User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack nav-ce-stack__large-screen')]
header[@id='header']
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
Biden moves to limit nicotine levels in cigarettes
The Department of Health and Human Services posted a notice that details plans for a new rule to create a maximum allowed amount of nicotine in certain tobacco products. The Food and Drug Administration would take the action, the notice said, “to reduce addictiveness to certain tobacco products, thus giving addicted users a greater ability to quit.” The product standard would also help keep nonsmokers interested in trying tobacco, mainly youth, from starting to smoke and become regulars.
“Lowering nicotine levels to minimally addictive or non-addictive levels would decrease the likelihood that future generations of young people become addicted to cigarettes and help more currently addicted smokers to quit,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement.
The FDA, in charge of regulating cigarettes, issues a proposed rule when changes are discussed. That would be followed by a period for public comments before a final rule could be issued.
The proposed rule was first reported by The Washington Post.
The FDA in 2018 published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that estimated that a potential limit on nicotine in cigarettes could, by the year 2100, prevent more than 33 million people from becoming regular smokers, and prevent the deaths of more than 8 million people from tobacco-related illnesses.
The action to reduce nicotine levels would fit in with President Joe Biden’s goal of reducing cancer death rates by half over 25 years. Each year, according to the American Cancer Society, about 480,000 deaths (about 1 in 5) are related to smoking. Currently, about 34 million American adults still smoke cigarettes.
Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the proposed rule a “truly game-changing proposal.”
“There is no other single action our country can take that would prevent more young people from becoming addicted to tobacco or have a greater impact on reducing deaths from cancer, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease,” Mr. Myers said in a statement.
However, he said, “these gains will only be realized if the administration and the FDA demonstrate a full-throated commitment to finalizing and implementing this proposal.”
The FDA proposed the nicotine reduction strategy in talks with the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services early in 2021, according to the Post.
Earlier this year, the FDA issued a proposed rule to ban menthol flavoring in cigarettes. The agency is accepting public comments though July 5.
The action of reducing nicotine levels would likely take years to complete, Mitch Zeller, JD, recently retired director of the FDA Center for Tobacco Products, told the Post.
In 2018, the FDA issued a proposed ruling to set a standard for maximum nicotine levels in cigarettes.
Advocates say the action of slashing nicotine, the active – and addictive – ingredient in cigarettes, would save millions of lives for generations to come. Opponents liken it to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s and predict the action will fail.
Others say that if limits are put on nicotine levels, adults should have greater access to noncombustible alternatives.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Department of Health and Human Services posted a notice that details plans for a new rule to create a maximum allowed amount of nicotine in certain tobacco products. The Food and Drug Administration would take the action, the notice said, “to reduce addictiveness to certain tobacco products, thus giving addicted users a greater ability to quit.” The product standard would also help keep nonsmokers interested in trying tobacco, mainly youth, from starting to smoke and become regulars.
“Lowering nicotine levels to minimally addictive or non-addictive levels would decrease the likelihood that future generations of young people become addicted to cigarettes and help more currently addicted smokers to quit,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement.
The FDA, in charge of regulating cigarettes, issues a proposed rule when changes are discussed. That would be followed by a period for public comments before a final rule could be issued.
The proposed rule was first reported by The Washington Post.
The FDA in 2018 published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that estimated that a potential limit on nicotine in cigarettes could, by the year 2100, prevent more than 33 million people from becoming regular smokers, and prevent the deaths of more than 8 million people from tobacco-related illnesses.
The action to reduce nicotine levels would fit in with President Joe Biden’s goal of reducing cancer death rates by half over 25 years. Each year, according to the American Cancer Society, about 480,000 deaths (about 1 in 5) are related to smoking. Currently, about 34 million American adults still smoke cigarettes.
Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the proposed rule a “truly game-changing proposal.”
“There is no other single action our country can take that would prevent more young people from becoming addicted to tobacco or have a greater impact on reducing deaths from cancer, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease,” Mr. Myers said in a statement.
However, he said, “these gains will only be realized if the administration and the FDA demonstrate a full-throated commitment to finalizing and implementing this proposal.”
The FDA proposed the nicotine reduction strategy in talks with the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services early in 2021, according to the Post.
Earlier this year, the FDA issued a proposed rule to ban menthol flavoring in cigarettes. The agency is accepting public comments though July 5.
The action of reducing nicotine levels would likely take years to complete, Mitch Zeller, JD, recently retired director of the FDA Center for Tobacco Products, told the Post.
In 2018, the FDA issued a proposed ruling to set a standard for maximum nicotine levels in cigarettes.
Advocates say the action of slashing nicotine, the active – and addictive – ingredient in cigarettes, would save millions of lives for generations to come. Opponents liken it to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s and predict the action will fail.
Others say that if limits are put on nicotine levels, adults should have greater access to noncombustible alternatives.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The Department of Health and Human Services posted a notice that details plans for a new rule to create a maximum allowed amount of nicotine in certain tobacco products. The Food and Drug Administration would take the action, the notice said, “to reduce addictiveness to certain tobacco products, thus giving addicted users a greater ability to quit.” The product standard would also help keep nonsmokers interested in trying tobacco, mainly youth, from starting to smoke and become regulars.
“Lowering nicotine levels to minimally addictive or non-addictive levels would decrease the likelihood that future generations of young people become addicted to cigarettes and help more currently addicted smokers to quit,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said in a statement.
The FDA, in charge of regulating cigarettes, issues a proposed rule when changes are discussed. That would be followed by a period for public comments before a final rule could be issued.
The proposed rule was first reported by The Washington Post.
The FDA in 2018 published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that estimated that a potential limit on nicotine in cigarettes could, by the year 2100, prevent more than 33 million people from becoming regular smokers, and prevent the deaths of more than 8 million people from tobacco-related illnesses.
The action to reduce nicotine levels would fit in with President Joe Biden’s goal of reducing cancer death rates by half over 25 years. Each year, according to the American Cancer Society, about 480,000 deaths (about 1 in 5) are related to smoking. Currently, about 34 million American adults still smoke cigarettes.
Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the proposed rule a “truly game-changing proposal.”
“There is no other single action our country can take that would prevent more young people from becoming addicted to tobacco or have a greater impact on reducing deaths from cancer, cardiovascular disease and respiratory disease,” Mr. Myers said in a statement.
However, he said, “these gains will only be realized if the administration and the FDA demonstrate a full-throated commitment to finalizing and implementing this proposal.”
The FDA proposed the nicotine reduction strategy in talks with the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services early in 2021, according to the Post.
Earlier this year, the FDA issued a proposed rule to ban menthol flavoring in cigarettes. The agency is accepting public comments though July 5.
The action of reducing nicotine levels would likely take years to complete, Mitch Zeller, JD, recently retired director of the FDA Center for Tobacco Products, told the Post.
In 2018, the FDA issued a proposed ruling to set a standard for maximum nicotine levels in cigarettes.
Advocates say the action of slashing nicotine, the active – and addictive – ingredient in cigarettes, would save millions of lives for generations to come. Opponents liken it to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s and predict the action will fail.
Others say that if limits are put on nicotine levels, adults should have greater access to noncombustible alternatives.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
COVID-19 Pandemic stress affected ovulation, not menstruation
ATLANTA – Disturbances in ovulation that didn’t produce any actual changes in the menstrual cycle of women were extremely common during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and were linked to emotional stress, according to the findings of an “experiment of nature” that allowed for comparison with women a decade earlier.
Findings from two studies of reproductive-age women, one conducted in 2006-2008 and the other in 2020-2021, were presented by Jerilynn C. Prior, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
The comparison of the two time periods yielded several novel findings. “I was taught in medical school that when women don’t eat enough they lose their period. But what we now understand is there’s a graded response to various stressors, acting through the hypothalamus in a common pathway. There is a gradation of disturbances, some of which are subclinical or not obvious,” said Dr. Prior, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Moreover, women’s menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ across the two time periods, despite a dramatic 63% decrement in normal ovulatory function related to increased depression, anxiety, and outside stresses that the women reported in diaries.
“Assuming that regular cycles need normal ovulation is something we should just get out of our minds. It changes our concept about what’s normal if we only know about the cycle length,” she observed.
It will be critical going forward to see whether the ovulatory disturbances have resolved as the pandemic has shifted “because there’s strong evidence that ovulatory disturbances, even with normal cycle length, are related to bone loss and some evidence it’s related to early heart attacks, breast and endometrial cancers,” Dr. Prior said during a press conference.
Asked to comment, session moderator Genevieve Neal-Perry, MD, PhD, told this news organization: “I think what we can take away is that stress itself is a modifier of the way the brain and the gonads communicate with each other, and that then has an impact on ovulatory function.”
Dr. Neal-Perry noted that the association of stress and ovulatory disruption has been reported in various ways previously, but “clearly it doesn’t affect everyone. What we don’t know is who is most susceptible. There have been some studies showing a genetic predisposition and a genetic anomaly that actually makes them more susceptible to the impact of stress on the reproductive system.”
But the lack of data on weight change in the study cohorts is a limitation. “To me one of the more important questions was what was going on with weight. Just looking at a static number doesn’t tell you whether there were changes. We know that weight gain or weight loss can stress the reproductive axis,” noted Dr. Neal-Parry of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
‘Experiment of nature’ revealed invisible effect of pandemic stress
The women in both cohorts of the Menstruation Ovulation Study (MOS) were healthy volunteers aged 19-35 years recruited from the metropolitan Vancouver region. All were menstruating monthly and none were taking hormonal birth control. Recruitment for the second cohort had begun just prior to the March 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.
Interviewer-administered questionnaires (CaMos) covering demographics, socioeconomic status, and reproductive history, and daily diaries kept by the women (menstrual cycle diary) were identical for both cohorts.
Assessments of ovulation differed for the two studies but were cross-validated. For the earlier time period, ovulation was assessed by a threefold increase in follicular-to-luteal urinary progesterone (PdG). For the pandemic-era study, the validated quantitative basal temperature (QBT) method was used.
There were 301 women in the earlier cohort and 125 during the pandemic. Both were an average age of about 29 years and had a body mass index of about 24.3 kg/m2 (within the normal range). The pandemic cohort was more racially/ethnically diverse than the earlier one and more in-line with recent census data.
More of the women were nulliparous during the pandemic than earlier (92.7% vs. 80.4%; P = .002).
The distribution of menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ, with both cohorts averaging about 30 days (P = .893). However, while 90% of the women in the earlier cohort ovulated normally, only 37% did during the pandemic, a highly significant difference (P < .0001).
Thus, during the pandemic, 63% of women had “silent ovulatory disturbances,” either with short luteal phases after ovulation or no ovulation, compared with just 10% in the earlier cohort, “which is remarkable, unbelievable actually,” Dr. Prior remarked.
The difference wasn’t explained by any of the demographic information collected either, including socioeconomic status, lifestyle, or reproductive history variables.
And it wasn’t because of COVID-19 vaccination, as the vaccine wasn’t available when most of the women were recruited, and of the 79 who were recruited during vaccine availability, only two received a COVID-19 vaccine during the study (and both had normal ovulation).
Employment changes, caring responsibilities, and worry likely causes
The information from the diaries was more revealing. Several diary components were far more common during the pandemic, including negative mood (feeling depressed or anxious, sleep problems, and outside stresses), self-worth, interest in sex, energy level, and appetite. All were significantly different between the two cohorts (P < .001) and between those with and without ovulatory disturbances.
“So menstrual cycle lengths and long cycles didn’t differ, but there was a much higher prevalence of silent or subclinical ovulatory disturbances, and these were related to the increased stresses that women recorded in their diaries. This means that the estrogen levels were pretty close to normal but the progesterone levels were remarkably decreased,” Dr. Prior said.
Interestingly, reported menstrual cramps were also significantly more common during the pandemic and associated with ovulatory disruption.
“That is a new observation because previously we’ve always thought that you needed to ovulate in order to even have cramps,” she commented.
Asked whether COVID-19 itself might have played a role, Dr. Prior said no woman in the study tested positive for the virus or had long COVID.
“As far as I’m aware, it was the changes in employment … and caring for elders and worry about illness in somebody you loved that was related,” she said.
Asked what she thinks the result would be if the study were conducted now, she said: “I don’t know. We’re still in a stressful time with inflation and not complete recovery, so probably the issue is still very present.”
Dr. Prior and Dr. Neal-Perry have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ATLANTA – Disturbances in ovulation that didn’t produce any actual changes in the menstrual cycle of women were extremely common during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and were linked to emotional stress, according to the findings of an “experiment of nature” that allowed for comparison with women a decade earlier.
Findings from two studies of reproductive-age women, one conducted in 2006-2008 and the other in 2020-2021, were presented by Jerilynn C. Prior, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
The comparison of the two time periods yielded several novel findings. “I was taught in medical school that when women don’t eat enough they lose their period. But what we now understand is there’s a graded response to various stressors, acting through the hypothalamus in a common pathway. There is a gradation of disturbances, some of which are subclinical or not obvious,” said Dr. Prior, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Moreover, women’s menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ across the two time periods, despite a dramatic 63% decrement in normal ovulatory function related to increased depression, anxiety, and outside stresses that the women reported in diaries.
“Assuming that regular cycles need normal ovulation is something we should just get out of our minds. It changes our concept about what’s normal if we only know about the cycle length,” she observed.
It will be critical going forward to see whether the ovulatory disturbances have resolved as the pandemic has shifted “because there’s strong evidence that ovulatory disturbances, even with normal cycle length, are related to bone loss and some evidence it’s related to early heart attacks, breast and endometrial cancers,” Dr. Prior said during a press conference.
Asked to comment, session moderator Genevieve Neal-Perry, MD, PhD, told this news organization: “I think what we can take away is that stress itself is a modifier of the way the brain and the gonads communicate with each other, and that then has an impact on ovulatory function.”
Dr. Neal-Perry noted that the association of stress and ovulatory disruption has been reported in various ways previously, but “clearly it doesn’t affect everyone. What we don’t know is who is most susceptible. There have been some studies showing a genetic predisposition and a genetic anomaly that actually makes them more susceptible to the impact of stress on the reproductive system.”
But the lack of data on weight change in the study cohorts is a limitation. “To me one of the more important questions was what was going on with weight. Just looking at a static number doesn’t tell you whether there were changes. We know that weight gain or weight loss can stress the reproductive axis,” noted Dr. Neal-Parry of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
‘Experiment of nature’ revealed invisible effect of pandemic stress
The women in both cohorts of the Menstruation Ovulation Study (MOS) were healthy volunteers aged 19-35 years recruited from the metropolitan Vancouver region. All were menstruating monthly and none were taking hormonal birth control. Recruitment for the second cohort had begun just prior to the March 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.
Interviewer-administered questionnaires (CaMos) covering demographics, socioeconomic status, and reproductive history, and daily diaries kept by the women (menstrual cycle diary) were identical for both cohorts.
Assessments of ovulation differed for the two studies but were cross-validated. For the earlier time period, ovulation was assessed by a threefold increase in follicular-to-luteal urinary progesterone (PdG). For the pandemic-era study, the validated quantitative basal temperature (QBT) method was used.
There were 301 women in the earlier cohort and 125 during the pandemic. Both were an average age of about 29 years and had a body mass index of about 24.3 kg/m2 (within the normal range). The pandemic cohort was more racially/ethnically diverse than the earlier one and more in-line with recent census data.
More of the women were nulliparous during the pandemic than earlier (92.7% vs. 80.4%; P = .002).
The distribution of menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ, with both cohorts averaging about 30 days (P = .893). However, while 90% of the women in the earlier cohort ovulated normally, only 37% did during the pandemic, a highly significant difference (P < .0001).
Thus, during the pandemic, 63% of women had “silent ovulatory disturbances,” either with short luteal phases after ovulation or no ovulation, compared with just 10% in the earlier cohort, “which is remarkable, unbelievable actually,” Dr. Prior remarked.
The difference wasn’t explained by any of the demographic information collected either, including socioeconomic status, lifestyle, or reproductive history variables.
And it wasn’t because of COVID-19 vaccination, as the vaccine wasn’t available when most of the women were recruited, and of the 79 who were recruited during vaccine availability, only two received a COVID-19 vaccine during the study (and both had normal ovulation).
Employment changes, caring responsibilities, and worry likely causes
The information from the diaries was more revealing. Several diary components were far more common during the pandemic, including negative mood (feeling depressed or anxious, sleep problems, and outside stresses), self-worth, interest in sex, energy level, and appetite. All were significantly different between the two cohorts (P < .001) and between those with and without ovulatory disturbances.
“So menstrual cycle lengths and long cycles didn’t differ, but there was a much higher prevalence of silent or subclinical ovulatory disturbances, and these were related to the increased stresses that women recorded in their diaries. This means that the estrogen levels were pretty close to normal but the progesterone levels were remarkably decreased,” Dr. Prior said.
Interestingly, reported menstrual cramps were also significantly more common during the pandemic and associated with ovulatory disruption.
“That is a new observation because previously we’ve always thought that you needed to ovulate in order to even have cramps,” she commented.
Asked whether COVID-19 itself might have played a role, Dr. Prior said no woman in the study tested positive for the virus or had long COVID.
“As far as I’m aware, it was the changes in employment … and caring for elders and worry about illness in somebody you loved that was related,” she said.
Asked what she thinks the result would be if the study were conducted now, she said: “I don’t know. We’re still in a stressful time with inflation and not complete recovery, so probably the issue is still very present.”
Dr. Prior and Dr. Neal-Perry have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ATLANTA – Disturbances in ovulation that didn’t produce any actual changes in the menstrual cycle of women were extremely common during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and were linked to emotional stress, according to the findings of an “experiment of nature” that allowed for comparison with women a decade earlier.
Findings from two studies of reproductive-age women, one conducted in 2006-2008 and the other in 2020-2021, were presented by Jerilynn C. Prior, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
The comparison of the two time periods yielded several novel findings. “I was taught in medical school that when women don’t eat enough they lose their period. But what we now understand is there’s a graded response to various stressors, acting through the hypothalamus in a common pathway. There is a gradation of disturbances, some of which are subclinical or not obvious,” said Dr. Prior, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Moreover, women’s menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ across the two time periods, despite a dramatic 63% decrement in normal ovulatory function related to increased depression, anxiety, and outside stresses that the women reported in diaries.
“Assuming that regular cycles need normal ovulation is something we should just get out of our minds. It changes our concept about what’s normal if we only know about the cycle length,” she observed.
It will be critical going forward to see whether the ovulatory disturbances have resolved as the pandemic has shifted “because there’s strong evidence that ovulatory disturbances, even with normal cycle length, are related to bone loss and some evidence it’s related to early heart attacks, breast and endometrial cancers,” Dr. Prior said during a press conference.
Asked to comment, session moderator Genevieve Neal-Perry, MD, PhD, told this news organization: “I think what we can take away is that stress itself is a modifier of the way the brain and the gonads communicate with each other, and that then has an impact on ovulatory function.”
Dr. Neal-Perry noted that the association of stress and ovulatory disruption has been reported in various ways previously, but “clearly it doesn’t affect everyone. What we don’t know is who is most susceptible. There have been some studies showing a genetic predisposition and a genetic anomaly that actually makes them more susceptible to the impact of stress on the reproductive system.”
But the lack of data on weight change in the study cohorts is a limitation. “To me one of the more important questions was what was going on with weight. Just looking at a static number doesn’t tell you whether there were changes. We know that weight gain or weight loss can stress the reproductive axis,” noted Dr. Neal-Parry of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
‘Experiment of nature’ revealed invisible effect of pandemic stress
The women in both cohorts of the Menstruation Ovulation Study (MOS) were healthy volunteers aged 19-35 years recruited from the metropolitan Vancouver region. All were menstruating monthly and none were taking hormonal birth control. Recruitment for the second cohort had begun just prior to the March 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.
Interviewer-administered questionnaires (CaMos) covering demographics, socioeconomic status, and reproductive history, and daily diaries kept by the women (menstrual cycle diary) were identical for both cohorts.
Assessments of ovulation differed for the two studies but were cross-validated. For the earlier time period, ovulation was assessed by a threefold increase in follicular-to-luteal urinary progesterone (PdG). For the pandemic-era study, the validated quantitative basal temperature (QBT) method was used.
There were 301 women in the earlier cohort and 125 during the pandemic. Both were an average age of about 29 years and had a body mass index of about 24.3 kg/m2 (within the normal range). The pandemic cohort was more racially/ethnically diverse than the earlier one and more in-line with recent census data.
More of the women were nulliparous during the pandemic than earlier (92.7% vs. 80.4%; P = .002).
The distribution of menstrual cycle lengths didn’t differ, with both cohorts averaging about 30 days (P = .893). However, while 90% of the women in the earlier cohort ovulated normally, only 37% did during the pandemic, a highly significant difference (P < .0001).
Thus, during the pandemic, 63% of women had “silent ovulatory disturbances,” either with short luteal phases after ovulation or no ovulation, compared with just 10% in the earlier cohort, “which is remarkable, unbelievable actually,” Dr. Prior remarked.
The difference wasn’t explained by any of the demographic information collected either, including socioeconomic status, lifestyle, or reproductive history variables.
And it wasn’t because of COVID-19 vaccination, as the vaccine wasn’t available when most of the women were recruited, and of the 79 who were recruited during vaccine availability, only two received a COVID-19 vaccine during the study (and both had normal ovulation).
Employment changes, caring responsibilities, and worry likely causes
The information from the diaries was more revealing. Several diary components were far more common during the pandemic, including negative mood (feeling depressed or anxious, sleep problems, and outside stresses), self-worth, interest in sex, energy level, and appetite. All were significantly different between the two cohorts (P < .001) and between those with and without ovulatory disturbances.
“So menstrual cycle lengths and long cycles didn’t differ, but there was a much higher prevalence of silent or subclinical ovulatory disturbances, and these were related to the increased stresses that women recorded in their diaries. This means that the estrogen levels were pretty close to normal but the progesterone levels were remarkably decreased,” Dr. Prior said.
Interestingly, reported menstrual cramps were also significantly more common during the pandemic and associated with ovulatory disruption.
“That is a new observation because previously we’ve always thought that you needed to ovulate in order to even have cramps,” she commented.
Asked whether COVID-19 itself might have played a role, Dr. Prior said no woman in the study tested positive for the virus or had long COVID.
“As far as I’m aware, it was the changes in employment … and caring for elders and worry about illness in somebody you loved that was related,” she said.
Asked what she thinks the result would be if the study were conducted now, she said: “I don’t know. We’re still in a stressful time with inflation and not complete recovery, so probably the issue is still very present.”
Dr. Prior and Dr. Neal-Perry have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ENDO 2022
Osteoporosis risk rises with air pollution levels
COPENHAGEN – Chronic exposure to high levels of particulate matter (PM) air pollution 2.5 mcm (PM2.5) or larger, and 10 mcm (PM10) or larger, in size is associated with a significantly higher likelihood of having osteoporosis, according to research presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
The results of the 7-year longitudinal study carried out across Italy from 2013 to 2019 dovetail with other recent published accounts from the same team of Italian researchers, led by Giovanni Adami, MD, of the rheumatology unit at the University of Verona (Italy). In addition to the current report presented at EULAR 2022, Dr. Adami and associates have reported an increased risk of flares of both rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis following periods of elevated pollution, as well as an overall elevated risk for autoimmune diseases with higher concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10.
The pathogenesis of osteoporosis is thought to involve both genetic and environmental input, such as smoking, which is itself environmental air pollution, Dr. Adami said. The biological rationale for why air pollution might contribute to risk for osteoporosis comes from studies showing that exposure to indoor air pollution from biomass combustion raises serum levels of RANKL (receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa ligand 1) but lowers serum osteoprotegerin – suggesting an increased risk of bone resorption – and that toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, mercury, and aluminum accumulate in the skeleton and negatively affect bone health.
In their study, Dr. Adami and colleagues found that, overall, the average exposure during the period 2013-2019 across Italy was 16.0 mcg/m3 for PM2.5 and 25.0 mcg/m3 for PM10.
“I can tell you that [25.0 mcg/m3 for PM10] is a very high exposure. It’s not very good for your health,” Dr. Adami said.
Data on more than 59,000 Italian women
Dr. Adami and colleagues used clinical characteristics and densitometric data from Italy’s osteoporosis fracture risk and osteoporosis screening reimbursement tool known as DeFRAcalc79, which has amassed variables from more than 59,000 women across the country. They used long-term average PM concentrations across Italy during 2013-2019 that were obtained from the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research’s 617 air quality stations in 110 Italian provinces. The researchers linked individuals to a PM exposure value determined from the average concentration of urban, rural, and near-traffic stations in each person’s province of residence.
For 59,950 women across Italy who were at high risk for fracture, the researchers found 64.5% with bone mineral density that was defined as osteoporotic. At PM10 concentrations of 30 mcg/m3 or greater, there was a significantly higher likelihood of osteoporosis at both the femoral neck (odds ratio, 1.15) and lumbar spine (OR, 1.17).
The likelihood of osteoporosis was slightly greater with PM2.5 at concentrations of 25 mcg/m3 or more at the femoral neck (OR, 1.22) and lumbar spine (OR, 1.18). These comparisons were adjusted for age, body mass index (BMI), presence of prevalent fragility fractures, family history of osteoporosis, menopause, glucocorticoid use, comorbidities, and for residency in northern, central, or southern Italy.
Both thresholds of PM10 > 30 mcg/m3 and PM2.5 > 25 mcg/m3 “are considered safe … by the World Health Organization,” Dr. Adami pointed out.
“If you live in a place where the chronic exposure is less than 30 mcg/m3, you probably have slightly lower risk of osteoporosis as compared to those who live in a highly industrialized, polluted zone,” he explained.
“The cortical bone – femoral neck – seemed to be more susceptible, compared to trabecular bone, which is the lumbar spine. We have no idea why this is true, but we might speculate that somehow chronic inflammation like the [kind] seen in rheumatoid arthritis might be responsible for cortical bone impairment and not trabecular bone impairment,” Dr. Adami said.
One audience member, Kenneth Poole, BM, PhD, senior lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Bone Disease and Rheumatology at the University of Cambridge (England), asked whether it was possible to account for the possibility of confounding caused by areas with dense housing in places where the particulate matter would be highest, and where residents may be less active and use stairs less often.
Dr. Adami noted that confounding is indeed a possibility, but he said Italy is unique in that its most polluted area – the Po River valley – is also its most wealthy area and in general has less crowded living situations with a healthier population, which could have attenuated, rather than reinforced, the results.
Does air pollution have an immunologic effect?
In interviews with this news organization, session comoderators Filipe Araújo, MD, and Irene Bultink, MD, PhD, said that the growth in evidence for the impact of air pollution on risk for, and severity of, various diseases suggests air pollution might have an immunologic effect.
“I think it’s very important to point this out. I also think it’s very hard to rule out confounding, because when you’re living in a city with crowded housing you may not walk or ride your bike but instead go by car or metro, and [the lifestyle is different],” said Dr. Bultink of Amsterdam University Medical Centers.
“It stresses that these diseases [that are associated with air pollution] although they are different in their pathophysiology, it points toward the systemic nature of rheumatic diseases, including osteoporosis,” said Dr. Araújo of Hospital Cuf Cascais (Portugal) and Hospital Ortopédico de Sant’Ana, Parede, Portugal.
The study was independently supported.Dr. Adami disclosed being a shareholder of Galapagos and Theramex.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN – Chronic exposure to high levels of particulate matter (PM) air pollution 2.5 mcm (PM2.5) or larger, and 10 mcm (PM10) or larger, in size is associated with a significantly higher likelihood of having osteoporosis, according to research presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
The results of the 7-year longitudinal study carried out across Italy from 2013 to 2019 dovetail with other recent published accounts from the same team of Italian researchers, led by Giovanni Adami, MD, of the rheumatology unit at the University of Verona (Italy). In addition to the current report presented at EULAR 2022, Dr. Adami and associates have reported an increased risk of flares of both rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis following periods of elevated pollution, as well as an overall elevated risk for autoimmune diseases with higher concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10.
The pathogenesis of osteoporosis is thought to involve both genetic and environmental input, such as smoking, which is itself environmental air pollution, Dr. Adami said. The biological rationale for why air pollution might contribute to risk for osteoporosis comes from studies showing that exposure to indoor air pollution from biomass combustion raises serum levels of RANKL (receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa ligand 1) but lowers serum osteoprotegerin – suggesting an increased risk of bone resorption – and that toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, mercury, and aluminum accumulate in the skeleton and negatively affect bone health.
In their study, Dr. Adami and colleagues found that, overall, the average exposure during the period 2013-2019 across Italy was 16.0 mcg/m3 for PM2.5 and 25.0 mcg/m3 for PM10.
“I can tell you that [25.0 mcg/m3 for PM10] is a very high exposure. It’s not very good for your health,” Dr. Adami said.
Data on more than 59,000 Italian women
Dr. Adami and colleagues used clinical characteristics and densitometric data from Italy’s osteoporosis fracture risk and osteoporosis screening reimbursement tool known as DeFRAcalc79, which has amassed variables from more than 59,000 women across the country. They used long-term average PM concentrations across Italy during 2013-2019 that were obtained from the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research’s 617 air quality stations in 110 Italian provinces. The researchers linked individuals to a PM exposure value determined from the average concentration of urban, rural, and near-traffic stations in each person’s province of residence.
For 59,950 women across Italy who were at high risk for fracture, the researchers found 64.5% with bone mineral density that was defined as osteoporotic. At PM10 concentrations of 30 mcg/m3 or greater, there was a significantly higher likelihood of osteoporosis at both the femoral neck (odds ratio, 1.15) and lumbar spine (OR, 1.17).
The likelihood of osteoporosis was slightly greater with PM2.5 at concentrations of 25 mcg/m3 or more at the femoral neck (OR, 1.22) and lumbar spine (OR, 1.18). These comparisons were adjusted for age, body mass index (BMI), presence of prevalent fragility fractures, family history of osteoporosis, menopause, glucocorticoid use, comorbidities, and for residency in northern, central, or southern Italy.
Both thresholds of PM10 > 30 mcg/m3 and PM2.5 > 25 mcg/m3 “are considered safe … by the World Health Organization,” Dr. Adami pointed out.
“If you live in a place where the chronic exposure is less than 30 mcg/m3, you probably have slightly lower risk of osteoporosis as compared to those who live in a highly industrialized, polluted zone,” he explained.
“The cortical bone – femoral neck – seemed to be more susceptible, compared to trabecular bone, which is the lumbar spine. We have no idea why this is true, but we might speculate that somehow chronic inflammation like the [kind] seen in rheumatoid arthritis might be responsible for cortical bone impairment and not trabecular bone impairment,” Dr. Adami said.
One audience member, Kenneth Poole, BM, PhD, senior lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Bone Disease and Rheumatology at the University of Cambridge (England), asked whether it was possible to account for the possibility of confounding caused by areas with dense housing in places where the particulate matter would be highest, and where residents may be less active and use stairs less often.
Dr. Adami noted that confounding is indeed a possibility, but he said Italy is unique in that its most polluted area – the Po River valley – is also its most wealthy area and in general has less crowded living situations with a healthier population, which could have attenuated, rather than reinforced, the results.
Does air pollution have an immunologic effect?
In interviews with this news organization, session comoderators Filipe Araújo, MD, and Irene Bultink, MD, PhD, said that the growth in evidence for the impact of air pollution on risk for, and severity of, various diseases suggests air pollution might have an immunologic effect.
“I think it’s very important to point this out. I also think it’s very hard to rule out confounding, because when you’re living in a city with crowded housing you may not walk or ride your bike but instead go by car or metro, and [the lifestyle is different],” said Dr. Bultink of Amsterdam University Medical Centers.
“It stresses that these diseases [that are associated with air pollution] although they are different in their pathophysiology, it points toward the systemic nature of rheumatic diseases, including osteoporosis,” said Dr. Araújo of Hospital Cuf Cascais (Portugal) and Hospital Ortopédico de Sant’Ana, Parede, Portugal.
The study was independently supported.Dr. Adami disclosed being a shareholder of Galapagos and Theramex.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN – Chronic exposure to high levels of particulate matter (PM) air pollution 2.5 mcm (PM2.5) or larger, and 10 mcm (PM10) or larger, in size is associated with a significantly higher likelihood of having osteoporosis, according to research presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
The results of the 7-year longitudinal study carried out across Italy from 2013 to 2019 dovetail with other recent published accounts from the same team of Italian researchers, led by Giovanni Adami, MD, of the rheumatology unit at the University of Verona (Italy). In addition to the current report presented at EULAR 2022, Dr. Adami and associates have reported an increased risk of flares of both rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis following periods of elevated pollution, as well as an overall elevated risk for autoimmune diseases with higher concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10.
The pathogenesis of osteoporosis is thought to involve both genetic and environmental input, such as smoking, which is itself environmental air pollution, Dr. Adami said. The biological rationale for why air pollution might contribute to risk for osteoporosis comes from studies showing that exposure to indoor air pollution from biomass combustion raises serum levels of RANKL (receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa ligand 1) but lowers serum osteoprotegerin – suggesting an increased risk of bone resorption – and that toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, mercury, and aluminum accumulate in the skeleton and negatively affect bone health.
In their study, Dr. Adami and colleagues found that, overall, the average exposure during the period 2013-2019 across Italy was 16.0 mcg/m3 for PM2.5 and 25.0 mcg/m3 for PM10.
“I can tell you that [25.0 mcg/m3 for PM10] is a very high exposure. It’s not very good for your health,” Dr. Adami said.
Data on more than 59,000 Italian women
Dr. Adami and colleagues used clinical characteristics and densitometric data from Italy’s osteoporosis fracture risk and osteoporosis screening reimbursement tool known as DeFRAcalc79, which has amassed variables from more than 59,000 women across the country. They used long-term average PM concentrations across Italy during 2013-2019 that were obtained from the Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research’s 617 air quality stations in 110 Italian provinces. The researchers linked individuals to a PM exposure value determined from the average concentration of urban, rural, and near-traffic stations in each person’s province of residence.
For 59,950 women across Italy who were at high risk for fracture, the researchers found 64.5% with bone mineral density that was defined as osteoporotic. At PM10 concentrations of 30 mcg/m3 or greater, there was a significantly higher likelihood of osteoporosis at both the femoral neck (odds ratio, 1.15) and lumbar spine (OR, 1.17).
The likelihood of osteoporosis was slightly greater with PM2.5 at concentrations of 25 mcg/m3 or more at the femoral neck (OR, 1.22) and lumbar spine (OR, 1.18). These comparisons were adjusted for age, body mass index (BMI), presence of prevalent fragility fractures, family history of osteoporosis, menopause, glucocorticoid use, comorbidities, and for residency in northern, central, or southern Italy.
Both thresholds of PM10 > 30 mcg/m3 and PM2.5 > 25 mcg/m3 “are considered safe … by the World Health Organization,” Dr. Adami pointed out.
“If you live in a place where the chronic exposure is less than 30 mcg/m3, you probably have slightly lower risk of osteoporosis as compared to those who live in a highly industrialized, polluted zone,” he explained.
“The cortical bone – femoral neck – seemed to be more susceptible, compared to trabecular bone, which is the lumbar spine. We have no idea why this is true, but we might speculate that somehow chronic inflammation like the [kind] seen in rheumatoid arthritis might be responsible for cortical bone impairment and not trabecular bone impairment,” Dr. Adami said.
One audience member, Kenneth Poole, BM, PhD, senior lecturer and honorary consultant in Metabolic Bone Disease and Rheumatology at the University of Cambridge (England), asked whether it was possible to account for the possibility of confounding caused by areas with dense housing in places where the particulate matter would be highest, and where residents may be less active and use stairs less often.
Dr. Adami noted that confounding is indeed a possibility, but he said Italy is unique in that its most polluted area – the Po River valley – is also its most wealthy area and in general has less crowded living situations with a healthier population, which could have attenuated, rather than reinforced, the results.
Does air pollution have an immunologic effect?
In interviews with this news organization, session comoderators Filipe Araújo, MD, and Irene Bultink, MD, PhD, said that the growth in evidence for the impact of air pollution on risk for, and severity of, various diseases suggests air pollution might have an immunologic effect.
“I think it’s very important to point this out. I also think it’s very hard to rule out confounding, because when you’re living in a city with crowded housing you may not walk or ride your bike but instead go by car or metro, and [the lifestyle is different],” said Dr. Bultink of Amsterdam University Medical Centers.
“It stresses that these diseases [that are associated with air pollution] although they are different in their pathophysiology, it points toward the systemic nature of rheumatic diseases, including osteoporosis,” said Dr. Araújo of Hospital Cuf Cascais (Portugal) and Hospital Ortopédico de Sant’Ana, Parede, Portugal.
The study was independently supported.Dr. Adami disclosed being a shareholder of Galapagos and Theramex.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
HPV vaccination with Cervarix ‘unmasks’ cervical lesions from non-vax strains
Vaccines against human papillomavirus have been hailed as a success: they have been shown to decrease the incidence of cervical lesions associated with the HPV types that are in the vaccine.
However,
An expert not involved in the research said the new data “tell us to be a little bit careful.” Although the HPV types not included in the vaccine are rarer and less aggressive, they can still cause cancer.
The data come from the Costa Rica HPV Vaccine Trial, which involved more than 10,000 women aged 18-25 years. The HPV vaccine used in the trial was Cervarix, from GlaxoSmithKline. It covers the two leading causes of cervical cancer, HPV-16 and -18, and provides partial protection against three other genotypes.
After a follow-up of 11 years, among vaccinated women, there was an excess of precancerous cervical lesions caused by genotypes not included in the vaccine, resulting in negative vaccine efficacy for those HPV variants.
The increase wasn’t enough to offset the overall benefit of vaccination when all genotypes were considered, said the researchers, led by Jaimie Shing, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.
Vaccinated women “still had long-term absolute reductions in high-grade lesions,” they pointed out.
The net protection “remained considerable, emphasizing the importance of HPV vaccination for cervical cancer prevention,” the team concluded.
The findings were published online in The Lancet Oncology.
The results are likely the first evidence to date of “clinical unmasking” with HPV vaccination, meaning that protection against the strains covered by the vaccine leaves women more prone to attack from other carcinogenic HPV variants.
This phenomenon “could attenuate long-term reductions in high-grade disease following successful implementation of HPV vaccination programs,” the investigators commented.
Highlighting a need for caution
The take-home message from the trial is that “we have to be careful,” said Marc Steben, MD, co-President of HPV Global Action and a professor at the University of Montreal.
He noted that the Cervarix HPV vaccine used in the trial is not the vaccine that is used now in developed nations.
The current standard HPV vaccine is Gardasil 9 (Merck), which offers broader coverage against nine HPV types (types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58).
There are 12 main carcinogenic HPV genotypes, so unmasking of other strains is still possible with Gardasil 9, he said.
There is another issue, Dr. Steben added. The success of HPV vaccinations - a nearly 90% reduction in invasive cervical cancer in women who are vaccinated at a young age – has led to questions about the future role of routine cervical cancer screening.
“Some people are saying that if we achieve 90% coverage, we might” eliminate community transmission and no longer need to screen, he said.
These trial results “tell us to be a little bit careful,” Dr. Steben continued. Those HPV types that are less aggressive and rarer than HPV-16 and -18 “can still cause cancer and might be there and surprise us. It could take more time than we thought” to get to the point where screening can be eliminated.
“There might be a little problem if we stop too early,” he said.
Study details
During the period 2004-2005, the investigators randomly assigned 3,727 women aged 18-25 years to receive Cervarix and 3,739 to a control group that received the hepatitis A vaccine; after 4 years, the control group also received Cervarix and exited the study. They were replaced by an unvaccinated control group of 2,836 women. The new control group and the original HPV vaccine group were followed for an additional 7 years.
In years 7-11 of the trial, the investigators found 9.2 additional cervical intraepithelial neoplasias of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) from HPV types not covered by Cervarix per 1,000 vaccinated women in comparison with unvaccinated participants. This corresponds to –71.2% negative vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ lesions of HPV types not covered by the vaccine.
There were 8.3 additional CIN3+ lesions from nontargeted HPV strains per 1,000 vaccinated women in comparison with unvaccinated participants, which corresponds to –135% negative vaccine efficacy.
Overall, however, there was a net benefit of vaccination, with 27 fewer CIN2+ lesions when all HPV genotypes – vaccine covered or not – were considered per 1,000 vaccinated women over the entire 11 years of follow-up.
There were also 8.7 fewer CIN3+ lesions across all genotypes per 1,000 vaccinated women, but the benefit was not statistically significant.
Among the study limits, the team was unable to evaluate the effect of clinical unmasking on cervical cancer, because women were treated for high-grade cervical lesions before cases could progress to cervical cancer.
The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health. GlaxoSmithKline provided the Cervarix vaccine and supported aspects of the trial. Two authors are named inventors on U.S. government–owned HPV vaccine patents with expired licenses to GlaxoSmithKline and Merck. Dr. Steben is an adviser/speaker for many companies, including GlaxoSmithKline and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vaccines against human papillomavirus have been hailed as a success: they have been shown to decrease the incidence of cervical lesions associated with the HPV types that are in the vaccine.
However,
An expert not involved in the research said the new data “tell us to be a little bit careful.” Although the HPV types not included in the vaccine are rarer and less aggressive, they can still cause cancer.
The data come from the Costa Rica HPV Vaccine Trial, which involved more than 10,000 women aged 18-25 years. The HPV vaccine used in the trial was Cervarix, from GlaxoSmithKline. It covers the two leading causes of cervical cancer, HPV-16 and -18, and provides partial protection against three other genotypes.
After a follow-up of 11 years, among vaccinated women, there was an excess of precancerous cervical lesions caused by genotypes not included in the vaccine, resulting in negative vaccine efficacy for those HPV variants.
The increase wasn’t enough to offset the overall benefit of vaccination when all genotypes were considered, said the researchers, led by Jaimie Shing, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.
Vaccinated women “still had long-term absolute reductions in high-grade lesions,” they pointed out.
The net protection “remained considerable, emphasizing the importance of HPV vaccination for cervical cancer prevention,” the team concluded.
The findings were published online in The Lancet Oncology.
The results are likely the first evidence to date of “clinical unmasking” with HPV vaccination, meaning that protection against the strains covered by the vaccine leaves women more prone to attack from other carcinogenic HPV variants.
This phenomenon “could attenuate long-term reductions in high-grade disease following successful implementation of HPV vaccination programs,” the investigators commented.
Highlighting a need for caution
The take-home message from the trial is that “we have to be careful,” said Marc Steben, MD, co-President of HPV Global Action and a professor at the University of Montreal.
He noted that the Cervarix HPV vaccine used in the trial is not the vaccine that is used now in developed nations.
The current standard HPV vaccine is Gardasil 9 (Merck), which offers broader coverage against nine HPV types (types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58).
There are 12 main carcinogenic HPV genotypes, so unmasking of other strains is still possible with Gardasil 9, he said.
There is another issue, Dr. Steben added. The success of HPV vaccinations - a nearly 90% reduction in invasive cervical cancer in women who are vaccinated at a young age – has led to questions about the future role of routine cervical cancer screening.
“Some people are saying that if we achieve 90% coverage, we might” eliminate community transmission and no longer need to screen, he said.
These trial results “tell us to be a little bit careful,” Dr. Steben continued. Those HPV types that are less aggressive and rarer than HPV-16 and -18 “can still cause cancer and might be there and surprise us. It could take more time than we thought” to get to the point where screening can be eliminated.
“There might be a little problem if we stop too early,” he said.
Study details
During the period 2004-2005, the investigators randomly assigned 3,727 women aged 18-25 years to receive Cervarix and 3,739 to a control group that received the hepatitis A vaccine; after 4 years, the control group also received Cervarix and exited the study. They were replaced by an unvaccinated control group of 2,836 women. The new control group and the original HPV vaccine group were followed for an additional 7 years.
In years 7-11 of the trial, the investigators found 9.2 additional cervical intraepithelial neoplasias of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) from HPV types not covered by Cervarix per 1,000 vaccinated women in comparison with unvaccinated participants. This corresponds to –71.2% negative vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ lesions of HPV types not covered by the vaccine.
There were 8.3 additional CIN3+ lesions from nontargeted HPV strains per 1,000 vaccinated women in comparison with unvaccinated participants, which corresponds to –135% negative vaccine efficacy.
Overall, however, there was a net benefit of vaccination, with 27 fewer CIN2+ lesions when all HPV genotypes – vaccine covered or not – were considered per 1,000 vaccinated women over the entire 11 years of follow-up.
There were also 8.7 fewer CIN3+ lesions across all genotypes per 1,000 vaccinated women, but the benefit was not statistically significant.
Among the study limits, the team was unable to evaluate the effect of clinical unmasking on cervical cancer, because women were treated for high-grade cervical lesions before cases could progress to cervical cancer.
The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health. GlaxoSmithKline provided the Cervarix vaccine and supported aspects of the trial. Two authors are named inventors on U.S. government–owned HPV vaccine patents with expired licenses to GlaxoSmithKline and Merck. Dr. Steben is an adviser/speaker for many companies, including GlaxoSmithKline and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vaccines against human papillomavirus have been hailed as a success: they have been shown to decrease the incidence of cervical lesions associated with the HPV types that are in the vaccine.
However,
An expert not involved in the research said the new data “tell us to be a little bit careful.” Although the HPV types not included in the vaccine are rarer and less aggressive, they can still cause cancer.
The data come from the Costa Rica HPV Vaccine Trial, which involved more than 10,000 women aged 18-25 years. The HPV vaccine used in the trial was Cervarix, from GlaxoSmithKline. It covers the two leading causes of cervical cancer, HPV-16 and -18, and provides partial protection against three other genotypes.
After a follow-up of 11 years, among vaccinated women, there was an excess of precancerous cervical lesions caused by genotypes not included in the vaccine, resulting in negative vaccine efficacy for those HPV variants.
The increase wasn’t enough to offset the overall benefit of vaccination when all genotypes were considered, said the researchers, led by Jaimie Shing, PhD, a postdoctoral research fellow at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md.
Vaccinated women “still had long-term absolute reductions in high-grade lesions,” they pointed out.
The net protection “remained considerable, emphasizing the importance of HPV vaccination for cervical cancer prevention,” the team concluded.
The findings were published online in The Lancet Oncology.
The results are likely the first evidence to date of “clinical unmasking” with HPV vaccination, meaning that protection against the strains covered by the vaccine leaves women more prone to attack from other carcinogenic HPV variants.
This phenomenon “could attenuate long-term reductions in high-grade disease following successful implementation of HPV vaccination programs,” the investigators commented.
Highlighting a need for caution
The take-home message from the trial is that “we have to be careful,” said Marc Steben, MD, co-President of HPV Global Action and a professor at the University of Montreal.
He noted that the Cervarix HPV vaccine used in the trial is not the vaccine that is used now in developed nations.
The current standard HPV vaccine is Gardasil 9 (Merck), which offers broader coverage against nine HPV types (types 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58).
There are 12 main carcinogenic HPV genotypes, so unmasking of other strains is still possible with Gardasil 9, he said.
There is another issue, Dr. Steben added. The success of HPV vaccinations - a nearly 90% reduction in invasive cervical cancer in women who are vaccinated at a young age – has led to questions about the future role of routine cervical cancer screening.
“Some people are saying that if we achieve 90% coverage, we might” eliminate community transmission and no longer need to screen, he said.
These trial results “tell us to be a little bit careful,” Dr. Steben continued. Those HPV types that are less aggressive and rarer than HPV-16 and -18 “can still cause cancer and might be there and surprise us. It could take more time than we thought” to get to the point where screening can be eliminated.
“There might be a little problem if we stop too early,” he said.
Study details
During the period 2004-2005, the investigators randomly assigned 3,727 women aged 18-25 years to receive Cervarix and 3,739 to a control group that received the hepatitis A vaccine; after 4 years, the control group also received Cervarix and exited the study. They were replaced by an unvaccinated control group of 2,836 women. The new control group and the original HPV vaccine group were followed for an additional 7 years.
In years 7-11 of the trial, the investigators found 9.2 additional cervical intraepithelial neoplasias of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) from HPV types not covered by Cervarix per 1,000 vaccinated women in comparison with unvaccinated participants. This corresponds to –71.2% negative vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ lesions of HPV types not covered by the vaccine.
There were 8.3 additional CIN3+ lesions from nontargeted HPV strains per 1,000 vaccinated women in comparison with unvaccinated participants, which corresponds to –135% negative vaccine efficacy.
Overall, however, there was a net benefit of vaccination, with 27 fewer CIN2+ lesions when all HPV genotypes – vaccine covered or not – were considered per 1,000 vaccinated women over the entire 11 years of follow-up.
There were also 8.7 fewer CIN3+ lesions across all genotypes per 1,000 vaccinated women, but the benefit was not statistically significant.
Among the study limits, the team was unable to evaluate the effect of clinical unmasking on cervical cancer, because women were treated for high-grade cervical lesions before cases could progress to cervical cancer.
The trial was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health. GlaxoSmithKline provided the Cervarix vaccine and supported aspects of the trial. Two authors are named inventors on U.S. government–owned HPV vaccine patents with expired licenses to GlaxoSmithKline and Merck. Dr. Steben is an adviser/speaker for many companies, including GlaxoSmithKline and Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET ONCOLOGY
What’s the best time of day to exercise? It depends on your goals
For most of us, the “best” time of day to work out is simple: When we can.
Maybe that’s before or after work. Or when the gym offers free daycare. Or when our favorite instructor teaches our favorite class.
That’s why we call it a “routine.” And if the results are the same, it’s hard to imagine changing it up.
But what if the results aren’t the same?
They may not be, according to a new study from a research team at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
Women who worked out in the morning lost more fat, while those who trained in the evening gained more upper-body strength and power. As for men, the performance improvements were similar no matter when they exercised. But those who did so in the evening had a significant drop in blood pressure, among other benefits.
The study is part of a growing body of research showing different results for different times of day among different populations. As it turns out, when you exercise can ultimately have a big effect, not just on strength and fat loss, but also heart health, mood, and quality of sleep.
An accidental discovery
The original goal of the Skidmore study was to test a unique fitness program with a group of healthy, fit, and extremely active adults in early middle age.
The program includes four workouts a week, each with a different focus: strength, steady-pace endurance, high-intensity intervals, and flexibility (traditional stretching combined with yoga and Pilates exercises).
But because the group was so large – 27 women and 20 men completed the 3-month program – they had to split them into morning and evening workout groups.
It wasn’t until researchers looked at the results that they saw the differences between morning and evening exercise, says lead author Paul Arciero, PhD.
Dr. Arciero stressed that participants in every group got leaner and stronger. But the women who worked out in the morning got much bigger reductions in body fat and body-fat percentage than the evening group. Meanwhile, women in the evening group got much bigger gains in upper-body strength, power, and muscular endurance than their morning counterparts.
Among the men, the evening group had significantly larger improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and the percentage of fat they burned for energy, along with a bigger drop in feelings of fatigue.
Strategic timing for powerful results
Some of these findings are consistent with previous research. For example, a study published in 2021 showed that the ability to exert high effort and express strength and power peaks in the late afternoon, about the same time that your core body temperature is at its highest point.
On the other hand, you’ll probably perform better in the morning when the activity requires a lot of skill and coordination or depends on strategic decision-making.
The findings apply to both men and women.
Performance aside, exercise timing might offer strong health benefits for men with type 2 diabetes, or at high risk for it.
A study showed that men who exercised between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. saw dramatic improvements in blood sugar management and insulin sensitivity, compared to a group that worked out between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m.
They also lost more fat during the 12-week program, even though they were doing the exact same workouts.
Train consistently, sleep well
When you exercise can affect your sleep quality in many ways, said neuroscientist Jennifer Heisz, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
First, she said, “exercise helps you fall asleep faster and sleep deeper at night.” (The only exception is if you exercise so intensely or so close to bedtime that your heart rate is still elevated.)
Second, “exercising at a consistent time every day helps regulate the body’s circadian rhythms.” It doesn’t matter if the exercise is in the morning, evening, or anywhere in between. As long as it’s predictable, it will help you fall asleep and wake up at the same times.
Outdoor exercise is even better, she said. The sun is the most powerful regulator of the circadian clock and works in tandem with physical activity.
Third, exercising at specific times can help you overcome jet lag or adjust to an earlier or later shift at work.
“Exercising at 7 a.m. or between 1 and 4 p.m. helps your circadian clock to ‘fall back’ in time, making it easier to wake up earlier,” Dr. Heisz said. If you need to train your body to wake up later in the morning, try working out between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.
All exercise is good, but the right timing can make it even better
“The best time to exercise is when you can fit it in,” Dr. Arciero said. “You’ve got to choose the time that fits your lifestyle best.”
But context matters, he noted.
“For someone needing to achieve an improvement in their risk for cardiometabolic disease,” his study shows an advantage to working out later in the day, especially for men. If you’re more focused on building upper-body strength and power, you’ll probably get better results from training in the afternoon or evening.
And for fat loss, the Skidmore study shows better results for women who did morning workouts.
And if you’re still not sure? Try sleeping on it – preferably after your workout.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
For most of us, the “best” time of day to work out is simple: When we can.
Maybe that’s before or after work. Or when the gym offers free daycare. Or when our favorite instructor teaches our favorite class.
That’s why we call it a “routine.” And if the results are the same, it’s hard to imagine changing it up.
But what if the results aren’t the same?
They may not be, according to a new study from a research team at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
Women who worked out in the morning lost more fat, while those who trained in the evening gained more upper-body strength and power. As for men, the performance improvements were similar no matter when they exercised. But those who did so in the evening had a significant drop in blood pressure, among other benefits.
The study is part of a growing body of research showing different results for different times of day among different populations. As it turns out, when you exercise can ultimately have a big effect, not just on strength and fat loss, but also heart health, mood, and quality of sleep.
An accidental discovery
The original goal of the Skidmore study was to test a unique fitness program with a group of healthy, fit, and extremely active adults in early middle age.
The program includes four workouts a week, each with a different focus: strength, steady-pace endurance, high-intensity intervals, and flexibility (traditional stretching combined with yoga and Pilates exercises).
But because the group was so large – 27 women and 20 men completed the 3-month program – they had to split them into morning and evening workout groups.
It wasn’t until researchers looked at the results that they saw the differences between morning and evening exercise, says lead author Paul Arciero, PhD.
Dr. Arciero stressed that participants in every group got leaner and stronger. But the women who worked out in the morning got much bigger reductions in body fat and body-fat percentage than the evening group. Meanwhile, women in the evening group got much bigger gains in upper-body strength, power, and muscular endurance than their morning counterparts.
Among the men, the evening group had significantly larger improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and the percentage of fat they burned for energy, along with a bigger drop in feelings of fatigue.
Strategic timing for powerful results
Some of these findings are consistent with previous research. For example, a study published in 2021 showed that the ability to exert high effort and express strength and power peaks in the late afternoon, about the same time that your core body temperature is at its highest point.
On the other hand, you’ll probably perform better in the morning when the activity requires a lot of skill and coordination or depends on strategic decision-making.
The findings apply to both men and women.
Performance aside, exercise timing might offer strong health benefits for men with type 2 diabetes, or at high risk for it.
A study showed that men who exercised between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. saw dramatic improvements in blood sugar management and insulin sensitivity, compared to a group that worked out between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m.
They also lost more fat during the 12-week program, even though they were doing the exact same workouts.
Train consistently, sleep well
When you exercise can affect your sleep quality in many ways, said neuroscientist Jennifer Heisz, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
First, she said, “exercise helps you fall asleep faster and sleep deeper at night.” (The only exception is if you exercise so intensely or so close to bedtime that your heart rate is still elevated.)
Second, “exercising at a consistent time every day helps regulate the body’s circadian rhythms.” It doesn’t matter if the exercise is in the morning, evening, or anywhere in between. As long as it’s predictable, it will help you fall asleep and wake up at the same times.
Outdoor exercise is even better, she said. The sun is the most powerful regulator of the circadian clock and works in tandem with physical activity.
Third, exercising at specific times can help you overcome jet lag or adjust to an earlier or later shift at work.
“Exercising at 7 a.m. or between 1 and 4 p.m. helps your circadian clock to ‘fall back’ in time, making it easier to wake up earlier,” Dr. Heisz said. If you need to train your body to wake up later in the morning, try working out between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.
All exercise is good, but the right timing can make it even better
“The best time to exercise is when you can fit it in,” Dr. Arciero said. “You’ve got to choose the time that fits your lifestyle best.”
But context matters, he noted.
“For someone needing to achieve an improvement in their risk for cardiometabolic disease,” his study shows an advantage to working out later in the day, especially for men. If you’re more focused on building upper-body strength and power, you’ll probably get better results from training in the afternoon or evening.
And for fat loss, the Skidmore study shows better results for women who did morning workouts.
And if you’re still not sure? Try sleeping on it – preferably after your workout.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
For most of us, the “best” time of day to work out is simple: When we can.
Maybe that’s before or after work. Or when the gym offers free daycare. Or when our favorite instructor teaches our favorite class.
That’s why we call it a “routine.” And if the results are the same, it’s hard to imagine changing it up.
But what if the results aren’t the same?
They may not be, according to a new study from a research team at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
Women who worked out in the morning lost more fat, while those who trained in the evening gained more upper-body strength and power. As for men, the performance improvements were similar no matter when they exercised. But those who did so in the evening had a significant drop in blood pressure, among other benefits.
The study is part of a growing body of research showing different results for different times of day among different populations. As it turns out, when you exercise can ultimately have a big effect, not just on strength and fat loss, but also heart health, mood, and quality of sleep.
An accidental discovery
The original goal of the Skidmore study was to test a unique fitness program with a group of healthy, fit, and extremely active adults in early middle age.
The program includes four workouts a week, each with a different focus: strength, steady-pace endurance, high-intensity intervals, and flexibility (traditional stretching combined with yoga and Pilates exercises).
But because the group was so large – 27 women and 20 men completed the 3-month program – they had to split them into morning and evening workout groups.
It wasn’t until researchers looked at the results that they saw the differences between morning and evening exercise, says lead author Paul Arciero, PhD.
Dr. Arciero stressed that participants in every group got leaner and stronger. But the women who worked out in the morning got much bigger reductions in body fat and body-fat percentage than the evening group. Meanwhile, women in the evening group got much bigger gains in upper-body strength, power, and muscular endurance than their morning counterparts.
Among the men, the evening group had significantly larger improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and the percentage of fat they burned for energy, along with a bigger drop in feelings of fatigue.
Strategic timing for powerful results
Some of these findings are consistent with previous research. For example, a study published in 2021 showed that the ability to exert high effort and express strength and power peaks in the late afternoon, about the same time that your core body temperature is at its highest point.
On the other hand, you’ll probably perform better in the morning when the activity requires a lot of skill and coordination or depends on strategic decision-making.
The findings apply to both men and women.
Performance aside, exercise timing might offer strong health benefits for men with type 2 diabetes, or at high risk for it.
A study showed that men who exercised between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. saw dramatic improvements in blood sugar management and insulin sensitivity, compared to a group that worked out between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m.
They also lost more fat during the 12-week program, even though they were doing the exact same workouts.
Train consistently, sleep well
When you exercise can affect your sleep quality in many ways, said neuroscientist Jennifer Heisz, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
First, she said, “exercise helps you fall asleep faster and sleep deeper at night.” (The only exception is if you exercise so intensely or so close to bedtime that your heart rate is still elevated.)
Second, “exercising at a consistent time every day helps regulate the body’s circadian rhythms.” It doesn’t matter if the exercise is in the morning, evening, or anywhere in between. As long as it’s predictable, it will help you fall asleep and wake up at the same times.
Outdoor exercise is even better, she said. The sun is the most powerful regulator of the circadian clock and works in tandem with physical activity.
Third, exercising at specific times can help you overcome jet lag or adjust to an earlier or later shift at work.
“Exercising at 7 a.m. or between 1 and 4 p.m. helps your circadian clock to ‘fall back’ in time, making it easier to wake up earlier,” Dr. Heisz said. If you need to train your body to wake up later in the morning, try working out between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m.
All exercise is good, but the right timing can make it even better
“The best time to exercise is when you can fit it in,” Dr. Arciero said. “You’ve got to choose the time that fits your lifestyle best.”
But context matters, he noted.
“For someone needing to achieve an improvement in their risk for cardiometabolic disease,” his study shows an advantage to working out later in the day, especially for men. If you’re more focused on building upper-body strength and power, you’ll probably get better results from training in the afternoon or evening.
And for fat loss, the Skidmore study shows better results for women who did morning workouts.
And if you’re still not sure? Try sleeping on it – preferably after your workout.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY
Breast cancer less common in Black women, so why do more die?
Although breast cancer occurs less frequently in Black women, compared with White women, they have a much higher risk of dying from the disease.
In the United States, age-adjusted breast cancer mortality between 2014 and 2018 was approximately 40% higher among Black women than among non-Hispanic White women.
This mortality gap likely reflects the fact that Black women face substantial barriers to obtaining timely, high-quality medical care, compared with White women, lead author Ismail Jatoi, MD, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and colleagues suggest in a recent opinion piece.
The article was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
When the team examined the statistics for breast cancer mortality, they found a surprise: The mortality gap between races only dates back to 1980.
Prior to 1980, mortality from breast cancer among Black women was slightly lower than White women, Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out.
That year was a turning point in breast cancer management, as in 1980, both mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy became available.
This was also when the mortality gap between the races started to show up.
It was disparities in access to the two new interventions that precipitated the divergence, as the authors suggest. Why this occurred is fairly self-evident, they comment.
“Black women are more likely than White women to lack health insurance or to have inadequate coverage, which has limited their access to mammography screening and adversely affected therapeutic decisionmaking,” researchers point out.
Moreover, both mammography screening and endocrine therapy primarily benefit patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, which is equally common in Black and White patients. However, Black women have a 65% higher rate of HR-negative cancers than White women – and HR-negative tumors are often detected during the interval between mammography screening exams as palpable cancers.
Black women also have an 81% higher rate of triple-negative breast cancer, so they have benefited less from mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy, both of which favor the detection and treatment of HR-positive breast cancer, the authors emphasize.
Some have suggested that the excess HR-negative breast cancer in Black women might be explained by hereditary factors. Yet as Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out, the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer has actually been falling across all races in the United States since 1992.
However, the declines have been slower among Black women, and reductions in its incidence have been smaller among White women living in less affluent regions of the United States compared with White women from more affluent regions.
These patterns suggest that social determinants of health influence not only access to and quality of health care but also the development of HR-negative breast cancers, as the authors observe.
“If all people with breast cancer benefited equally from effective medical interventions, racial differences in mortality for individual tumor subtypes would largely reflect differences in incidence,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues continue.
Yet the statistics show that the substantial racial disparities in mortality for both HR-positive and HR-negative cancers between Black and White women cannot be explained by differences in the incidence of either tumor alone, they write.
For example, mortality for HR-positive breast cancer is 19% higher among Black women than among White women, yet the incidence of HR-positive breast cancer is 22% lower among Black women.
Similarly, mortality from HR-negative breast cancer is over twice as high among Black women as it is among White women – a substantially larger disparity, compared with the 65% relative difference in the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer between the two races.
“Universal health care coverage could reduce disparities in treatment for cancers of all subtypes, including triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues emphasize.
“Ensuring universal access to high-quality medical care can substantially narrow the racial disparity in U.S. breast-cancer mortality,” they conclude.
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although breast cancer occurs less frequently in Black women, compared with White women, they have a much higher risk of dying from the disease.
In the United States, age-adjusted breast cancer mortality between 2014 and 2018 was approximately 40% higher among Black women than among non-Hispanic White women.
This mortality gap likely reflects the fact that Black women face substantial barriers to obtaining timely, high-quality medical care, compared with White women, lead author Ismail Jatoi, MD, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and colleagues suggest in a recent opinion piece.
The article was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
When the team examined the statistics for breast cancer mortality, they found a surprise: The mortality gap between races only dates back to 1980.
Prior to 1980, mortality from breast cancer among Black women was slightly lower than White women, Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out.
That year was a turning point in breast cancer management, as in 1980, both mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy became available.
This was also when the mortality gap between the races started to show up.
It was disparities in access to the two new interventions that precipitated the divergence, as the authors suggest. Why this occurred is fairly self-evident, they comment.
“Black women are more likely than White women to lack health insurance or to have inadequate coverage, which has limited their access to mammography screening and adversely affected therapeutic decisionmaking,” researchers point out.
Moreover, both mammography screening and endocrine therapy primarily benefit patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, which is equally common in Black and White patients. However, Black women have a 65% higher rate of HR-negative cancers than White women – and HR-negative tumors are often detected during the interval between mammography screening exams as palpable cancers.
Black women also have an 81% higher rate of triple-negative breast cancer, so they have benefited less from mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy, both of which favor the detection and treatment of HR-positive breast cancer, the authors emphasize.
Some have suggested that the excess HR-negative breast cancer in Black women might be explained by hereditary factors. Yet as Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out, the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer has actually been falling across all races in the United States since 1992.
However, the declines have been slower among Black women, and reductions in its incidence have been smaller among White women living in less affluent regions of the United States compared with White women from more affluent regions.
These patterns suggest that social determinants of health influence not only access to and quality of health care but also the development of HR-negative breast cancers, as the authors observe.
“If all people with breast cancer benefited equally from effective medical interventions, racial differences in mortality for individual tumor subtypes would largely reflect differences in incidence,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues continue.
Yet the statistics show that the substantial racial disparities in mortality for both HR-positive and HR-negative cancers between Black and White women cannot be explained by differences in the incidence of either tumor alone, they write.
For example, mortality for HR-positive breast cancer is 19% higher among Black women than among White women, yet the incidence of HR-positive breast cancer is 22% lower among Black women.
Similarly, mortality from HR-negative breast cancer is over twice as high among Black women as it is among White women – a substantially larger disparity, compared with the 65% relative difference in the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer between the two races.
“Universal health care coverage could reduce disparities in treatment for cancers of all subtypes, including triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues emphasize.
“Ensuring universal access to high-quality medical care can substantially narrow the racial disparity in U.S. breast-cancer mortality,” they conclude.
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although breast cancer occurs less frequently in Black women, compared with White women, they have a much higher risk of dying from the disease.
In the United States, age-adjusted breast cancer mortality between 2014 and 2018 was approximately 40% higher among Black women than among non-Hispanic White women.
This mortality gap likely reflects the fact that Black women face substantial barriers to obtaining timely, high-quality medical care, compared with White women, lead author Ismail Jatoi, MD, PhD, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, and colleagues suggest in a recent opinion piece.
The article was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine.
When the team examined the statistics for breast cancer mortality, they found a surprise: The mortality gap between races only dates back to 1980.
Prior to 1980, mortality from breast cancer among Black women was slightly lower than White women, Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out.
That year was a turning point in breast cancer management, as in 1980, both mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy became available.
This was also when the mortality gap between the races started to show up.
It was disparities in access to the two new interventions that precipitated the divergence, as the authors suggest. Why this occurred is fairly self-evident, they comment.
“Black women are more likely than White women to lack health insurance or to have inadequate coverage, which has limited their access to mammography screening and adversely affected therapeutic decisionmaking,” researchers point out.
Moreover, both mammography screening and endocrine therapy primarily benefit patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive breast cancer, which is equally common in Black and White patients. However, Black women have a 65% higher rate of HR-negative cancers than White women – and HR-negative tumors are often detected during the interval between mammography screening exams as palpable cancers.
Black women also have an 81% higher rate of triple-negative breast cancer, so they have benefited less from mammography screening and adjuvant endocrine therapy, both of which favor the detection and treatment of HR-positive breast cancer, the authors emphasize.
Some have suggested that the excess HR-negative breast cancer in Black women might be explained by hereditary factors. Yet as Dr. Jatoi and colleagues point out, the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer has actually been falling across all races in the United States since 1992.
However, the declines have been slower among Black women, and reductions in its incidence have been smaller among White women living in less affluent regions of the United States compared with White women from more affluent regions.
These patterns suggest that social determinants of health influence not only access to and quality of health care but also the development of HR-negative breast cancers, as the authors observe.
“If all people with breast cancer benefited equally from effective medical interventions, racial differences in mortality for individual tumor subtypes would largely reflect differences in incidence,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues continue.
Yet the statistics show that the substantial racial disparities in mortality for both HR-positive and HR-negative cancers between Black and White women cannot be explained by differences in the incidence of either tumor alone, they write.
For example, mortality for HR-positive breast cancer is 19% higher among Black women than among White women, yet the incidence of HR-positive breast cancer is 22% lower among Black women.
Similarly, mortality from HR-negative breast cancer is over twice as high among Black women as it is among White women – a substantially larger disparity, compared with the 65% relative difference in the incidence of HR-negative breast cancer between the two races.
“Universal health care coverage could reduce disparities in treatment for cancers of all subtypes, including triple-negative breast cancer,” Dr. Jatoi and colleagues emphasize.
“Ensuring universal access to high-quality medical care can substantially narrow the racial disparity in U.S. breast-cancer mortality,” they conclude.
The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
To predict mortality, you need a leg to stand on
Storks everywhere, rejoice.
According to the findings, people in middle age and older who couldn’t perform the 10-second standing test were nearly four times as likely to die of any cause – heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and more – in the coming years than those who could, well, stand the test of time.
Claudio Gil Araújo, MD, PhD, research director of the Exercise Medicine Clinic-CLINIMEX in Rio de Janeiro, who led the study, called the results “awesome!”
“As a physician who has worked with cardiac patients for over 4 decades, I was very impressed in finding out that, for those between 51 and 75 years of age, it is riskier for survival to not complete the 10-second one-leg standing test than to have been diagnosed as having coronary artery disease or in being hypertensive” or having abnormal cholesterol, Dr. Araújo said in an interview.
The findings appeared in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
Researchers have known for at least a half century that balance and mortality are connected. One reason is falls: Worldwide, nearly 700,000 people each year die as a result of a fall, according to the World Health Organization, and more than 37 million falls annually require medical attention. But as the new study indicates, falls aren’t the only problem.
Dr. Araújo and colleagues have been working on ways to improve balance and strength as people age. In addition to the one-legged standing test, they have previously shown that the ability to rise from a sitting position on the floor is also a strong predictor of longevity.
For the new study, the researchers assessed 1,702 people in Brazil (68% men) aged 51-75 years who had been participating in an ongoing exercise study that began there in 1994.
Three tries to succeed
Starting in 2008, the team introduced the standing test, which involves balancing on one leg and placing the other foot at the back weight-bearing limb for support. People get three tries to maintain that posture for at least 10 seconds.
Not surprisingly, the ability to perform the test dropped with age. Although 20% of people in the study overall were unable to stand on one leg for 10 seconds, that figure rose to about 70% for those aged 76-80 years, and nearly 90% for those aged 81-85, according to the researchers. Of the two dozen 85-year-olds in the study, only two were able to complete the standing test, Dr. Araújo told this news organization.
At roughly age 70, half of people could not complete the 10-second test.
Over an average of 7 years of follow-up, 17.5% of people who could not manage the 10-second stand had died, compared with 4.5% of those who could last that long, the study found.
After accounting for age and many other risk factors, such as diabetes, body mass index, and a history of heart disease, people who were unable to complete the standing test were 84% more likely to die from any cause over the study period than their peers with better one-legged static balance (95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.78; P < .001).
The researchers said their study was limited by its lack of diversity – all the participants were relatively affluent Brazilians – and the inability to control for a history of falls and physical activity. But they said the size of the cohort, the long follow-up period, and their use of sophistical statistical methods helped mitigate the shortcomings.
Although low aerobic fitness is a marker of poor health, much less attention has been paid to nonaerobic fitness – things like balance, flexibility, and muscle strength and power, Dr. Araújo said.
“We are accumulating evidence that these three components of nonaerobic physical fitness are potentially relevant for good health and even more relevant for survival in older subjects,” Dr. Araújo said. Poor nonaerobic fitness, which is normally but not always associated with a sedentary lifestyle, “is the background of most cases of frailty, and being frail is strongly associated with a poor quality of life, less physical activity and exercise, and so on. It’s a bad circle.”
Dr. Araújo’s group has been using the standing test in their clinic for more than a dozen years and have seen gains in their patients. “Patients are often unaware that they are unable to sustain 10 seconds standing one legged. After this simple evaluation, they are much more prone to engage in balance training,” he said.
For now, the researchers don’t have data to show that improving static balance or performance on the standing test can affect survival, a “quite attractive” possibility, he added. But balance can be substantially improved through training.
“After only a few sessions, an improvement can be perceived, and this influences quality of life,” Dr. Araújo said. “And this is exactly what we do with the patients that we evaluated and for those that are attending our medically supervised exercise program.”
George A. Kuchel, MD, CM, FRCP, professor and Travelers Chair in Geriatrics and Gerontology at the University of Connecticut, Farmington, called the research “well done” and said the results “make perfect sense, since we have known for a long time that muscle strength is an important determinant of health, independence, and survival.”
Identifying frail patients quickly, simply, and reliably in the clinical setting is a pressing need, Dr. Kuchel, director of the UConn Center on Aging, said in an interview. The 10-second test “has considerable appeal” for this purpose.
“This could be, or rather should be, of great interest to all busy clinicians who see older adults in primary care or consultative capacities,” Dr. Kuchel added. “I hate to be nihilistic as regards what is possible in the context of really busy clinical practices, but even the minute or so that this takes to do may very well be too much for busy clinicians to do.”
Dr. Araújo and Dr. Kuchel reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Storks everywhere, rejoice.
According to the findings, people in middle age and older who couldn’t perform the 10-second standing test were nearly four times as likely to die of any cause – heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and more – in the coming years than those who could, well, stand the test of time.
Claudio Gil Araújo, MD, PhD, research director of the Exercise Medicine Clinic-CLINIMEX in Rio de Janeiro, who led the study, called the results “awesome!”
“As a physician who has worked with cardiac patients for over 4 decades, I was very impressed in finding out that, for those between 51 and 75 years of age, it is riskier for survival to not complete the 10-second one-leg standing test than to have been diagnosed as having coronary artery disease or in being hypertensive” or having abnormal cholesterol, Dr. Araújo said in an interview.
The findings appeared in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
Researchers have known for at least a half century that balance and mortality are connected. One reason is falls: Worldwide, nearly 700,000 people each year die as a result of a fall, according to the World Health Organization, and more than 37 million falls annually require medical attention. But as the new study indicates, falls aren’t the only problem.
Dr. Araújo and colleagues have been working on ways to improve balance and strength as people age. In addition to the one-legged standing test, they have previously shown that the ability to rise from a sitting position on the floor is also a strong predictor of longevity.
For the new study, the researchers assessed 1,702 people in Brazil (68% men) aged 51-75 years who had been participating in an ongoing exercise study that began there in 1994.
Three tries to succeed
Starting in 2008, the team introduced the standing test, which involves balancing on one leg and placing the other foot at the back weight-bearing limb for support. People get three tries to maintain that posture for at least 10 seconds.
Not surprisingly, the ability to perform the test dropped with age. Although 20% of people in the study overall were unable to stand on one leg for 10 seconds, that figure rose to about 70% for those aged 76-80 years, and nearly 90% for those aged 81-85, according to the researchers. Of the two dozen 85-year-olds in the study, only two were able to complete the standing test, Dr. Araújo told this news organization.
At roughly age 70, half of people could not complete the 10-second test.
Over an average of 7 years of follow-up, 17.5% of people who could not manage the 10-second stand had died, compared with 4.5% of those who could last that long, the study found.
After accounting for age and many other risk factors, such as diabetes, body mass index, and a history of heart disease, people who were unable to complete the standing test were 84% more likely to die from any cause over the study period than their peers with better one-legged static balance (95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.78; P < .001).
The researchers said their study was limited by its lack of diversity – all the participants were relatively affluent Brazilians – and the inability to control for a history of falls and physical activity. But they said the size of the cohort, the long follow-up period, and their use of sophistical statistical methods helped mitigate the shortcomings.
Although low aerobic fitness is a marker of poor health, much less attention has been paid to nonaerobic fitness – things like balance, flexibility, and muscle strength and power, Dr. Araújo said.
“We are accumulating evidence that these three components of nonaerobic physical fitness are potentially relevant for good health and even more relevant for survival in older subjects,” Dr. Araújo said. Poor nonaerobic fitness, which is normally but not always associated with a sedentary lifestyle, “is the background of most cases of frailty, and being frail is strongly associated with a poor quality of life, less physical activity and exercise, and so on. It’s a bad circle.”
Dr. Araújo’s group has been using the standing test in their clinic for more than a dozen years and have seen gains in their patients. “Patients are often unaware that they are unable to sustain 10 seconds standing one legged. After this simple evaluation, they are much more prone to engage in balance training,” he said.
For now, the researchers don’t have data to show that improving static balance or performance on the standing test can affect survival, a “quite attractive” possibility, he added. But balance can be substantially improved through training.
“After only a few sessions, an improvement can be perceived, and this influences quality of life,” Dr. Araújo said. “And this is exactly what we do with the patients that we evaluated and for those that are attending our medically supervised exercise program.”
George A. Kuchel, MD, CM, FRCP, professor and Travelers Chair in Geriatrics and Gerontology at the University of Connecticut, Farmington, called the research “well done” and said the results “make perfect sense, since we have known for a long time that muscle strength is an important determinant of health, independence, and survival.”
Identifying frail patients quickly, simply, and reliably in the clinical setting is a pressing need, Dr. Kuchel, director of the UConn Center on Aging, said in an interview. The 10-second test “has considerable appeal” for this purpose.
“This could be, or rather should be, of great interest to all busy clinicians who see older adults in primary care or consultative capacities,” Dr. Kuchel added. “I hate to be nihilistic as regards what is possible in the context of really busy clinical practices, but even the minute or so that this takes to do may very well be too much for busy clinicians to do.”
Dr. Araújo and Dr. Kuchel reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Storks everywhere, rejoice.
According to the findings, people in middle age and older who couldn’t perform the 10-second standing test were nearly four times as likely to die of any cause – heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and more – in the coming years than those who could, well, stand the test of time.
Claudio Gil Araújo, MD, PhD, research director of the Exercise Medicine Clinic-CLINIMEX in Rio de Janeiro, who led the study, called the results “awesome!”
“As a physician who has worked with cardiac patients for over 4 decades, I was very impressed in finding out that, for those between 51 and 75 years of age, it is riskier for survival to not complete the 10-second one-leg standing test than to have been diagnosed as having coronary artery disease or in being hypertensive” or having abnormal cholesterol, Dr. Araújo said in an interview.
The findings appeared in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
Researchers have known for at least a half century that balance and mortality are connected. One reason is falls: Worldwide, nearly 700,000 people each year die as a result of a fall, according to the World Health Organization, and more than 37 million falls annually require medical attention. But as the new study indicates, falls aren’t the only problem.
Dr. Araújo and colleagues have been working on ways to improve balance and strength as people age. In addition to the one-legged standing test, they have previously shown that the ability to rise from a sitting position on the floor is also a strong predictor of longevity.
For the new study, the researchers assessed 1,702 people in Brazil (68% men) aged 51-75 years who had been participating in an ongoing exercise study that began there in 1994.
Three tries to succeed
Starting in 2008, the team introduced the standing test, which involves balancing on one leg and placing the other foot at the back weight-bearing limb for support. People get three tries to maintain that posture for at least 10 seconds.
Not surprisingly, the ability to perform the test dropped with age. Although 20% of people in the study overall were unable to stand on one leg for 10 seconds, that figure rose to about 70% for those aged 76-80 years, and nearly 90% for those aged 81-85, according to the researchers. Of the two dozen 85-year-olds in the study, only two were able to complete the standing test, Dr. Araújo told this news organization.
At roughly age 70, half of people could not complete the 10-second test.
Over an average of 7 years of follow-up, 17.5% of people who could not manage the 10-second stand had died, compared with 4.5% of those who could last that long, the study found.
After accounting for age and many other risk factors, such as diabetes, body mass index, and a history of heart disease, people who were unable to complete the standing test were 84% more likely to die from any cause over the study period than their peers with better one-legged static balance (95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.78; P < .001).
The researchers said their study was limited by its lack of diversity – all the participants were relatively affluent Brazilians – and the inability to control for a history of falls and physical activity. But they said the size of the cohort, the long follow-up period, and their use of sophistical statistical methods helped mitigate the shortcomings.
Although low aerobic fitness is a marker of poor health, much less attention has been paid to nonaerobic fitness – things like balance, flexibility, and muscle strength and power, Dr. Araújo said.
“We are accumulating evidence that these three components of nonaerobic physical fitness are potentially relevant for good health and even more relevant for survival in older subjects,” Dr. Araújo said. Poor nonaerobic fitness, which is normally but not always associated with a sedentary lifestyle, “is the background of most cases of frailty, and being frail is strongly associated with a poor quality of life, less physical activity and exercise, and so on. It’s a bad circle.”
Dr. Araújo’s group has been using the standing test in their clinic for more than a dozen years and have seen gains in their patients. “Patients are often unaware that they are unable to sustain 10 seconds standing one legged. After this simple evaluation, they are much more prone to engage in balance training,” he said.
For now, the researchers don’t have data to show that improving static balance or performance on the standing test can affect survival, a “quite attractive” possibility, he added. But balance can be substantially improved through training.
“After only a few sessions, an improvement can be perceived, and this influences quality of life,” Dr. Araújo said. “And this is exactly what we do with the patients that we evaluated and for those that are attending our medically supervised exercise program.”
George A. Kuchel, MD, CM, FRCP, professor and Travelers Chair in Geriatrics and Gerontology at the University of Connecticut, Farmington, called the research “well done” and said the results “make perfect sense, since we have known for a long time that muscle strength is an important determinant of health, independence, and survival.”
Identifying frail patients quickly, simply, and reliably in the clinical setting is a pressing need, Dr. Kuchel, director of the UConn Center on Aging, said in an interview. The 10-second test “has considerable appeal” for this purpose.
“This could be, or rather should be, of great interest to all busy clinicians who see older adults in primary care or consultative capacities,” Dr. Kuchel added. “I hate to be nihilistic as regards what is possible in the context of really busy clinical practices, but even the minute or so that this takes to do may very well be too much for busy clinicians to do.”
Dr. Araújo and Dr. Kuchel reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
This breast tumor subtype disproportionately affects Black women
That finding, suggested by transcriptomic analyses of a racially diverse cohort that identified racial disparities in the proportion of HR-positive basal tumors, underscores a need for diverse racial representation in clinical trials, researchers recently reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The leading cause of cancer-associated death among Black women is breast cancer, and compared with White women, Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer, said Sonya A. Reid, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist with the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tenn., and the study author.
Few studies, Dr. Reid said, have evaluated if tumor biology differences contribute to the racial outcome disparity. Hormone receptor-positive tumors classified as basal-type with Blueprint genomic analysis (HR+/Basal) are overrepresented among Black women. These tumors are thought to be similar to triple negative breast cancer tumors (TNBC) which are more aggressive and tend to have worse outcomes.
TNBC, Dr. Reid said, is associated with low ACKR1 expression, which encodes the Duffy antigen and correlates with worse breast cancer outcomes. Given the overrepresentation and worse outcomes among Black women with HR-positive basal tumors, Dr. Reid and colleagues compared differentially expressed genes (DEGs) by race and subtype.
Their analysis of data from 2,657 women with stage 1, 2, and 3 breast cancer, showed that among 455 Black women, 315 had luminal (HR-positive luminal) and 140 had basal tumors (66 HR-positive basal and 74 HR-negative basal). Among White women included as a reference group (n = 2,202), tumors were were HR-positive luminal in 1,825 and HR-positive basal or HR-negative basal in 158 and 219, respectively. The proportion of Black women with HR-positive basal tumors was significantly higher, compared with White women (15% versus 7%; P <0.001) as was the proportion of Black women with HR-negative basal tumors, compared with White women (16% versus 10%; P <0.001).
Women included in the study were participants in the ongoing BEST study (5R01CA204819) at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashvlile, Tenn., or FLEX study (NCT03053193). In a multidimensional scaling analysis, HR-positive basal tumors clustered with TNBC rather than with HR-positive luminal tumors. While a differential gene expression analysis comparing HR-positive basal with HR-positive luminal tumors resulted in over 700 differently expressed genes in Black women, no such genes were identified when comparing HR-positive basal tumors with TNBC. ACKR1 expression in HR-positive basal tumors was comparable to TNBC in Black women (P = 0.81) and White women (P = 0.46). In contrast, HR-positive basal tumors had significantly lower ACKR1 expression than HR-positive luminal tumors in Black (P < 0.01) and White women (P < 0.01).
The findings highlight the importance of further genomic classification for patients with HR-positive tumors, Dr. Reid said.
“Molecular subtype classification is not standard of care for patients with localized breast cancer. However, the current analysis suggests that genomic classification could have important clinical implications. Women with HR-positive basal tumors should not be treated uniformly with HR-poisitive luminal tumors. Our data suggest that HR-positive basal tumors are transcriptomically similar to TNBC tumors and should potentially be treated similar to TNBC,” she said.
There are several genomic tests that are widely available clinically to guide treatment decisions and are covered by insurance, Dr. Reid said. Prior studies have shown racial disparity in the omission of genomic tests to guide treatment decisions, however. “Increasing access [to] and awareness of genomic testing will improve guideline-adherent care for all patients. We must intentionally recruit minority patients into clinical trials, knowing that Black women are more likely to die of their breast cancer,” she said.
A further impediment lies in the fact that while most minority patients receive their care in the community, most clinical trials are offered at large academic centers, Dr. Reid said. Future trials, she urged, should include a predetermined percentage of racial/ethnic groups in the clinical trial design to reflect the breast cancer population.
Limitations of the study included that race was self-reported. She noted further that the data for survival are not yet mature. She added, “We will also be evaluating the association of different systemic treatment options across the different molecular subtypes.”
Dr. Reid reported no relevant disclosures.
That finding, suggested by transcriptomic analyses of a racially diverse cohort that identified racial disparities in the proportion of HR-positive basal tumors, underscores a need for diverse racial representation in clinical trials, researchers recently reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The leading cause of cancer-associated death among Black women is breast cancer, and compared with White women, Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer, said Sonya A. Reid, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist with the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tenn., and the study author.
Few studies, Dr. Reid said, have evaluated if tumor biology differences contribute to the racial outcome disparity. Hormone receptor-positive tumors classified as basal-type with Blueprint genomic analysis (HR+/Basal) are overrepresented among Black women. These tumors are thought to be similar to triple negative breast cancer tumors (TNBC) which are more aggressive and tend to have worse outcomes.
TNBC, Dr. Reid said, is associated with low ACKR1 expression, which encodes the Duffy antigen and correlates with worse breast cancer outcomes. Given the overrepresentation and worse outcomes among Black women with HR-positive basal tumors, Dr. Reid and colleagues compared differentially expressed genes (DEGs) by race and subtype.
Their analysis of data from 2,657 women with stage 1, 2, and 3 breast cancer, showed that among 455 Black women, 315 had luminal (HR-positive luminal) and 140 had basal tumors (66 HR-positive basal and 74 HR-negative basal). Among White women included as a reference group (n = 2,202), tumors were were HR-positive luminal in 1,825 and HR-positive basal or HR-negative basal in 158 and 219, respectively. The proportion of Black women with HR-positive basal tumors was significantly higher, compared with White women (15% versus 7%; P <0.001) as was the proportion of Black women with HR-negative basal tumors, compared with White women (16% versus 10%; P <0.001).
Women included in the study were participants in the ongoing BEST study (5R01CA204819) at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashvlile, Tenn., or FLEX study (NCT03053193). In a multidimensional scaling analysis, HR-positive basal tumors clustered with TNBC rather than with HR-positive luminal tumors. While a differential gene expression analysis comparing HR-positive basal with HR-positive luminal tumors resulted in over 700 differently expressed genes in Black women, no such genes were identified when comparing HR-positive basal tumors with TNBC. ACKR1 expression in HR-positive basal tumors was comparable to TNBC in Black women (P = 0.81) and White women (P = 0.46). In contrast, HR-positive basal tumors had significantly lower ACKR1 expression than HR-positive luminal tumors in Black (P < 0.01) and White women (P < 0.01).
The findings highlight the importance of further genomic classification for patients with HR-positive tumors, Dr. Reid said.
“Molecular subtype classification is not standard of care for patients with localized breast cancer. However, the current analysis suggests that genomic classification could have important clinical implications. Women with HR-positive basal tumors should not be treated uniformly with HR-poisitive luminal tumors. Our data suggest that HR-positive basal tumors are transcriptomically similar to TNBC tumors and should potentially be treated similar to TNBC,” she said.
There are several genomic tests that are widely available clinically to guide treatment decisions and are covered by insurance, Dr. Reid said. Prior studies have shown racial disparity in the omission of genomic tests to guide treatment decisions, however. “Increasing access [to] and awareness of genomic testing will improve guideline-adherent care for all patients. We must intentionally recruit minority patients into clinical trials, knowing that Black women are more likely to die of their breast cancer,” she said.
A further impediment lies in the fact that while most minority patients receive their care in the community, most clinical trials are offered at large academic centers, Dr. Reid said. Future trials, she urged, should include a predetermined percentage of racial/ethnic groups in the clinical trial design to reflect the breast cancer population.
Limitations of the study included that race was self-reported. She noted further that the data for survival are not yet mature. She added, “We will also be evaluating the association of different systemic treatment options across the different molecular subtypes.”
Dr. Reid reported no relevant disclosures.
That finding, suggested by transcriptomic analyses of a racially diverse cohort that identified racial disparities in the proportion of HR-positive basal tumors, underscores a need for diverse racial representation in clinical trials, researchers recently reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The leading cause of cancer-associated death among Black women is breast cancer, and compared with White women, Black women are 41% more likely to die from breast cancer, said Sonya A. Reid, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist with the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tenn., and the study author.
Few studies, Dr. Reid said, have evaluated if tumor biology differences contribute to the racial outcome disparity. Hormone receptor-positive tumors classified as basal-type with Blueprint genomic analysis (HR+/Basal) are overrepresented among Black women. These tumors are thought to be similar to triple negative breast cancer tumors (TNBC) which are more aggressive and tend to have worse outcomes.
TNBC, Dr. Reid said, is associated with low ACKR1 expression, which encodes the Duffy antigen and correlates with worse breast cancer outcomes. Given the overrepresentation and worse outcomes among Black women with HR-positive basal tumors, Dr. Reid and colleagues compared differentially expressed genes (DEGs) by race and subtype.
Their analysis of data from 2,657 women with stage 1, 2, and 3 breast cancer, showed that among 455 Black women, 315 had luminal (HR-positive luminal) and 140 had basal tumors (66 HR-positive basal and 74 HR-negative basal). Among White women included as a reference group (n = 2,202), tumors were were HR-positive luminal in 1,825 and HR-positive basal or HR-negative basal in 158 and 219, respectively. The proportion of Black women with HR-positive basal tumors was significantly higher, compared with White women (15% versus 7%; P <0.001) as was the proportion of Black women with HR-negative basal tumors, compared with White women (16% versus 10%; P <0.001).
Women included in the study were participants in the ongoing BEST study (5R01CA204819) at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashvlile, Tenn., or FLEX study (NCT03053193). In a multidimensional scaling analysis, HR-positive basal tumors clustered with TNBC rather than with HR-positive luminal tumors. While a differential gene expression analysis comparing HR-positive basal with HR-positive luminal tumors resulted in over 700 differently expressed genes in Black women, no such genes were identified when comparing HR-positive basal tumors with TNBC. ACKR1 expression in HR-positive basal tumors was comparable to TNBC in Black women (P = 0.81) and White women (P = 0.46). In contrast, HR-positive basal tumors had significantly lower ACKR1 expression than HR-positive luminal tumors in Black (P < 0.01) and White women (P < 0.01).
The findings highlight the importance of further genomic classification for patients with HR-positive tumors, Dr. Reid said.
“Molecular subtype classification is not standard of care for patients with localized breast cancer. However, the current analysis suggests that genomic classification could have important clinical implications. Women with HR-positive basal tumors should not be treated uniformly with HR-poisitive luminal tumors. Our data suggest that HR-positive basal tumors are transcriptomically similar to TNBC tumors and should potentially be treated similar to TNBC,” she said.
There are several genomic tests that are widely available clinically to guide treatment decisions and are covered by insurance, Dr. Reid said. Prior studies have shown racial disparity in the omission of genomic tests to guide treatment decisions, however. “Increasing access [to] and awareness of genomic testing will improve guideline-adherent care for all patients. We must intentionally recruit minority patients into clinical trials, knowing that Black women are more likely to die of their breast cancer,” she said.
A further impediment lies in the fact that while most minority patients receive their care in the community, most clinical trials are offered at large academic centers, Dr. Reid said. Future trials, she urged, should include a predetermined percentage of racial/ethnic groups in the clinical trial design to reflect the breast cancer population.
Limitations of the study included that race was self-reported. She noted further that the data for survival are not yet mature. She added, “We will also be evaluating the association of different systemic treatment options across the different molecular subtypes.”
Dr. Reid reported no relevant disclosures.
FROM ASCO 2022
Hidradenitis Suppurativa: The Basics
Metastatic lobular, ductal cancers respond similarly
CHICAGO – Metastatic invasive lobular breast cancers (ILC) that are hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HER2-negative have therapeutic outcomes similar to those of invasive ductal cancer (IDC) following treatment with endocrine therapy combined with a CDK4/6 inhibitor, mTOR inhibitor, or PI3K inhibitor, according to a new retrospective analysis of patients treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center.
between the two subtypes, according to Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“All the studies that were done were driven by ductal patients, so you can never take conclusions for the lobular patients. We have a big database at MD Anderson, so we can really study a large number of patients and get some signals whether or not patients would benefit from that therapy or not,” said Dr. Mouabbi, a lobular breast cancer specialist at MD Anderson Cancer Center.
The results of the study are important since patients often come to physicians with sophisticated understanding of their disease, he said. Patients with lobular cancer naturally wonder if a therapeutic regimen tested primarily in IDC will benefit them. “For the longest time, we said, ‘we have no data,’ ” said Dr. Mouabbi.
The new study should offer patients and physicians some reassurance. “We found that all of them benefit from it and most importantly, they all benefit from it (with) the same magnitude,” Dr. Mouabbi said.
The researchers analyzed data from 2,971 patients (82% IDC, 14% ILC, 4% mixed) treated between 2010 and 2021. The median age was 50 in all groups. Eighty percent were White, 10% were Hispanic, and 5% were Black. Ninety-nine percent had estrogen receptor (ER) + tumors, and 88% had progesterone positive (PR) + tumors.
A total of 1,895 patients received CDK4/6 inhibitors, 1,027 received everolimus, and 49 received alpelisib. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival between the two cancer types in any of the treatment groups.
Despite the similar outcomes, the two conditions remain unique. IDC is a disease of cells from the ducts that deliver milk, while ILC arises in cells that produce milk. Nearly 95% of ILC cases are hormone-positive, compared to 50%-55% of IDC.
So, while existing treatments seem to benefit both groups, there are nonetheless plans to develop therapeutic strategies tailored to lobular cancer.
Dr. Mouabbi’s group has compared molecular profiles of ILC and IDC tumors to better understand how to target them individually. Almost all ILC cancers have a mutation in a gene called CDH1, which leads to loss of an anchoring protein. They believe this causes a unique growth pattern of thin tendrils, rather than the onion-like growths of IDC. A therapy targeting this mutation could provide a specific benefit for lobular breast cancer.
There are other differences: PI3 kinases are mutated in about 60% of ILC tumors, versus about 30% of IDC tumors, and other genes mutated at lower frequencies are also different between the two subtypes. “So there are a lot of (approaches) we are trying to initiate in lobular cancer because we have awareness now that they are different,” Dr. Mouabbi said.
The study received no external funding.
CHICAGO – Metastatic invasive lobular breast cancers (ILC) that are hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HER2-negative have therapeutic outcomes similar to those of invasive ductal cancer (IDC) following treatment with endocrine therapy combined with a CDK4/6 inhibitor, mTOR inhibitor, or PI3K inhibitor, according to a new retrospective analysis of patients treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center.
between the two subtypes, according to Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“All the studies that were done were driven by ductal patients, so you can never take conclusions for the lobular patients. We have a big database at MD Anderson, so we can really study a large number of patients and get some signals whether or not patients would benefit from that therapy or not,” said Dr. Mouabbi, a lobular breast cancer specialist at MD Anderson Cancer Center.
The results of the study are important since patients often come to physicians with sophisticated understanding of their disease, he said. Patients with lobular cancer naturally wonder if a therapeutic regimen tested primarily in IDC will benefit them. “For the longest time, we said, ‘we have no data,’ ” said Dr. Mouabbi.
The new study should offer patients and physicians some reassurance. “We found that all of them benefit from it and most importantly, they all benefit from it (with) the same magnitude,” Dr. Mouabbi said.
The researchers analyzed data from 2,971 patients (82% IDC, 14% ILC, 4% mixed) treated between 2010 and 2021. The median age was 50 in all groups. Eighty percent were White, 10% were Hispanic, and 5% were Black. Ninety-nine percent had estrogen receptor (ER) + tumors, and 88% had progesterone positive (PR) + tumors.
A total of 1,895 patients received CDK4/6 inhibitors, 1,027 received everolimus, and 49 received alpelisib. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival between the two cancer types in any of the treatment groups.
Despite the similar outcomes, the two conditions remain unique. IDC is a disease of cells from the ducts that deliver milk, while ILC arises in cells that produce milk. Nearly 95% of ILC cases are hormone-positive, compared to 50%-55% of IDC.
So, while existing treatments seem to benefit both groups, there are nonetheless plans to develop therapeutic strategies tailored to lobular cancer.
Dr. Mouabbi’s group has compared molecular profiles of ILC and IDC tumors to better understand how to target them individually. Almost all ILC cancers have a mutation in a gene called CDH1, which leads to loss of an anchoring protein. They believe this causes a unique growth pattern of thin tendrils, rather than the onion-like growths of IDC. A therapy targeting this mutation could provide a specific benefit for lobular breast cancer.
There are other differences: PI3 kinases are mutated in about 60% of ILC tumors, versus about 30% of IDC tumors, and other genes mutated at lower frequencies are also different between the two subtypes. “So there are a lot of (approaches) we are trying to initiate in lobular cancer because we have awareness now that they are different,” Dr. Mouabbi said.
The study received no external funding.
CHICAGO – Metastatic invasive lobular breast cancers (ILC) that are hormone receptor (HR)-positive and HER2-negative have therapeutic outcomes similar to those of invasive ductal cancer (IDC) following treatment with endocrine therapy combined with a CDK4/6 inhibitor, mTOR inhibitor, or PI3K inhibitor, according to a new retrospective analysis of patients treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center.
between the two subtypes, according to Jason A. Mouabbi, MD, who presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
“All the studies that were done were driven by ductal patients, so you can never take conclusions for the lobular patients. We have a big database at MD Anderson, so we can really study a large number of patients and get some signals whether or not patients would benefit from that therapy or not,” said Dr. Mouabbi, a lobular breast cancer specialist at MD Anderson Cancer Center.
The results of the study are important since patients often come to physicians with sophisticated understanding of their disease, he said. Patients with lobular cancer naturally wonder if a therapeutic regimen tested primarily in IDC will benefit them. “For the longest time, we said, ‘we have no data,’ ” said Dr. Mouabbi.
The new study should offer patients and physicians some reassurance. “We found that all of them benefit from it and most importantly, they all benefit from it (with) the same magnitude,” Dr. Mouabbi said.
The researchers analyzed data from 2,971 patients (82% IDC, 14% ILC, 4% mixed) treated between 2010 and 2021. The median age was 50 in all groups. Eighty percent were White, 10% were Hispanic, and 5% were Black. Ninety-nine percent had estrogen receptor (ER) + tumors, and 88% had progesterone positive (PR) + tumors.
A total of 1,895 patients received CDK4/6 inhibitors, 1,027 received everolimus, and 49 received alpelisib. There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival between the two cancer types in any of the treatment groups.
Despite the similar outcomes, the two conditions remain unique. IDC is a disease of cells from the ducts that deliver milk, while ILC arises in cells that produce milk. Nearly 95% of ILC cases are hormone-positive, compared to 50%-55% of IDC.
So, while existing treatments seem to benefit both groups, there are nonetheless plans to develop therapeutic strategies tailored to lobular cancer.
Dr. Mouabbi’s group has compared molecular profiles of ILC and IDC tumors to better understand how to target them individually. Almost all ILC cancers have a mutation in a gene called CDH1, which leads to loss of an anchoring protein. They believe this causes a unique growth pattern of thin tendrils, rather than the onion-like growths of IDC. A therapy targeting this mutation could provide a specific benefit for lobular breast cancer.
There are other differences: PI3 kinases are mutated in about 60% of ILC tumors, versus about 30% of IDC tumors, and other genes mutated at lower frequencies are also different between the two subtypes. “So there are a lot of (approaches) we are trying to initiate in lobular cancer because we have awareness now that they are different,” Dr. Mouabbi said.
The study received no external funding.
AT ASCO 2022