%).

At interim analysis in May 2020, the median duration treatment was 39 weeks in the toripalimab group and 36 weeks in the placebo group.

The trial was conducted in China, Taiwan, and Singapore.

JUPITER-02 was funded by Shanghai Junshi Bioscience. Investigator disclosures weren’t reported. Dr. Weiss said he had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Gralow is an advisor for a number of companies, including Genentech, Novartis, and Roche.

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

A new immunotherapy, toripalimab, has the potential to change practice in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), say experts.

The drug is a monoclonal antibody that blocks programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), developed in China and recently approved there for the third-line treatment of NPC, among other indications. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted it a breakthrough therapy designation for recurrent/metastatic NPC, as well as fast-track and orphan drug status for other tumor types.

New results show that when toripalimab was added onto chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin in the first line for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma, there was a significant improvement in both  progression-free survival and overall survival.

The results come from the phase 3 trial dubbed JUPITER-02 and will be presented at the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting this Sunday; some details were released earlier at a press briefing

The trial randomly assigned 146 patients to toripalimab and 143 to placebo on a background of gemcitabine and cisplatin, the current standard of care for recurrent/metastatic NPC.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.7 months with toripalimab vs. 8 months with placebo, a significant improvement (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.74. P = .0003). Overall survival was not mature at reporting but favored toripalimab with 25 deaths versus 39 in the placebo group, a 40% risk reduction (P = .0462).

The results “support the use of toripalimab in combination with [gemcitabine and cisplatin] as a new standard of care for first-line treatment of recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma,” said lead investigator and medical oncologist Rui-Hua Xu, MD, PhD, of the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.
 

Potential to change practice

The significance of the study is that it used immunotherapy in the first-line setting for NPC instead of the second line where it’s frequently used today, commented Jared Weiss, MD, an associate professor of oncology and a head and neck cancer specialist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

If FDA approves toripalimab for the indication, it “would change [first-line] standard of care to the triplet regimen,” he said in an interview.   

The discussant for this presentation, Julie Gralow, MD, agreed. “This is one of the first studies in metastatic or recurrent NPC to show a benefit” for combining a PD-1 inhibitor with chemotherapy.

“With FDA approval, these findings should prove practice-changing,” said Dr. Gralow, a professor of breast medical oncology at the University of Washington, Seattle, and ASCO’s chief medical officer.

Toripalimab, dosed at 240 mg in the trial, or placebo were administered with gemcitabine and cisplatin every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles, followed by toripalimab or placebo maintenance every 3 weeks until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or completion of 2 years of treatment.

The overall response rate was 77.4% with toripalimab and 66.4% with placebo, and the median duration of response in the toripalimab group was 10 months vs. 5.7 months with placebo.

One-year PFS was 49.4% with toripalimab versus 27.9% with placebo; improved PFS was observed with toripalimab across PD-L1 subgroups.

Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in slightly less than 90% of both groups, with fatal adverse events occurring in slightly less than 3% in both.

Adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 7.5% of the study group and 4.9% on placebo. As expected with immunotherapy, immune-related adverse events such as hypothyroidism were more common with toripalimab (39.7% vs. 18.9%), as were grade 3 or worse immune-related adverse events (7.5% vs. 0.7%).

At interim analysis in May 2020, the median duration treatment was 39 weeks in the toripalimab group and 36 weeks in the placebo group.

The trial was conducted in China, Taiwan, and Singapore.

JUPITER-02 was funded by Shanghai Junshi Bioscience. Investigator disclosures weren’t reported. Dr. Weiss said he had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Gralow is an advisor for a number of companies, including Genentech, Novartis, and Roche.

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

A new immunotherapy, toripalimab, has the potential to change practice in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), say experts.

The drug is a monoclonal antibody that blocks programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), developed in China and recently approved there for the third-line treatment of NPC, among other indications. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted it a breakthrough therapy designation for recurrent/metastatic NPC, as well as fast-track and orphan drug status for other tumor types.

New results show that when toripalimab was added onto chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin in the first line for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma, there was a significant improvement in both  progression-free survival and overall survival.

The results come from the phase 3 trial dubbed JUPITER-02 and will be presented at the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting this Sunday; some details were released earlier at a press briefing

The trial randomly assigned 146 patients to toripalimab and 143 to placebo on a background of gemcitabine and cisplatin, the current standard of care for recurrent/metastatic NPC.

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.7 months with toripalimab vs. 8 months with placebo, a significant improvement (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.74. P = .0003). Overall survival was not mature at reporting but favored toripalimab with 25 deaths versus 39 in the placebo group, a 40% risk reduction (P = .0462).

The results “support the use of toripalimab in combination with [gemcitabine and cisplatin] as a new standard of care for first-line treatment of recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma,” said lead investigator and medical oncologist Rui-Hua Xu, MD, PhD, of the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center in Guangzhou, China.
 

Potential to change practice

The significance of the study is that it used immunotherapy in the first-line setting for NPC instead of the second line where it’s frequently used today, commented Jared Weiss, MD, an associate professor of oncology and a head and neck cancer specialist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

If FDA approves toripalimab for the indication, it “would change [first-line] standard of care to the triplet regimen,” he said in an interview.   

The discussant for this presentation, Julie Gralow, MD, agreed. “This is one of the first studies in metastatic or recurrent NPC to show a benefit” for combining a PD-1 inhibitor with chemotherapy.

“With FDA approval, these findings should prove practice-changing,” said Dr. Gralow, a professor of breast medical oncology at the University of Washington, Seattle, and ASCO’s chief medical officer.

Toripalimab, dosed at 240 mg in the trial, or placebo were administered with gemcitabine and cisplatin every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles, followed by toripalimab or placebo maintenance every 3 weeks until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or completion of 2 years of treatment.

The overall response rate was 77.4% with toripalimab and 66.4% with placebo, and the median duration of response in the toripalimab group was 10 months vs. 5.7 months with placebo.

One-year PFS was 49.4% with toripalimab versus 27.9% with placebo; improved PFS was observed with toripalimab across PD-L1 subgroups.

Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in slightly less than 90% of both groups, with fatal adverse events occurring in slightly less than 3% in both.

Adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 7.5% of the study group and 4.9% on placebo. As expected with immunotherapy, immune-related adverse events such as hypothyroidism were more common with toripalimab (39.7% vs. 18.9%), as were grade 3 or worse immune-related adverse events (7.5% vs. 0.7%).

At interim analysis in May 2020, the median duration treatment was 39 weeks in the toripalimab group and 36 weeks in the placebo group.

The trial was conducted in China, Taiwan, and Singapore.

JUPITER-02 was funded by Shanghai Junshi Bioscience. Investigator disclosures weren’t reported. Dr. Weiss said he had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Gralow is an advisor for a number of companies, including Genentech, Novartis, and Roche.

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

A simple nasal swab may help in the diagnosis of lung cancer in smokers who have undergone CT screening and had lung nodules detected on the scan.  

Only about 5% of the nearly 1.6 million lung nodules identified as incidental findings on low-dose CT screening tests will turn out to be malignant. The new test helps to distinguish between benign and malignant nodules, say researchers reporting a validation study.  

The results show that the test identified those at low risk for cancer with a sensitivity of 96.3% and specificity of 41.7%, as well as identifying those as high risk, with a specificity of 90.4% and sensitivity of 58.2%.

The Percepta nasal swab is a first-of-its-kind genomic test, says the manufacturer Veracyte.

It is based on “field of injury” technology, which examines genomic changes in the lining of the respiratory tract for evidence of active cancer cells, coupled with a machine learning model that includes factors such as age, gender, and smoking history.

Veracyte hopes to begin to make the test available to a select number of sites in the second half of 2021. “The test is intended to be performed in the physician’s office on patients referred with suspicious lung nodules found on CT scans,” said Giulia C. Kennedy, PhD, chief scientific officer and chief medical officer at Veracyte. “This could include patients with nodules found through screening programs, as well as incidentally.”

“It will be made available as a laboratory developed test in the U.S. through Veracyte’s centralized CLIA laboratory,” she said in an interview. “In global markets, we will offer the test as an IVD product that can be performed on the nCounter instrument by laboratories locally. Outside of the United States, the test will require a CE mark, which we are equipped to support.”

Results with the test were presented during the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2021 Annual Meeting, which was held virtually this year.

It was first tested in a training set, which consisted of more than 1,100 patients. All were current or former smokers who had a lung nodule detected on chest CT scanning and were followed for up to 1 year or until a final diagnosis of lung cancer or benign disease.

Brushings of the nasal epithelium were prospectively collected in patients with lung nodules from multiple cohorts.

A total of 502 genes were used in the classifier, and performance was evaluated in an independent clinical validation set consisting of 249 patients.

The test identified true benign patients as low risk with 41.7% specificity and 96.3% sensitivity, resulting in a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.1% in a population with a cancer prevalence of 25%. The risk of malignancy for patients in this low-risk group was less than 3% (1-NPV), and for this group, clinical guidelines recommend surveillance.  

Patients with true malignancies were identified as high risk, with 58.2% sensitivity and 90.4% specificity, resulting in a positive predictive value of 67.0% in a population with 25% cancer prevalence. The risk of malignancy for patients deemed to be high risk by the classifier was 67.0%, which exceeds the current guideline threshold for consideration of surgical resection or other ablative therapy if a staging evaluation confirms early stage disease, the authors point out.  

The remaining patients, who did not meet the stringent cut-offs for low or high risk, were identified as intermediate risk. In this population, the prevalence of malignancy for patients identified as intermediate risk was 20.7%, which is consistent with guidelines that provide a range for intermediate-risk patients as between 5% and 65% for whom diagnostic biopsy is recommended.
 

Help guide decisions, more data needed

Approached by this news organization for independent comment, Alexander Spira, MD, PhD, medical oncologist, Virginia Cancer Specialists, Fairfax, explained that the study provides an interesting way to look at a common finding and lung nodules and to predict whether further workup should be done.

“This could provide a role in reassurance that patients who fall into the low-risk category could be observed with serial imaging rather than proceeding to immediate biopsy,” he said. “It falls in under the ‘field of injury’ principle.”

Dr. Spira noted that although the low-risk group appears to have a negative predictive value of >90%, it doesn’t mean that the patient would require no further workup. “It would require CT surveillance rather than proceeding to immediate biopsy, and at this point it does appear promising, but I would want further follow-up in terms of outcomes,” he said.

“This does not apply to nonsmokers, which is of increasing prevalence, but with the increased use of CT screening for patients with a history of tobacco use, it may indeed have a role.”

He also pointed out that while the idea is to avoid biopsies, the smaller lesions are the ones that are concerning. “They are often tough to get at, and it would also depend on patient choice and anxiety as well, given the chance of being in that low percentage that the test misses,” said Dr. Spira. “Lastly, many pulmonologists are ordering PET scans in lieu of a biopsy, and this may also help.”

The bottom line is that this may help guide clinical decisions, but more data are needed. “Even in the low-risk category, 9.4% of patients had a malignancy, which is still a high miss rate,” he added.

The study was funded by Veracyte. Dr. Kennedy is employed by Veracyte. Dr. Spira has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A simple nasal swab may help in the diagnosis of lung cancer in smokers who have undergone CT screening and had lung nodules detected on the scan.  

Only about 5% of the nearly 1.6 million lung nodules identified as incidental findings on low-dose CT screening tests will turn out to be malignant. The new test helps to distinguish between benign and malignant nodules, say researchers reporting a validation study.  

The results show that the test identified those at low risk for cancer with a sensitivity of 96.3% and specificity of 41.7%, as well as identifying those as high risk, with a specificity of 90.4% and sensitivity of 58.2%.

The Percepta nasal swab is a first-of-its-kind genomic test, says the manufacturer Veracyte.

It is based on “field of injury” technology, which examines genomic changes in the lining of the respiratory tract for evidence of active cancer cells, coupled with a machine learning model that includes factors such as age, gender, and smoking history.

Veracyte hopes to begin to make the test available to a select number of sites in the second half of 2021. “The test is intended to be performed in the physician’s office on patients referred with suspicious lung nodules found on CT scans,” said Giulia C. Kennedy, PhD, chief scientific officer and chief medical officer at Veracyte. “This could include patients with nodules found through screening programs, as well as incidentally.”

“It will be made available as a laboratory developed test in the U.S. through Veracyte’s centralized CLIA laboratory,” she said in an interview. “In global markets, we will offer the test as an IVD product that can be performed on the nCounter instrument by laboratories locally. Outside of the United States, the test will require a CE mark, which we are equipped to support.”

Results with the test were presented during the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2021 Annual Meeting, which was held virtually this year.

It was first tested in a training set, which consisted of more than 1,100 patients. All were current or former smokers who had a lung nodule detected on chest CT scanning and were followed for up to 1 year or until a final diagnosis of lung cancer or benign disease.

Brushings of the nasal epithelium were prospectively collected in patients with lung nodules from multiple cohorts.

A total of 502 genes were used in the classifier, and performance was evaluated in an independent clinical validation set consisting of 249 patients.

The test identified true benign patients as low risk with 41.7% specificity and 96.3% sensitivity, resulting in a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.1% in a population with a cancer prevalence of 25%. The risk of malignancy for patients in this low-risk group was less than 3% (1-NPV), and for this group, clinical guidelines recommend surveillance.  

Patients with true malignancies were identified as high risk, with 58.2% sensitivity and 90.4% specificity, resulting in a positive predictive value of 67.0% in a population with 25% cancer prevalence. The risk of malignancy for patients deemed to be high risk by the classifier was 67.0%, which exceeds the current guideline threshold for consideration of surgical resection or other ablative therapy if a staging evaluation confirms early stage disease, the authors point out.  

The remaining patients, who did not meet the stringent cut-offs for low or high risk, were identified as intermediate risk. In this population, the prevalence of malignancy for patients identified as intermediate risk was 20.7%, which is consistent with guidelines that provide a range for intermediate-risk patients as between 5% and 65% for whom diagnostic biopsy is recommended.
 

Help guide decisions, more data needed

Approached by this news organization for independent comment, Alexander Spira, MD, PhD, medical oncologist, Virginia Cancer Specialists, Fairfax, explained that the study provides an interesting way to look at a common finding and lung nodules and to predict whether further workup should be done.

“This could provide a role in reassurance that patients who fall into the low-risk category could be observed with serial imaging rather than proceeding to immediate biopsy,” he said. “It falls in under the ‘field of injury’ principle.”

Dr. Spira noted that although the low-risk group appears to have a negative predictive value of >90%, it doesn’t mean that the patient would require no further workup. “It would require CT surveillance rather than proceeding to immediate biopsy, and at this point it does appear promising, but I would want further follow-up in terms of outcomes,” he said.

“This does not apply to nonsmokers, which is of increasing prevalence, but with the increased use of CT screening for patients with a history of tobacco use, it may indeed have a role.”

He also pointed out that while the idea is to avoid biopsies, the smaller lesions are the ones that are concerning. “They are often tough to get at, and it would also depend on patient choice and anxiety as well, given the chance of being in that low percentage that the test misses,” said Dr. Spira. “Lastly, many pulmonologists are ordering PET scans in lieu of a biopsy, and this may also help.”

The bottom line is that this may help guide clinical decisions, but more data are needed. “Even in the low-risk category, 9.4% of patients had a malignancy, which is still a high miss rate,” he added.

The study was funded by Veracyte. Dr. Kennedy is employed by Veracyte. Dr. Spira has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A simple nasal swab may help in the diagnosis of lung cancer in smokers who have undergone CT screening and had lung nodules detected on the scan.  

Only about 5% of the nearly 1.6 million lung nodules identified as incidental findings on low-dose CT screening tests will turn out to be malignant. The new test helps to distinguish between benign and malignant nodules, say researchers reporting a validation study.  

The results show that the test identified those at low risk for cancer with a sensitivity of 96.3% and specificity of 41.7%, as well as identifying those as high risk, with a specificity of 90.4% and sensitivity of 58.2%.

The Percepta nasal swab is a first-of-its-kind genomic test, says the manufacturer Veracyte.

It is based on “field of injury” technology, which examines genomic changes in the lining of the respiratory tract for evidence of active cancer cells, coupled with a machine learning model that includes factors such as age, gender, and smoking history.

Veracyte hopes to begin to make the test available to a select number of sites in the second half of 2021. “The test is intended to be performed in the physician’s office on patients referred with suspicious lung nodules found on CT scans,” said Giulia C. Kennedy, PhD, chief scientific officer and chief medical officer at Veracyte. “This could include patients with nodules found through screening programs, as well as incidentally.”

“It will be made available as a laboratory developed test in the U.S. through Veracyte’s centralized CLIA laboratory,” she said in an interview. “In global markets, we will offer the test as an IVD product that can be performed on the nCounter instrument by laboratories locally. Outside of the United States, the test will require a CE mark, which we are equipped to support.”

Results with the test were presented during the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2021 Annual Meeting, which was held virtually this year.

It was first tested in a training set, which consisted of more than 1,100 patients. All were current or former smokers who had a lung nodule detected on chest CT scanning and were followed for up to 1 year or until a final diagnosis of lung cancer or benign disease.

Brushings of the nasal epithelium were prospectively collected in patients with lung nodules from multiple cohorts.

A total of 502 genes were used in the classifier, and performance was evaluated in an independent clinical validation set consisting of 249 patients.

The test identified true benign patients as low risk with 41.7% specificity and 96.3% sensitivity, resulting in a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.1% in a population with a cancer prevalence of 25%. The risk of malignancy for patients in this low-risk group was less than 3% (1-NPV), and for this group, clinical guidelines recommend surveillance.  

Patients with true malignancies were identified as high risk, with 58.2% sensitivity and 90.4% specificity, resulting in a positive predictive value of 67.0% in a population with 25% cancer prevalence. The risk of malignancy for patients deemed to be high risk by the classifier was 67.0%, which exceeds the current guideline threshold for consideration of surgical resection or other ablative therapy if a staging evaluation confirms early stage disease, the authors point out.  

The remaining patients, who did not meet the stringent cut-offs for low or high risk, were identified as intermediate risk. In this population, the prevalence of malignancy for patients identified as intermediate risk was 20.7%, which is consistent with guidelines that provide a range for intermediate-risk patients as between 5% and 65% for whom diagnostic biopsy is recommended.
 

Help guide decisions, more data needed

Approached by this news organization for independent comment, Alexander Spira, MD, PhD, medical oncologist, Virginia Cancer Specialists, Fairfax, explained that the study provides an interesting way to look at a common finding and lung nodules and to predict whether further workup should be done.

“This could provide a role in reassurance that patients who fall into the low-risk category could be observed with serial imaging rather than proceeding to immediate biopsy,” he said. “It falls in under the ‘field of injury’ principle.”

Dr. Spira noted that although the low-risk group appears to have a negative predictive value of >90%, it doesn’t mean that the patient would require no further workup. “It would require CT surveillance rather than proceeding to immediate biopsy, and at this point it does appear promising, but I would want further follow-up in terms of outcomes,” he said.

“This does not apply to nonsmokers, which is of increasing prevalence, but with the increased use of CT screening for patients with a history of tobacco use, it may indeed have a role.”

He also pointed out that while the idea is to avoid biopsies, the smaller lesions are the ones that are concerning. “They are often tough to get at, and it would also depend on patient choice and anxiety as well, given the chance of being in that low percentage that the test misses,” said Dr. Spira. “Lastly, many pulmonologists are ordering PET scans in lieu of a biopsy, and this may also help.”

The bottom line is that this may help guide clinical decisions, but more data are needed. “Even in the low-risk category, 9.4% of patients had a malignancy, which is still a high miss rate,” he added.

The study was funded by Veracyte. Dr. Kennedy is employed by Veracyte. Dr. Spira has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lung cancer patients could soon have their risk of dying over the following 3 months accurately predicted by analyzing their urine samples, allowing them to better prepare for their end of life, say U.K. researchers.

Dr. Seamus Coyle, consultant in palliative medicine, the Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Liverpool, and colleagues studied urine samples from more than 100 lung cancer patients, deriving a model based on their metabolite profile.

This allowed patients to be divided into high- and low-risk groups for dying over the following 3 months, with an accuracy of 88%.

The model “predicts dying … for every single day for the last 3 months of life,” Dr. Coyle said.

“That’s an outstanding prediction,” Dr. Coyle added, “based on the fact that people actively die over 2 to 3 days on average,” while “some die over a day.”

He continued: “It’s the only test that predicts dying within the last 2 weeks of life, and that’s what I’m passionate about: The earlier recognition of dying.”

The research was presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting on June 4.
 

‘Promising and important pilot study’

Dr. Nathan Pennell, an ASCO expert, told this news organization that “predicting the actual ‘time’ someone has left is more of an art than a science.”

“For people who may be closer to death, this would potentially allow more focus on supportive care and allow families and patients to plan more accurately for supporting their loved one through the dying process.”

He continued that “while this is a promising and important pilot study, there is more work to be done before this could be used in practice.”

For example, the treatment status of the patients was not clear.

“Were these patients all in hospice, or were some undergoing treatment which, if effective, could ‘rescue’ them from their poor prognostic state?”

Dr. Pennell continued: “Would measuring kidney function be just as good? Is this something that could be intervened upon?

“For example, if someone has a high-risk score for dying, could medical intervention to treat an infection or some other modifiable action change that ‘fate’?”
 

Death ‘difficult to predict’

Dr. Coyle began by saying that, while for him recognizing that a patient is dying is the start of good end of life care, “recognizing dying accurately, when someone is in the last days of life, is difficult.”

He noted that the 2019 National Audit of Care at the End of Life found that people were recognized to be dying at median of 34 hours before death, with 20% recognized in the last 8 hours.

Moreover, 50% of people who are dying “are unconscious and unable to be involved in any conversation that [is] pertinent to them.”

In an attempt to better predict the onset of dying, the researchers conducted a prospective, longitudinal study in which 424 urine samples were collected from 162 lung cancer patients from six centers.

Of those, 63 patients gave a sample within the last 28 days of life, and 29 within the last week of life.

Urine samples were analyzed using a liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometer for 112 patients, who had a median age of 71 years and a range of 47-89 years, and 40.2% were female. The most common diagnosis was non–small cell lung cancer, in 55.4%, while 19.6% had small cell lung cancer.

Performing Cox Lasso regression analysis on the “hundreds of metabolites” identified in the urine samples, the team developed an End of Life Metabolome (ELM) that predicted an individual’s risk of dying over the following 3 months.

Kaplan-Meier analysis allowed the patients to be divided into five risk groups based on their ELM (P < .001 for trend), which showed that all patients in the lowest-risk group were still alive after more than 2 months following the urine sample.

In contrast, more than 50% of patients in the highest-risk group died within 1 week of their urine sample being taken, and 100% had died within 3 weeks.

Calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve revealed that the ELM was able to predict the risk of dying for every day for the last 3 months of life with an accuracy of 88%.

ELM is being validated in a new cohort of lung cancer patients and it is being assessed in multiple cancers.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust UK and North West Cancer Research UK.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Lung cancer patients could soon have their risk of dying over the following 3 months accurately predicted by analyzing their urine samples, allowing them to better prepare for their end of life, say U.K. researchers.

Dr. Seamus Coyle, consultant in palliative medicine, the Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Liverpool, and colleagues studied urine samples from more than 100 lung cancer patients, deriving a model based on their metabolite profile.

This allowed patients to be divided into high- and low-risk groups for dying over the following 3 months, with an accuracy of 88%.

The model “predicts dying … for every single day for the last 3 months of life,” Dr. Coyle said.

“That’s an outstanding prediction,” Dr. Coyle added, “based on the fact that people actively die over 2 to 3 days on average,” while “some die over a day.”

He continued: “It’s the only test that predicts dying within the last 2 weeks of life, and that’s what I’m passionate about: The earlier recognition of dying.”

The research was presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting on June 4.
 

‘Promising and important pilot study’

Dr. Nathan Pennell, an ASCO expert, told this news organization that “predicting the actual ‘time’ someone has left is more of an art than a science.”

“For people who may be closer to death, this would potentially allow more focus on supportive care and allow families and patients to plan more accurately for supporting their loved one through the dying process.”

He continued that “while this is a promising and important pilot study, there is more work to be done before this could be used in practice.”

For example, the treatment status of the patients was not clear.

“Were these patients all in hospice, or were some undergoing treatment which, if effective, could ‘rescue’ them from their poor prognostic state?”

Dr. Pennell continued: “Would measuring kidney function be just as good? Is this something that could be intervened upon?

“For example, if someone has a high-risk score for dying, could medical intervention to treat an infection or some other modifiable action change that ‘fate’?”
 

Death ‘difficult to predict’

Dr. Coyle began by saying that, while for him recognizing that a patient is dying is the start of good end of life care, “recognizing dying accurately, when someone is in the last days of life, is difficult.”

He noted that the 2019 National Audit of Care at the End of Life found that people were recognized to be dying at median of 34 hours before death, with 20% recognized in the last 8 hours.

Moreover, 50% of people who are dying “are unconscious and unable to be involved in any conversation that [is] pertinent to them.”

In an attempt to better predict the onset of dying, the researchers conducted a prospective, longitudinal study in which 424 urine samples were collected from 162 lung cancer patients from six centers.

Of those, 63 patients gave a sample within the last 28 days of life, and 29 within the last week of life.

Urine samples were analyzed using a liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometer for 112 patients, who had a median age of 71 years and a range of 47-89 years, and 40.2% were female. The most common diagnosis was non–small cell lung cancer, in 55.4%, while 19.6% had small cell lung cancer.

Performing Cox Lasso regression analysis on the “hundreds of metabolites” identified in the urine samples, the team developed an End of Life Metabolome (ELM) that predicted an individual’s risk of dying over the following 3 months.

Kaplan-Meier analysis allowed the patients to be divided into five risk groups based on their ELM (P < .001 for trend), which showed that all patients in the lowest-risk group were still alive after more than 2 months following the urine sample.

In contrast, more than 50% of patients in the highest-risk group died within 1 week of their urine sample being taken, and 100% had died within 3 weeks.

Calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve revealed that the ELM was able to predict the risk of dying for every day for the last 3 months of life with an accuracy of 88%.

ELM is being validated in a new cohort of lung cancer patients and it is being assessed in multiple cancers.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust UK and North West Cancer Research UK.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Lung cancer patients could soon have their risk of dying over the following 3 months accurately predicted by analyzing their urine samples, allowing them to better prepare for their end of life, say U.K. researchers.

Dr. Seamus Coyle, consultant in palliative medicine, the Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Liverpool, and colleagues studied urine samples from more than 100 lung cancer patients, deriving a model based on their metabolite profile.

This allowed patients to be divided into high- and low-risk groups for dying over the following 3 months, with an accuracy of 88%.

The model “predicts dying … for every single day for the last 3 months of life,” Dr. Coyle said.

“That’s an outstanding prediction,” Dr. Coyle added, “based on the fact that people actively die over 2 to 3 days on average,” while “some die over a day.”

He continued: “It’s the only test that predicts dying within the last 2 weeks of life, and that’s what I’m passionate about: The earlier recognition of dying.”

The research was presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting on June 4.
 

‘Promising and important pilot study’

Dr. Nathan Pennell, an ASCO expert, told this news organization that “predicting the actual ‘time’ someone has left is more of an art than a science.”

“For people who may be closer to death, this would potentially allow more focus on supportive care and allow families and patients to plan more accurately for supporting their loved one through the dying process.”

He continued that “while this is a promising and important pilot study, there is more work to be done before this could be used in practice.”

For example, the treatment status of the patients was not clear.

“Were these patients all in hospice, or were some undergoing treatment which, if effective, could ‘rescue’ them from their poor prognostic state?”

Dr. Pennell continued: “Would measuring kidney function be just as good? Is this something that could be intervened upon?

“For example, if someone has a high-risk score for dying, could medical intervention to treat an infection or some other modifiable action change that ‘fate’?”
 

Death ‘difficult to predict’

Dr. Coyle began by saying that, while for him recognizing that a patient is dying is the start of good end of life care, “recognizing dying accurately, when someone is in the last days of life, is difficult.”

He noted that the 2019 National Audit of Care at the End of Life found that people were recognized to be dying at median of 34 hours before death, with 20% recognized in the last 8 hours.

Moreover, 50% of people who are dying “are unconscious and unable to be involved in any conversation that [is] pertinent to them.”

In an attempt to better predict the onset of dying, the researchers conducted a prospective, longitudinal study in which 424 urine samples were collected from 162 lung cancer patients from six centers.

Of those, 63 patients gave a sample within the last 28 days of life, and 29 within the last week of life.

Urine samples were analyzed using a liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometer for 112 patients, who had a median age of 71 years and a range of 47-89 years, and 40.2% were female. The most common diagnosis was non–small cell lung cancer, in 55.4%, while 19.6% had small cell lung cancer.

Performing Cox Lasso regression analysis on the “hundreds of metabolites” identified in the urine samples, the team developed an End of Life Metabolome (ELM) that predicted an individual’s risk of dying over the following 3 months.

Kaplan-Meier analysis allowed the patients to be divided into five risk groups based on their ELM (P < .001 for trend), which showed that all patients in the lowest-risk group were still alive after more than 2 months following the urine sample.

In contrast, more than 50% of patients in the highest-risk group died within 1 week of their urine sample being taken, and 100% had died within 3 weeks.

Calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve revealed that the ELM was able to predict the risk of dying for every day for the last 3 months of life with an accuracy of 88%.

ELM is being validated in a new cohort of lung cancer patients and it is being assessed in multiple cancers.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust UK and North West Cancer Research UK.

No relevant financial relationships were declared.

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