Feature

Health-related social needs and medical financial hardship are associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, based on data from more than 10,000 individuals.

Little is known about the specific association between health-related social needs (HRSNs) and mortality risk even though HRSNs, defined as challenges in affording food, housing, and other necessities of daily living, are potential challenges for cancer survivors, wrote Zhiyuan Zheng, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and colleagues.

A 2020 study by Dr. Zheng and colleagues published in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that food insecurity and financial worries had a negative impact on cancer survivorship. In the new study, published in Cancer, the researchers identified cancer survivors using the 2013-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the NHIS Mortality File through December 31, 2019. The researchers examined mortality using the data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index (NDI) through December 31, 2019, which links to the National Health Interview Survey Data used in the study.

Individuals’ HRSNs were categorized into three groups: severe, moderate, and minor/none. HRSNs included food insecurity and nonmedical financial concerns, such as housing costs (rent, mortgage). Medical financial hardship included material, psychological, and behavioral domains and was divided into three groups: 2-3 domains, 1 domain, or 0 domains.
 

What Are the Potential Financial Implications of this Research?

The high costs of cancer care often cause medical financial hardships for cancer survivors, and expenses also may cause psychological distress and nonmedical financial hardship as survivors try to make ends meet while facing medical bills, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Policy makers are increasingly interested in adding HRSNs to insurance coverage; recent guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) allows individual states to apply to provide nutrition and housing supports through state Medicaid programs, according to authors of a 2023 article published in JAMA Health Forum.

The new study adds to the understanding of how HRSNs impact people with cancer by examining the association with mortality risk, Yelak Biru, MSc, president and chief executive officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, said in an interview.

“This is a key area of study for addressing the disparities in treatments and outcomes that result in inequities,” said Mr. Biru, a patient advocate and multiple myeloma survivor who was not involved in the study.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

The new study characterized HRSNs in 5,855 adult cancer survivors aged 18-64 years and 5,918 aged 65-79 years. In the 18- to 64-year-old group, 25.5% reported moderate levels of HRSNs, and 18.3% reported severe HRSNs. In patients aged 65-79 years, 15.6% and 6.6% reported moderate HRSNs and severe HRSNs, respectively.

Severe HRSN was significantly associated with higher mortality risk in an adjusted analysis in patients aged 18-64 years (hazard ratio 2.00, P < .001).

Among adults aged 65-79 years, severe HRSN was not associated with higher mortality risk; however, in this older age group, those with 2-3 domains of medical financial hardship had significantly increased mortality risk compared with adults aged 65-79 years with zero domains of medical financial hardship (HR 1.58, P = .007).

Although the findings that HRSNs were associated with increased mortality risk, especially in the younger group, were not surprising, they serve as a call to action to address how HRSNs are contributing to cancer mortality, Mr. Biru said in an interview. “HRSNs, like food or housing insecurity, can lead to patients being unable to undergo the best treatment approach for their cancer,” he said.
 

What Are the Limitations and Research Gaps?

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports to measure medical financial hardship, food insecurity, and nonmedical financial concerns in the NHIS, the researchers wrote in their discussion. More research with longer follow-up time beyond 1-5 years is needed, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Studies also are needed to illustrate how patient navigation can help prevent patients from falling through the cracks with regard to social needs and financial hardships, Mr. Biru told this news organization.

Other areas for research include how addressing social needs affects health outcomes and whether programs designed to address social needs are effective, he said.

“Finally, qualitative research is needed to capture the lived experiences of cancer survivors facing these challenges. This knowledge can inform the development of more patient-centered interventions and policies that effectively address the social determinants of health and improve overall outcomes for all cancer survivors,” Mr. Biru said.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinicians?

HRSNs and financial hardship are significantly associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, Dr. Zheng and colleagues concluded. Looking ahead, comprehensive assessment of HRSNs and financial hardship may help clinicians connect patients with relevant services to mitigate the social and financial impacts of cancer, they wrote.

“The takeaway message for oncologists in practice is that addressing [HRSNs] and financial hardship is crucial for providing comprehensive and equitable cancer care,” Mr. Biru said during his interview.

“The impact of social determinants of health on cancer outcomes cannot be ignored, and oncologists play a vital role in identifying and addressing these needs,” he said. Sensitive, discussion-based screenings are needed to identify core needs such as food and transportation, but clinicians also can consider broader social factors and work with a team to connect patients to appropriate resources, he added.

“By recognizing the importance of HRSN screening and taking proactive steps to address these needs, oncologists can contribute to improving health outcomes, reducing healthcare disparities, and providing more equitable cancer care for their patients,” he said.
 

What Other Guidance Is Available?

“High-quality cancer care requires treating the whole person; measuring and addressing anything in their life that could result in poorer health outcomes is a key component of comprehensive care,” Mr. Biru emphasized.

In September 2023, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) convened a working group cochaired by Mr. Biru that developed recommendations for how oncology practices should routinely measure HRSNs (NCCN.org/social-needs).

“The working group proposed that every cancer patient be assessed for food, transportation access, and financial and housing security at least once a year, and be reassessed at every care transition point as well,” Mr. Biru said. Such screenings should include follow-up to connect patients with services to address any HRSNs they are experiencing, he added.

Lead author Dr. Zheng is employed by the American Cancer Society, which as a nonprofit receives funds from the public through fundraising and contributions, as well as some support from corporations and industry to support its mission programs and services. Mr. Biru had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Health-related social needs and medical financial hardship are associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, based on data from more than 10,000 individuals.

Little is known about the specific association between health-related social needs (HRSNs) and mortality risk even though HRSNs, defined as challenges in affording food, housing, and other necessities of daily living, are potential challenges for cancer survivors, wrote Zhiyuan Zheng, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and colleagues.

A 2020 study by Dr. Zheng and colleagues published in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that food insecurity and financial worries had a negative impact on cancer survivorship. In the new study, published in Cancer, the researchers identified cancer survivors using the 2013-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the NHIS Mortality File through December 31, 2019. The researchers examined mortality using the data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index (NDI) through December 31, 2019, which links to the National Health Interview Survey Data used in the study.

Individuals’ HRSNs were categorized into three groups: severe, moderate, and minor/none. HRSNs included food insecurity and nonmedical financial concerns, such as housing costs (rent, mortgage). Medical financial hardship included material, psychological, and behavioral domains and was divided into three groups: 2-3 domains, 1 domain, or 0 domains.
 

What Are the Potential Financial Implications of this Research?

The high costs of cancer care often cause medical financial hardships for cancer survivors, and expenses also may cause psychological distress and nonmedical financial hardship as survivors try to make ends meet while facing medical bills, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Policy makers are increasingly interested in adding HRSNs to insurance coverage; recent guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) allows individual states to apply to provide nutrition and housing supports through state Medicaid programs, according to authors of a 2023 article published in JAMA Health Forum.

The new study adds to the understanding of how HRSNs impact people with cancer by examining the association with mortality risk, Yelak Biru, MSc, president and chief executive officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, said in an interview.

“This is a key area of study for addressing the disparities in treatments and outcomes that result in inequities,” said Mr. Biru, a patient advocate and multiple myeloma survivor who was not involved in the study.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

The new study characterized HRSNs in 5,855 adult cancer survivors aged 18-64 years and 5,918 aged 65-79 years. In the 18- to 64-year-old group, 25.5% reported moderate levels of HRSNs, and 18.3% reported severe HRSNs. In patients aged 65-79 years, 15.6% and 6.6% reported moderate HRSNs and severe HRSNs, respectively.

Severe HRSN was significantly associated with higher mortality risk in an adjusted analysis in patients aged 18-64 years (hazard ratio 2.00, P < .001).

Among adults aged 65-79 years, severe HRSN was not associated with higher mortality risk; however, in this older age group, those with 2-3 domains of medical financial hardship had significantly increased mortality risk compared with adults aged 65-79 years with zero domains of medical financial hardship (HR 1.58, P = .007).

Although the findings that HRSNs were associated with increased mortality risk, especially in the younger group, were not surprising, they serve as a call to action to address how HRSNs are contributing to cancer mortality, Mr. Biru said in an interview. “HRSNs, like food or housing insecurity, can lead to patients being unable to undergo the best treatment approach for their cancer,” he said.
 

What Are the Limitations and Research Gaps?

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports to measure medical financial hardship, food insecurity, and nonmedical financial concerns in the NHIS, the researchers wrote in their discussion. More research with longer follow-up time beyond 1-5 years is needed, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Studies also are needed to illustrate how patient navigation can help prevent patients from falling through the cracks with regard to social needs and financial hardships, Mr. Biru told this news organization.

Other areas for research include how addressing social needs affects health outcomes and whether programs designed to address social needs are effective, he said.

“Finally, qualitative research is needed to capture the lived experiences of cancer survivors facing these challenges. This knowledge can inform the development of more patient-centered interventions and policies that effectively address the social determinants of health and improve overall outcomes for all cancer survivors,” Mr. Biru said.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinicians?

HRSNs and financial hardship are significantly associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, Dr. Zheng and colleagues concluded. Looking ahead, comprehensive assessment of HRSNs and financial hardship may help clinicians connect patients with relevant services to mitigate the social and financial impacts of cancer, they wrote.

“The takeaway message for oncologists in practice is that addressing [HRSNs] and financial hardship is crucial for providing comprehensive and equitable cancer care,” Mr. Biru said during his interview.

“The impact of social determinants of health on cancer outcomes cannot be ignored, and oncologists play a vital role in identifying and addressing these needs,” he said. Sensitive, discussion-based screenings are needed to identify core needs such as food and transportation, but clinicians also can consider broader social factors and work with a team to connect patients to appropriate resources, he added.

“By recognizing the importance of HRSN screening and taking proactive steps to address these needs, oncologists can contribute to improving health outcomes, reducing healthcare disparities, and providing more equitable cancer care for their patients,” he said.
 

What Other Guidance Is Available?

“High-quality cancer care requires treating the whole person; measuring and addressing anything in their life that could result in poorer health outcomes is a key component of comprehensive care,” Mr. Biru emphasized.

In September 2023, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) convened a working group cochaired by Mr. Biru that developed recommendations for how oncology practices should routinely measure HRSNs (NCCN.org/social-needs).

“The working group proposed that every cancer patient be assessed for food, transportation access, and financial and housing security at least once a year, and be reassessed at every care transition point as well,” Mr. Biru said. Such screenings should include follow-up to connect patients with services to address any HRSNs they are experiencing, he added.

Lead author Dr. Zheng is employed by the American Cancer Society, which as a nonprofit receives funds from the public through fundraising and contributions, as well as some support from corporations and industry to support its mission programs and services. Mr. Biru had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Health-related social needs and medical financial hardship are associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, based on data from more than 10,000 individuals.

Little is known about the specific association between health-related social needs (HRSNs) and mortality risk even though HRSNs, defined as challenges in affording food, housing, and other necessities of daily living, are potential challenges for cancer survivors, wrote Zhiyuan Zheng, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and colleagues.

A 2020 study by Dr. Zheng and colleagues published in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that food insecurity and financial worries had a negative impact on cancer survivorship. In the new study, published in Cancer, the researchers identified cancer survivors using the 2013-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the NHIS Mortality File through December 31, 2019. The researchers examined mortality using the data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index (NDI) through December 31, 2019, which links to the National Health Interview Survey Data used in the study.

Individuals’ HRSNs were categorized into three groups: severe, moderate, and minor/none. HRSNs included food insecurity and nonmedical financial concerns, such as housing costs (rent, mortgage). Medical financial hardship included material, psychological, and behavioral domains and was divided into three groups: 2-3 domains, 1 domain, or 0 domains.
 

What Are the Potential Financial Implications of this Research?

The high costs of cancer care often cause medical financial hardships for cancer survivors, and expenses also may cause psychological distress and nonmedical financial hardship as survivors try to make ends meet while facing medical bills, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Policy makers are increasingly interested in adding HRSNs to insurance coverage; recent guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) allows individual states to apply to provide nutrition and housing supports through state Medicaid programs, according to authors of a 2023 article published in JAMA Health Forum.

The new study adds to the understanding of how HRSNs impact people with cancer by examining the association with mortality risk, Yelak Biru, MSc, president and chief executive officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, said in an interview.

“This is a key area of study for addressing the disparities in treatments and outcomes that result in inequities,” said Mr. Biru, a patient advocate and multiple myeloma survivor who was not involved in the study.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

The new study characterized HRSNs in 5,855 adult cancer survivors aged 18-64 years and 5,918 aged 65-79 years. In the 18- to 64-year-old group, 25.5% reported moderate levels of HRSNs, and 18.3% reported severe HRSNs. In patients aged 65-79 years, 15.6% and 6.6% reported moderate HRSNs and severe HRSNs, respectively.

Severe HRSN was significantly associated with higher mortality risk in an adjusted analysis in patients aged 18-64 years (hazard ratio 2.00, P < .001).

Among adults aged 65-79 years, severe HRSN was not associated with higher mortality risk; however, in this older age group, those with 2-3 domains of medical financial hardship had significantly increased mortality risk compared with adults aged 65-79 years with zero domains of medical financial hardship (HR 1.58, P = .007).

Although the findings that HRSNs were associated with increased mortality risk, especially in the younger group, were not surprising, they serve as a call to action to address how HRSNs are contributing to cancer mortality, Mr. Biru said in an interview. “HRSNs, like food or housing insecurity, can lead to patients being unable to undergo the best treatment approach for their cancer,” he said.
 

What Are the Limitations and Research Gaps?

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports to measure medical financial hardship, food insecurity, and nonmedical financial concerns in the NHIS, the researchers wrote in their discussion. More research with longer follow-up time beyond 1-5 years is needed, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Studies also are needed to illustrate how patient navigation can help prevent patients from falling through the cracks with regard to social needs and financial hardships, Mr. Biru told this news organization.

Other areas for research include how addressing social needs affects health outcomes and whether programs designed to address social needs are effective, he said.

“Finally, qualitative research is needed to capture the lived experiences of cancer survivors facing these challenges. This knowledge can inform the development of more patient-centered interventions and policies that effectively address the social determinants of health and improve overall outcomes for all cancer survivors,” Mr. Biru said.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinicians?

HRSNs and financial hardship are significantly associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, Dr. Zheng and colleagues concluded. Looking ahead, comprehensive assessment of HRSNs and financial hardship may help clinicians connect patients with relevant services to mitigate the social and financial impacts of cancer, they wrote.

“The takeaway message for oncologists in practice is that addressing [HRSNs] and financial hardship is crucial for providing comprehensive and equitable cancer care,” Mr. Biru said during his interview.

“The impact of social determinants of health on cancer outcomes cannot be ignored, and oncologists play a vital role in identifying and addressing these needs,” he said. Sensitive, discussion-based screenings are needed to identify core needs such as food and transportation, but clinicians also can consider broader social factors and work with a team to connect patients to appropriate resources, he added.

“By recognizing the importance of HRSN screening and taking proactive steps to address these needs, oncologists can contribute to improving health outcomes, reducing healthcare disparities, and providing more equitable cancer care for their patients,” he said.
 

What Other Guidance Is Available?

“High-quality cancer care requires treating the whole person; measuring and addressing anything in their life that could result in poorer health outcomes is a key component of comprehensive care,” Mr. Biru emphasized.

In September 2023, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) convened a working group cochaired by Mr. Biru that developed recommendations for how oncology practices should routinely measure HRSNs (NCCN.org/social-needs).

“The working group proposed that every cancer patient be assessed for food, transportation access, and financial and housing security at least once a year, and be reassessed at every care transition point as well,” Mr. Biru said. Such screenings should include follow-up to connect patients with services to address any HRSNs they are experiencing, he added.

Lead author Dr. Zheng is employed by the American Cancer Society, which as a nonprofit receives funds from the public through fundraising and contributions, as well as some support from corporations and industry to support its mission programs and services. Mr. Biru had no financial conflicts to disclose.

What’s most important to patients with terminal cancer and their caregivers?

New research found that patients and caregivers both tend to prioritize symptom control over life extension but often preferring a balance. Patients and caregivers, however, are less aligned on decisions about cost containment, with patients more likely to prioritize cost containment.

“Our research has revealed that patients and caregivers generally share similar end-of-life goals,” with a “notable exception” when it comes to costs, first author Semra Ozdemir, PhD, with the Lien Centre for Palliative Care, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, told this news organization.

However, when patients and caregivers have a better understanding of the patient’s prognosis, both may be more inclined to avoid costly life-extending treatments and prioritize symptom management.

In other words, the survey suggests that “knowing the prognosis helps patients and their families set realistic expectations for care and adequately prepare for end-of-life decisions,” said Dr. Ozdemir.

This study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Patients with advanced cancer often face difficult decisions: Do they opt for treatments that may — or may not — extend life or do they focus more on symptom control?

Family caregivers, who also play an important role in this decision-making process, may have different care goals. Some research suggests that caregivers tend to prioritize treatments that could extend life, whereas patients prioritize symptom management, but it’s less clear how these priorities may change over time and how patients and caregivers may influence each other.

In the current study, the researchers examined goals of care among patients with stage IV solid tumors and caregivers during the last 2 years of life, focusing on life extension vs symptom management and cost containment, as well as how these goals changed over time.

The survey included 210 patient-caregiver pairs, recruited from outpatient clinics at two major cancer centers in Singapore. Patients had a mean age of 63 years, and about half were men. The caregivers had a mean age of 49 years, and almost two third (63%) were women.

Overall, 34% patients and 29% caregivers prioritized symptom management over life extension, whereas 24% patients and 19% caregivers prioritized life extension. Most patients and caregivers preferred balancing the two, with 34%-47% patients and 37%-69% caregivers supporting this approach.

When balancing cost and treatment decisions, however, patients were more likely to prioritize containing costs — 28% vs 17% for caregivers — over extending life — 26% of patients vs 35% of caregivers.

Cost containment tended to be more of a priority for older patients, those with a higher symptom burden, and those with less family caregiver support. For caregivers, cost containment was more of a priority for those who reported that caregiving had a big impact on their finances, those with worse self-esteem related to their caregiving abilities, as well as those caring for older patients.

To better align cost containment priorities between patients and caregivers, it’s essential for families to engage in open and thorough discussions about the allocation of resources, Dr. Ozdemir said.

Although “patients, families, and physicians often avoid discussions about prognosis,” such conversations are essential for setting realistic expectations for care and adequately preparing for end-of-life decisions, Dr. Ozdemir told this news organization.

“These conversations should aim to balance competing interests and create care plans that are mutually acceptable to both patients and caregivers,” she said, adding that “this approach will help in minimizing any potential conflicts and ensure that both parties feel respected and understood in their decision-making process.”

Managing Unrealistic Expectations

As patients approached the end of life, neither patients nor caregivers shifted their priorities from life extension to symptom management.

This finding raises concerns because it suggests that many patients hold unrealistic expectations regarding their care and “underscores the need for continuous dialogue and reassessment of care goals throughout the progression of illness,” Dr. Ozdemir said.

“This stability in preferences over time suggests that initial care decisions are deeply ingrained or that there may be a lack of ongoing communication about evolving care needs and possibilities as conditions change,” Ozdemir said.

Yet, it can be hard to define what unrealistic expectations mean, said Olivia Seecof, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“I think people are hopeful that a devastating diagnosis won’t lead to the end of their life and that there will be a treatment or something that will change [their prognosis], and they’ll get better,” said Dr. Seecof, palliative care expert with the Supportive Oncology Program at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York City.

Giving patients and caregivers a realistic understanding of the prognosis is important, but “there’s more to it than just telling the patient their diagnosis,” she said.

“We have to plan for end of life, what it can look like,” said Dr. Seecof, adding that “often we don’t do a very good job of talking about that early on in an illness course.”

Overall, though, Dr. Seecof stressed that no two patients or situations are the same, and it’s important to understand what’s important in each scenario. End-of-life care requires “an individual approach because every patient is different, even if they have the same diagnosis as someone else,” she said.

This work was supported by funding from the Singapore Millennium Foundation and the Lien Centre for Palliative Care. Dr. Ozdemir and Dr. Seecof had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What’s most important to patients with terminal cancer and their caregivers?

New research found that patients and caregivers both tend to prioritize symptom control over life extension but often preferring a balance. Patients and caregivers, however, are less aligned on decisions about cost containment, with patients more likely to prioritize cost containment.

“Our research has revealed that patients and caregivers generally share similar end-of-life goals,” with a “notable exception” when it comes to costs, first author Semra Ozdemir, PhD, with the Lien Centre for Palliative Care, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, told this news organization.

However, when patients and caregivers have a better understanding of the patient’s prognosis, both may be more inclined to avoid costly life-extending treatments and prioritize symptom management.

In other words, the survey suggests that “knowing the prognosis helps patients and their families set realistic expectations for care and adequately prepare for end-of-life decisions,” said Dr. Ozdemir.

This study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Patients with advanced cancer often face difficult decisions: Do they opt for treatments that may — or may not — extend life or do they focus more on symptom control?

Family caregivers, who also play an important role in this decision-making process, may have different care goals. Some research suggests that caregivers tend to prioritize treatments that could extend life, whereas patients prioritize symptom management, but it’s less clear how these priorities may change over time and how patients and caregivers may influence each other.

In the current study, the researchers examined goals of care among patients with stage IV solid tumors and caregivers during the last 2 years of life, focusing on life extension vs symptom management and cost containment, as well as how these goals changed over time.

The survey included 210 patient-caregiver pairs, recruited from outpatient clinics at two major cancer centers in Singapore. Patients had a mean age of 63 years, and about half were men. The caregivers had a mean age of 49 years, and almost two third (63%) were women.

Overall, 34% patients and 29% caregivers prioritized symptom management over life extension, whereas 24% patients and 19% caregivers prioritized life extension. Most patients and caregivers preferred balancing the two, with 34%-47% patients and 37%-69% caregivers supporting this approach.

When balancing cost and treatment decisions, however, patients were more likely to prioritize containing costs — 28% vs 17% for caregivers — over extending life — 26% of patients vs 35% of caregivers.

Cost containment tended to be more of a priority for older patients, those with a higher symptom burden, and those with less family caregiver support. For caregivers, cost containment was more of a priority for those who reported that caregiving had a big impact on their finances, those with worse self-esteem related to their caregiving abilities, as well as those caring for older patients.

To better align cost containment priorities between patients and caregivers, it’s essential for families to engage in open and thorough discussions about the allocation of resources, Dr. Ozdemir said.

Although “patients, families, and physicians often avoid discussions about prognosis,” such conversations are essential for setting realistic expectations for care and adequately preparing for end-of-life decisions, Dr. Ozdemir told this news organization.

“These conversations should aim to balance competing interests and create care plans that are mutually acceptable to both patients and caregivers,” she said, adding that “this approach will help in minimizing any potential conflicts and ensure that both parties feel respected and understood in their decision-making process.”

Managing Unrealistic Expectations

As patients approached the end of life, neither patients nor caregivers shifted their priorities from life extension to symptom management.

This finding raises concerns because it suggests that many patients hold unrealistic expectations regarding their care and “underscores the need for continuous dialogue and reassessment of care goals throughout the progression of illness,” Dr. Ozdemir said.

“This stability in preferences over time suggests that initial care decisions are deeply ingrained or that there may be a lack of ongoing communication about evolving care needs and possibilities as conditions change,” Ozdemir said.

Yet, it can be hard to define what unrealistic expectations mean, said Olivia Seecof, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“I think people are hopeful that a devastating diagnosis won’t lead to the end of their life and that there will be a treatment or something that will change [their prognosis], and they’ll get better,” said Dr. Seecof, palliative care expert with the Supportive Oncology Program at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York City.

Giving patients and caregivers a realistic understanding of the prognosis is important, but “there’s more to it than just telling the patient their diagnosis,” she said.

“We have to plan for end of life, what it can look like,” said Dr. Seecof, adding that “often we don’t do a very good job of talking about that early on in an illness course.”

Overall, though, Dr. Seecof stressed that no two patients or situations are the same, and it’s important to understand what’s important in each scenario. End-of-life care requires “an individual approach because every patient is different, even if they have the same diagnosis as someone else,” she said.

This work was supported by funding from the Singapore Millennium Foundation and the Lien Centre for Palliative Care. Dr. Ozdemir and Dr. Seecof had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What’s most important to patients with terminal cancer and their caregivers?

New research found that patients and caregivers both tend to prioritize symptom control over life extension but often preferring a balance. Patients and caregivers, however, are less aligned on decisions about cost containment, with patients more likely to prioritize cost containment.

“Our research has revealed that patients and caregivers generally share similar end-of-life goals,” with a “notable exception” when it comes to costs, first author Semra Ozdemir, PhD, with the Lien Centre for Palliative Care, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, told this news organization.

However, when patients and caregivers have a better understanding of the patient’s prognosis, both may be more inclined to avoid costly life-extending treatments and prioritize symptom management.

In other words, the survey suggests that “knowing the prognosis helps patients and their families set realistic expectations for care and adequately prepare for end-of-life decisions,” said Dr. Ozdemir.

This study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Patients with advanced cancer often face difficult decisions: Do they opt for treatments that may — or may not — extend life or do they focus more on symptom control?

Family caregivers, who also play an important role in this decision-making process, may have different care goals. Some research suggests that caregivers tend to prioritize treatments that could extend life, whereas patients prioritize symptom management, but it’s less clear how these priorities may change over time and how patients and caregivers may influence each other.

In the current study, the researchers examined goals of care among patients with stage IV solid tumors and caregivers during the last 2 years of life, focusing on life extension vs symptom management and cost containment, as well as how these goals changed over time.

The survey included 210 patient-caregiver pairs, recruited from outpatient clinics at two major cancer centers in Singapore. Patients had a mean age of 63 years, and about half were men. The caregivers had a mean age of 49 years, and almost two third (63%) were women.

Overall, 34% patients and 29% caregivers prioritized symptom management over life extension, whereas 24% patients and 19% caregivers prioritized life extension. Most patients and caregivers preferred balancing the two, with 34%-47% patients and 37%-69% caregivers supporting this approach.

When balancing cost and treatment decisions, however, patients were more likely to prioritize containing costs — 28% vs 17% for caregivers — over extending life — 26% of patients vs 35% of caregivers.

Cost containment tended to be more of a priority for older patients, those with a higher symptom burden, and those with less family caregiver support. For caregivers, cost containment was more of a priority for those who reported that caregiving had a big impact on their finances, those with worse self-esteem related to their caregiving abilities, as well as those caring for older patients.

To better align cost containment priorities between patients and caregivers, it’s essential for families to engage in open and thorough discussions about the allocation of resources, Dr. Ozdemir said.

Although “patients, families, and physicians often avoid discussions about prognosis,” such conversations are essential for setting realistic expectations for care and adequately preparing for end-of-life decisions, Dr. Ozdemir told this news organization.

“These conversations should aim to balance competing interests and create care plans that are mutually acceptable to both patients and caregivers,” she said, adding that “this approach will help in minimizing any potential conflicts and ensure that both parties feel respected and understood in their decision-making process.”

Managing Unrealistic Expectations

As patients approached the end of life, neither patients nor caregivers shifted their priorities from life extension to symptom management.

This finding raises concerns because it suggests that many patients hold unrealistic expectations regarding their care and “underscores the need for continuous dialogue and reassessment of care goals throughout the progression of illness,” Dr. Ozdemir said.

“This stability in preferences over time suggests that initial care decisions are deeply ingrained or that there may be a lack of ongoing communication about evolving care needs and possibilities as conditions change,” Ozdemir said.

Yet, it can be hard to define what unrealistic expectations mean, said Olivia Seecof, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“I think people are hopeful that a devastating diagnosis won’t lead to the end of their life and that there will be a treatment or something that will change [their prognosis], and they’ll get better,” said Dr. Seecof, palliative care expert with the Supportive Oncology Program at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York City.

Giving patients and caregivers a realistic understanding of the prognosis is important, but “there’s more to it than just telling the patient their diagnosis,” she said.

“We have to plan for end of life, what it can look like,” said Dr. Seecof, adding that “often we don’t do a very good job of talking about that early on in an illness course.”

Overall, though, Dr. Seecof stressed that no two patients or situations are the same, and it’s important to understand what’s important in each scenario. End-of-life care requires “an individual approach because every patient is different, even if they have the same diagnosis as someone else,” she said.

This work was supported by funding from the Singapore Millennium Foundation and the Lien Centre for Palliative Care. Dr. Ozdemir and Dr. Seecof had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

From India to Brazil, researchers around the world are experimenting with ways to simplify the complex production of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells and lower the treatment’s sky-high costs.

In the United States, a stand-alone device could greatly reduce the expense of producing modified immune cells. In India, researchers hope homegrown technology is the key to getting costs under control. In Latin America, a partnership between the Brazilian government and a US nonprofit may be just the ticket.

At stake is expanded access to CAR T-cell therapy, a form of immunotherapy that in just the past few years has revolutionized the care of hematologic cancers.

“Among patients with lymphoma, leukemia, and myeloma, anywhere between 30% to 50% reach long-term remission after one CAR T-cell infusion,” Mayo Clinic–Rochester hematologist/oncologist Saad J. Kenderian, MB, ChB, said in an interview. “It’s such an important therapy.”

However, only a small percentage of eligible patients in the United States — perhaps 20% or fewer — are receiving the treatment, he added.

A 2024 report suggested that many patients in the United States who may benefit aren’t being treated because of a range of possible reasons, including high prices, manufacturing logistics, and far distance from the limited number of institutions offering the therapy.

“Taken together, the real-world cost of CAR T-cell therapy can range from $700,000 to $1 million, which may make the treatment unaffordable to those patients without robust financial and/or social support,” the report authors noted.

Outside Western countries, access to the therapy is even more limited, because of its exorbitant price. The 2024 report noted that “there is a wide use of CAR T-cell therapy in Europe and China, but access is limited in developing countries in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America.”
 

Harnessing the Power of T-Cells

Several types of CAR T-cell therapy have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for patients with relapsed/refractory blood cancers such as follicular lymphoma, large B-cell lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia. A 2023 review analyzed clinical trials and reported that complete response rates were 40%-54% in aggressive B-cell lymphoma, 67% in mantle cell lymphoma, and 69%-74% in indolent B-cell lymphoma.

Pediatric hematologist/oncologist Kirsten Williams, MD, who specializes in pediatric blood and marrow transplant and cellular therapy at the Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center of Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, described CAR T-cell therapy as “a very unique form of immunotherapy” that harnesses the power of the immune system’s T-cells.

These cells are effective tumor killers, but they typically aren’t assigned to control cancer, she said in an interview. “We have very few of them, and most of our T cells are focused on killing various viruses,” she said. The therapy “allows us to take the T cell that would have killed the flu or mono and instead target leukemia, B-cell leukemia, or lymphoma.”

As she explained, “T cells are collected by a machine that reserves white blood cells and gives back the rest of the blood to the patient. We insert a gene into the T cells that encodes for a B-cell receptor. This receptor acts as a GPS signal, pulling T cells to the cancer so that they can kill it.”

In addition, “with this genetic change, we also add some things that allow the T cell to be stronger, to have a higher signal to kill the cancer cell once it locks on.”

The therapy is unique for each patient, Dr. Williams said. “We have collected and modified your specific T cells, and they can now only be infused into you. If we try to give your product to someone else, those cells would either cause harm by attacking the patient or would be immediately killed by that patient’s own immune system. This is very different than all the other kinds of therapies. When you take other medicines, it doesn’t matter who receives that pill.”
 

Treatment: Individual, Complex, and Costly

Why is CAR T-cell therapy so expensive? While only a single treatment is needed, the T cells have to go through an “individualized, bespoke manufacturing” process that’s “highly technical,” pediatric oncologist Stephan A. Grupp, MD, PhD, section chief of the Cellular Therapy and Transplant Section at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. As he explained, the cells for a single patient have to go through the same testing as with a drug that might be given to 1,000 people.

“The first thing we need to do is collect the cells from a patient,” said Dr. Williams. “For adults, that process involves putting in two big IVs — one in each arm — and then pulling the blood through a machine. This typically involves an 8-hour collection in the hospital and very highly specialized people to oversee the collection process.”

Secondly, at some institutions, “the cells get sent to a company where they undergo the process where the gene is inserted,” she said. “This process needs to be done in a very sterile environment so there’s no infections, and it needs to have a lot of oversight.”

Finally, “after the cells are generated, they are typically frozen and shipped back to the site where the patient is at the hospital,” she said. “Then we give chemotherapy to the patient, which prepares the patient’s blood system. It removes some of the T-cells that are there, allowing for the T cells that we’re about to infuse to quickly be activated, find the cancer, and kill it.”

Side effects can boost costs even more. “Unfortunately, some significant toxicities can occur after we infuse these cells,” Dr. Williams noted. “Patients can have trouble breathing and sometimes need ventilatory support. They can have trouble maintaining their blood pressure and become swollen as fluid seeps into tissues. Or they can have high fevers and organ dysfunction. Many of those patients go to the intensive care unit, which is obviously expensive as well.”
 

Taking Gene Therapy In-House

As Dr. Williams explained, one way to reduce costs is to “perform the genetic manipulation and expansion of the cells outside of a company.” Several academic institutions in the United States are embracing this approach, including Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, which is experimenting with an automated device developed by the German company Miltenyi Biotec and known as the CliniMACS Prodigy machine.

“The current manufacturing process is very manual and requires a lot of interaction with the product and highly trained personnel,” Dr. Grupp said. “If you have an automated device, you have those cells in the device over the 7 to 12 days that you actually need to grow the cells. There’s much less interaction, so you need fewer trained personnel.”

Children&#039;s Hospital of Philadelphia

India: Big Hopes for Homegrown Technology

In India, researchers are hoping that their homegrown approach to CAR T-cell therapy will expand access by greatly lowering treatment prices.

Last fall, India’s equivalent of the FDA-granted approval for actalycabtagene autoleucel (NexCAR19), which was developed by Indian scientists who worked closely with the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The therapy’s developer is a company called ImmunoACT.

In an interview, ImmunoACT founder Rahul Purwar, PhD, MSc, associate professor at Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, said the treatment costs about $40,000. The price is much lower than in the United States because staffing, facility construction, and maintenance are less expensive in India, he said.

Results of small early clinical trials have been promising, with complete responses in 68% of 38 lymphoma patients and 72% of 15 leukemia patients. Updated data will be presented at the annual American Society of Hematology meeting in December 2024, Dr. Purwar said.

According to the NIH, at first ImmunoACT hopes to treat about 1,200 patients a year. The immediate goal is to “focus and stabilize our operation in India,” Dr. Purwar said. “Then, if opportunities come, we will try to bring CAR T to all who might benefit from these technologies. A majority of countries don’t have access to these technologies.”
 

A US-Brazil Partnership Holds Promise

Meanwhile, a US nonprofit known as Caring Cross announced this year that it has partnered with Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz), a Brazilian government foundation, to manufacture CAR T cells at point-of-care in South America.

“Our model is different than traditional biotech/pharma,” Boro Dropulic, PhD, MBA, cofounder and executive director of Caring Cross, said in an interview. “Our goal is to develop technologies and transfer them to organizations like Fiocruz to enable them to manufacture these transformative therapies for patients in their regions. We believe this model is an important solution for therapies that are priced so high that they are not accessible to many patients that need them, particularly underserved populations and those in low- and middle-income countries.”

According to Dr. Dropulic: “We have developed a production process where the material cost is about $20,000 per dose.” When labor and infrastructure costs are added, the total expense won’t be more than $37,000-$47,500, he said.

The research process for the CAR T-cell technology is at an earlier stage than in India. Scientists plan to start clinical trials of the technology in the United States by the end of 2024 and then begin them in Brazil in 2025, after safety and efficacy have been demonstrated. The first trial, a phase I/II study, will enroll about 20 patients, Dr. Dropulic said.

Dr. Kenderian reported ties with Novartis, Capstan Bio, Kite/Gilead, Juno/BMS, Humanigen, Tolero, Leah Labs, Lentigen, Luminary, Sunesis/Viracta, Morphosys, Troque, Carisma, Sendero, and LifEngine. Dr. Williams disclosed grants from National Institutes of Health and philanthropic organizations. Dr. Grupp reported relationships with Novartis, Kite, Vertex and Servier, Roche, GSK, Humanigen, CBMG, Eureka, Janssen/JNJ, Jazz, Adaptimmune, TCR2, Cellectis, Juno, Allogene, and Cabaletta. Dr. Purwar is the founder of ImmunoACT. Dr. Dropulic serves as executive director of Caring Cross and CEO of Vector BioMed, which provides vectors for gene therapy.

From India to Brazil, researchers around the world are experimenting with ways to simplify the complex production of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells and lower the treatment’s sky-high costs.

In the United States, a stand-alone device could greatly reduce the expense of producing modified immune cells. In India, researchers hope homegrown technology is the key to getting costs under control. In Latin America, a partnership between the Brazilian government and a US nonprofit may be just the ticket.

At stake is expanded access to CAR T-cell therapy, a form of immunotherapy that in just the past few years has revolutionized the care of hematologic cancers.

“Among patients with lymphoma, leukemia, and myeloma, anywhere between 30% to 50% reach long-term remission after one CAR T-cell infusion,” Mayo Clinic–Rochester hematologist/oncologist Saad J. Kenderian, MB, ChB, said in an interview. “It’s such an important therapy.”

However, only a small percentage of eligible patients in the United States — perhaps 20% or fewer — are receiving the treatment, he added.

A 2024 report suggested that many patients in the United States who may benefit aren’t being treated because of a range of possible reasons, including high prices, manufacturing logistics, and far distance from the limited number of institutions offering the therapy.

“Taken together, the real-world cost of CAR T-cell therapy can range from $700,000 to $1 million, which may make the treatment unaffordable to those patients without robust financial and/or social support,” the report authors noted.

Outside Western countries, access to the therapy is even more limited, because of its exorbitant price. The 2024 report noted that “there is a wide use of CAR T-cell therapy in Europe and China, but access is limited in developing countries in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America.”
 

Harnessing the Power of T-Cells

Several types of CAR T-cell therapy have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for patients with relapsed/refractory blood cancers such as follicular lymphoma, large B-cell lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia. A 2023 review analyzed clinical trials and reported that complete response rates were 40%-54% in aggressive B-cell lymphoma, 67% in mantle cell lymphoma, and 69%-74% in indolent B-cell lymphoma.

Pediatric hematologist/oncologist Kirsten Williams, MD, who specializes in pediatric blood and marrow transplant and cellular therapy at the Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center of Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, described CAR T-cell therapy as “a very unique form of immunotherapy” that harnesses the power of the immune system’s T-cells.

These cells are effective tumor killers, but they typically aren’t assigned to control cancer, she said in an interview. “We have very few of them, and most of our T cells are focused on killing various viruses,” she said. The therapy “allows us to take the T cell that would have killed the flu or mono and instead target leukemia, B-cell leukemia, or lymphoma.”

As she explained, “T cells are collected by a machine that reserves white blood cells and gives back the rest of the blood to the patient. We insert a gene into the T cells that encodes for a B-cell receptor. This receptor acts as a GPS signal, pulling T cells to the cancer so that they can kill it.”

In addition, “with this genetic change, we also add some things that allow the T cell to be stronger, to have a higher signal to kill the cancer cell once it locks on.”

The therapy is unique for each patient, Dr. Williams said. “We have collected and modified your specific T cells, and they can now only be infused into you. If we try to give your product to someone else, those cells would either cause harm by attacking the patient or would be immediately killed by that patient’s own immune system. This is very different than all the other kinds of therapies. When you take other medicines, it doesn’t matter who receives that pill.”
 

Treatment: Individual, Complex, and Costly

Why is CAR T-cell therapy so expensive? While only a single treatment is needed, the T cells have to go through an “individualized, bespoke manufacturing” process that’s “highly technical,” pediatric oncologist Stephan A. Grupp, MD, PhD, section chief of the Cellular Therapy and Transplant Section at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. As he explained, the cells for a single patient have to go through the same testing as with a drug that might be given to 1,000 people.

“The first thing we need to do is collect the cells from a patient,” said Dr. Williams. “For adults, that process involves putting in two big IVs — one in each arm — and then pulling the blood through a machine. This typically involves an 8-hour collection in the hospital and very highly specialized people to oversee the collection process.”

Secondly, at some institutions, “the cells get sent to a company where they undergo the process where the gene is inserted,” she said. “This process needs to be done in a very sterile environment so there’s no infections, and it needs to have a lot of oversight.”

Finally, “after the cells are generated, they are typically frozen and shipped back to the site where the patient is at the hospital,” she said. “Then we give chemotherapy to the patient, which prepares the patient’s blood system. It removes some of the T-cells that are there, allowing for the T cells that we’re about to infuse to quickly be activated, find the cancer, and kill it.”

Side effects can boost costs even more. “Unfortunately, some significant toxicities can occur after we infuse these cells,” Dr. Williams noted. “Patients can have trouble breathing and sometimes need ventilatory support. They can have trouble maintaining their blood pressure and become swollen as fluid seeps into tissues. Or they can have high fevers and organ dysfunction. Many of those patients go to the intensive care unit, which is obviously expensive as well.”
 

Taking Gene Therapy In-House

As Dr. Williams explained, one way to reduce costs is to “perform the genetic manipulation and expansion of the cells outside of a company.” Several academic institutions in the United States are embracing this approach, including Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, which is experimenting with an automated device developed by the German company Miltenyi Biotec and known as the CliniMACS Prodigy machine.

“The current manufacturing process is very manual and requires a lot of interaction with the product and highly trained personnel,” Dr. Grupp said. “If you have an automated device, you have those cells in the device over the 7 to 12 days that you actually need to grow the cells. There’s much less interaction, so you need fewer trained personnel.”

Children&#039;s Hospital of Philadelphia

India: Big Hopes for Homegrown Technology

In India, researchers are hoping that their homegrown approach to CAR T-cell therapy will expand access by greatly lowering treatment prices.

Last fall, India’s equivalent of the FDA-granted approval for actalycabtagene autoleucel (NexCAR19), which was developed by Indian scientists who worked closely with the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The therapy’s developer is a company called ImmunoACT.

In an interview, ImmunoACT founder Rahul Purwar, PhD, MSc, associate professor at Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, said the treatment costs about $40,000. The price is much lower than in the United States because staffing, facility construction, and maintenance are less expensive in India, he said.

Results of small early clinical trials have been promising, with complete responses in 68% of 38 lymphoma patients and 72% of 15 leukemia patients. Updated data will be presented at the annual American Society of Hematology meeting in December 2024, Dr. Purwar said.

According to the NIH, at first ImmunoACT hopes to treat about 1,200 patients a year. The immediate goal is to “focus and stabilize our operation in India,” Dr. Purwar said. “Then, if opportunities come, we will try to bring CAR T to all who might benefit from these technologies. A majority of countries don’t have access to these technologies.”
 

A US-Brazil Partnership Holds Promise

Meanwhile, a US nonprofit known as Caring Cross announced this year that it has partnered with Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz), a Brazilian government foundation, to manufacture CAR T cells at point-of-care in South America.

“Our model is different than traditional biotech/pharma,” Boro Dropulic, PhD, MBA, cofounder and executive director of Caring Cross, said in an interview. “Our goal is to develop technologies and transfer them to organizations like Fiocruz to enable them to manufacture these transformative therapies for patients in their regions. We believe this model is an important solution for therapies that are priced so high that they are not accessible to many patients that need them, particularly underserved populations and those in low- and middle-income countries.”

According to Dr. Dropulic: “We have developed a production process where the material cost is about $20,000 per dose.” When labor and infrastructure costs are added, the total expense won’t be more than $37,000-$47,500, he said.

The research process for the CAR T-cell technology is at an earlier stage than in India. Scientists plan to start clinical trials of the technology in the United States by the end of 2024 and then begin them in Brazil in 2025, after safety and efficacy have been demonstrated. The first trial, a phase I/II study, will enroll about 20 patients, Dr. Dropulic said.

Dr. Kenderian reported ties with Novartis, Capstan Bio, Kite/Gilead, Juno/BMS, Humanigen, Tolero, Leah Labs, Lentigen, Luminary, Sunesis/Viracta, Morphosys, Troque, Carisma, Sendero, and LifEngine. Dr. Williams disclosed grants from National Institutes of Health and philanthropic organizations. Dr. Grupp reported relationships with Novartis, Kite, Vertex and Servier, Roche, GSK, Humanigen, CBMG, Eureka, Janssen/JNJ, Jazz, Adaptimmune, TCR2, Cellectis, Juno, Allogene, and Cabaletta. Dr. Purwar is the founder of ImmunoACT. Dr. Dropulic serves as executive director of Caring Cross and CEO of Vector BioMed, which provides vectors for gene therapy.

From India to Brazil, researchers around the world are experimenting with ways to simplify the complex production of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells and lower the treatment’s sky-high costs.

In the United States, a stand-alone device could greatly reduce the expense of producing modified immune cells. In India, researchers hope homegrown technology is the key to getting costs under control. In Latin America, a partnership between the Brazilian government and a US nonprofit may be just the ticket.

At stake is expanded access to CAR T-cell therapy, a form of immunotherapy that in just the past few years has revolutionized the care of hematologic cancers.

“Among patients with lymphoma, leukemia, and myeloma, anywhere between 30% to 50% reach long-term remission after one CAR T-cell infusion,” Mayo Clinic–Rochester hematologist/oncologist Saad J. Kenderian, MB, ChB, said in an interview. “It’s such an important therapy.”

However, only a small percentage of eligible patients in the United States — perhaps 20% or fewer — are receiving the treatment, he added.

A 2024 report suggested that many patients in the United States who may benefit aren’t being treated because of a range of possible reasons, including high prices, manufacturing logistics, and far distance from the limited number of institutions offering the therapy.

“Taken together, the real-world cost of CAR T-cell therapy can range from $700,000 to $1 million, which may make the treatment unaffordable to those patients without robust financial and/or social support,” the report authors noted.

Outside Western countries, access to the therapy is even more limited, because of its exorbitant price. The 2024 report noted that “there is a wide use of CAR T-cell therapy in Europe and China, but access is limited in developing countries in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America.”
 

Harnessing the Power of T-Cells

Several types of CAR T-cell therapy have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for patients with relapsed/refractory blood cancers such as follicular lymphoma, large B-cell lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia. A 2023 review analyzed clinical trials and reported that complete response rates were 40%-54% in aggressive B-cell lymphoma, 67% in mantle cell lymphoma, and 69%-74% in indolent B-cell lymphoma.

Pediatric hematologist/oncologist Kirsten Williams, MD, who specializes in pediatric blood and marrow transplant and cellular therapy at the Aflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Center of Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, described CAR T-cell therapy as “a very unique form of immunotherapy” that harnesses the power of the immune system’s T-cells.

These cells are effective tumor killers, but they typically aren’t assigned to control cancer, she said in an interview. “We have very few of them, and most of our T cells are focused on killing various viruses,” she said. The therapy “allows us to take the T cell that would have killed the flu or mono and instead target leukemia, B-cell leukemia, or lymphoma.”

As she explained, “T cells are collected by a machine that reserves white blood cells and gives back the rest of the blood to the patient. We insert a gene into the T cells that encodes for a B-cell receptor. This receptor acts as a GPS signal, pulling T cells to the cancer so that they can kill it.”

In addition, “with this genetic change, we also add some things that allow the T cell to be stronger, to have a higher signal to kill the cancer cell once it locks on.”

The therapy is unique for each patient, Dr. Williams said. “We have collected and modified your specific T cells, and they can now only be infused into you. If we try to give your product to someone else, those cells would either cause harm by attacking the patient or would be immediately killed by that patient’s own immune system. This is very different than all the other kinds of therapies. When you take other medicines, it doesn’t matter who receives that pill.”
 

Treatment: Individual, Complex, and Costly

Why is CAR T-cell therapy so expensive? While only a single treatment is needed, the T cells have to go through an “individualized, bespoke manufacturing” process that’s “highly technical,” pediatric oncologist Stephan A. Grupp, MD, PhD, section chief of the Cellular Therapy and Transplant Section at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. As he explained, the cells for a single patient have to go through the same testing as with a drug that might be given to 1,000 people.

“The first thing we need to do is collect the cells from a patient,” said Dr. Williams. “For adults, that process involves putting in two big IVs — one in each arm — and then pulling the blood through a machine. This typically involves an 8-hour collection in the hospital and very highly specialized people to oversee the collection process.”

Secondly, at some institutions, “the cells get sent to a company where they undergo the process where the gene is inserted,” she said. “This process needs to be done in a very sterile environment so there’s no infections, and it needs to have a lot of oversight.”

Finally, “after the cells are generated, they are typically frozen and shipped back to the site where the patient is at the hospital,” she said. “Then we give chemotherapy to the patient, which prepares the patient’s blood system. It removes some of the T-cells that are there, allowing for the T cells that we’re about to infuse to quickly be activated, find the cancer, and kill it.”

Side effects can boost costs even more. “Unfortunately, some significant toxicities can occur after we infuse these cells,” Dr. Williams noted. “Patients can have trouble breathing and sometimes need ventilatory support. They can have trouble maintaining their blood pressure and become swollen as fluid seeps into tissues. Or they can have high fevers and organ dysfunction. Many of those patients go to the intensive care unit, which is obviously expensive as well.”
 

Taking Gene Therapy In-House

As Dr. Williams explained, one way to reduce costs is to “perform the genetic manipulation and expansion of the cells outside of a company.” Several academic institutions in the United States are embracing this approach, including Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, which is experimenting with an automated device developed by the German company Miltenyi Biotec and known as the CliniMACS Prodigy machine.

“The current manufacturing process is very manual and requires a lot of interaction with the product and highly trained personnel,” Dr. Grupp said. “If you have an automated device, you have those cells in the device over the 7 to 12 days that you actually need to grow the cells. There’s much less interaction, so you need fewer trained personnel.”

Children&#039;s Hospital of Philadelphia

India: Big Hopes for Homegrown Technology

In India, researchers are hoping that their homegrown approach to CAR T-cell therapy will expand access by greatly lowering treatment prices.

Last fall, India’s equivalent of the FDA-granted approval for actalycabtagene autoleucel (NexCAR19), which was developed by Indian scientists who worked closely with the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The therapy’s developer is a company called ImmunoACT.

In an interview, ImmunoACT founder Rahul Purwar, PhD, MSc, associate professor at Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, said the treatment costs about $40,000. The price is much lower than in the United States because staffing, facility construction, and maintenance are less expensive in India, he said.

Results of small early clinical trials have been promising, with complete responses in 68% of 38 lymphoma patients and 72% of 15 leukemia patients. Updated data will be presented at the annual American Society of Hematology meeting in December 2024, Dr. Purwar said.

According to the NIH, at first ImmunoACT hopes to treat about 1,200 patients a year. The immediate goal is to “focus and stabilize our operation in India,” Dr. Purwar said. “Then, if opportunities come, we will try to bring CAR T to all who might benefit from these technologies. A majority of countries don’t have access to these technologies.”
 

A US-Brazil Partnership Holds Promise

Meanwhile, a US nonprofit known as Caring Cross announced this year that it has partnered with Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz), a Brazilian government foundation, to manufacture CAR T cells at point-of-care in South America.

“Our model is different than traditional biotech/pharma,” Boro Dropulic, PhD, MBA, cofounder and executive director of Caring Cross, said in an interview. “Our goal is to develop technologies and transfer them to organizations like Fiocruz to enable them to manufacture these transformative therapies for patients in their regions. We believe this model is an important solution for therapies that are priced so high that they are not accessible to many patients that need them, particularly underserved populations and those in low- and middle-income countries.”

According to Dr. Dropulic: “We have developed a production process where the material cost is about $20,000 per dose.” When labor and infrastructure costs are added, the total expense won’t be more than $37,000-$47,500, he said.

The research process for the CAR T-cell technology is at an earlier stage than in India. Scientists plan to start clinical trials of the technology in the United States by the end of 2024 and then begin them in Brazil in 2025, after safety and efficacy have been demonstrated. The first trial, a phase I/II study, will enroll about 20 patients, Dr. Dropulic said.

Dr. Kenderian reported ties with Novartis, Capstan Bio, Kite/Gilead, Juno/BMS, Humanigen, Tolero, Leah Labs, Lentigen, Luminary, Sunesis/Viracta, Morphosys, Troque, Carisma, Sendero, and LifEngine. Dr. Williams disclosed grants from National Institutes of Health and philanthropic organizations. Dr. Grupp reported relationships with Novartis, Kite, Vertex and Servier, Roche, GSK, Humanigen, CBMG, Eureka, Janssen/JNJ, Jazz, Adaptimmune, TCR2, Cellectis, Juno, Allogene, and Cabaletta. Dr. Purwar is the founder of ImmunoACT. Dr. Dropulic serves as executive director of Caring Cross and CEO of Vector BioMed, which provides vectors for gene therapy.

In addition to warmer weather, June will usher in changes in asthma and COPD inhaler costs for many patients, potentially reducing barriers to those seeing high prescription prices. Price ceilings have been set by some companies, likely following action earlier this year by a Senate Committee which pointed to higher costs of US inhalers compared with other countries.

Senator Sanders stated: “In my view, Americans who have asthma and COPD should not be forced to pay, in many cases, 10-70 times more for the same exact inhalers as patients in Europe and other parts of the world.”

Starting June 1, Boehringer Ingelheim will cap out-of-pocket costs for the company’s inhaler products for chronic lung disease and asthma at $35 per month, according to a March 7, 2024, press release from the German drugmaker’s US headquarters in Ridgefield, Conn. The reductions cover the full range of the company’s inhaler products for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) including Atrovent, Combivent Respimat and Spiriva HandiHaler and Respimat, Stiolto Respimat and Striverdi Respimat. In the release, Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation’s President and CEO Jean-Michel Boers stated, “The US health care system is complex and often doesn’t work for patients, especially the most vulnerable. While we can’t fix the entire system alone, we are bringing forward a solution to make it fairer. We want to do our part to help patients living with COPD or asthma who struggle to pay for their medications.”

Similar announcements were made by AstraZeneca and GSK. GSK’s cap will go into effect on January 1, 2025, and includes Advair Diskus, Advair HFA, Anoro Ellipta, Arnuity Ellipta, Breo Ellipta, Incruse Ellipta, Serevent Diskus, Trelegy Ellipta, and Ventolin HFA. The AstraZeneca cap, which covers Airsupra, Bevespi Aerosphere, Breztri Aeroshpere, and Symbicort, goes into effect on June 1, 2024.
 

Senate statement on pricing

These companies plus Teva had received letters sent on January 8, 2024, by the members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: senators Sanders, Baldwin, Luján and Markey. The letters cited enormous inhaler price discrepancies, for example $489 for Combivent Respimat in the United States but just $7 in France, and announced the conduct of an investigation into efforts by these companies to artificially inflate and manipulate prices of asthma inhalers that have been on the market for decades. A statement from Sen. Sanders’ office noted that AstraZeneca, GSK, and Teva made more than $25 billion in revenue from inhalers alone in the past 5 years (Boehringer Ingelheim does not provide public US inhaler revenue information).

Suit claims generic delay

A federal lawsuit filed in Boston on March 6, according to a Reuters brief from March 7, cited Boehringer for improperly submitting patents to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The purpose of those patents, the suit charges, was to delay generic competition and inflate Combivent Respimat and Spiriva Respimat inhaler prices.

Inhaler prices soared in the United States, according to a March 10 U.S. News & World Report commentary by The Conversation, a nonprofit news organization, after the 2008 FDA ban on chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-propellants led to the phase-out of CFC-containing inhalers and their replacement with hydrofluoroalkane-propellant inhalers. For the insured that meant an average out-of-pocket inhaler cost increase from $13.60 per prescription in 2004 to $25 in 2015. The current rate for the now nongeneric HFA-propelled but otherwise identical albuterol inhaler is $98. Competition from a more recently FDA-approved (2020) generic version has not been robust enough to effect meaningful price reductions, the report stated. While good insurance generally covers most of inhaler costs, the more than 25 million uninsured in 2023 faced steep market prices that put strain even on some insured, the CDC found, driving many in the United States to purchase from Mexican, Canadian, or other foreign pharmacies. The Teva QVAR REdiHaler corticosteroid inhaler, costing $9 in Germany, costs $286 in the US. Dosages, however, may not be identical. A first FDA-authorization of drug importing this past January applied only to agents for a limited number of disease states and pertained only to Florida, but may serve as a model for other states, according to the commentary.

“The announced price cap from Boehringer Ingelheim,” stated Kenneth Mendez, president and CEO of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) in a press release, “is a step toward improving access to essential asthma medicine and demonstrates that the voice of the asthma patient community is being heard.” The AAFA release noted further that asthma death rates, while declining overall, are triple in Blacks compared with Whites. Death rates, asthma rates, and rates of being uninsured or underinsured are much higher in Black and Puerto Rican populations than in Whites. The complex layers of the current US system, composed of pharmaceutical manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, insurance companies, employers, and federal policies often conspire against those people who need asthma drugs the most. AAFA research has shown that when drug prices become a barrier to treatment, people with asthma ration or simply discontinue their essential asthma medications. Beyond saved lives, access to asthma medications can reduce hospitalizations and lower the more than $82 billion in annual asthma costs to the US economy.

Sen. Sanders, on March 20, applauded the GSK announcement: “As Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I very much appreciate GlaxoSmithKline’s announcement today that Americans throughout the country with asthma and COPD will pay no more than $35 for the brand name inhalers they manufacture. I look forward to working with GSK to make sure that this decision reaches as many patients as possible.”

“Inhaled medications continue to be an essential part of the therapy for patients with asthma, COPD, and other respiratory conditions,” said Diego J. Maselli, professor and chief, Division of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care, UT Health at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, in an interview with CHEST Physician. He added, “Unfortunately, with increasing cost of these and other treatments, access has been challenging for many patients. Patients, families, and providers constantly experience frustration with the difficulties of obtaining these lifesaving medications, and cost is the main barrier. Even those with ample insurance coverage face difficult challenges, as the high prices of these medications motivate insurance carriers to constantly adjust what is the ‘preferred’ option among inhalers. Regrettably, noncompliance and nonadherence to inhaled therapies has been linked to poor patient outcomes and increased health care utilization in both asthma and COPD. Because of the high prevalence of these diseases in the US and worldwide, efforts to increase the access of these vital medications has been a priority. With the leveling of the prices of these medications across the world, we hope that there will be both improved access and, as a consequence, better patient outcomes.”

In addition to warmer weather, June will usher in changes in asthma and COPD inhaler costs for many patients, potentially reducing barriers to those seeing high prescription prices. Price ceilings have been set by some companies, likely following action earlier this year by a Senate Committee which pointed to higher costs of US inhalers compared with other countries.

Senator Sanders stated: “In my view, Americans who have asthma and COPD should not be forced to pay, in many cases, 10-70 times more for the same exact inhalers as patients in Europe and other parts of the world.”

Starting June 1, Boehringer Ingelheim will cap out-of-pocket costs for the company’s inhaler products for chronic lung disease and asthma at $35 per month, according to a March 7, 2024, press release from the German drugmaker’s US headquarters in Ridgefield, Conn. The reductions cover the full range of the company’s inhaler products for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) including Atrovent, Combivent Respimat and Spiriva HandiHaler and Respimat, Stiolto Respimat and Striverdi Respimat. In the release, Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation’s President and CEO Jean-Michel Boers stated, “The US health care system is complex and often doesn’t work for patients, especially the most vulnerable. While we can’t fix the entire system alone, we are bringing forward a solution to make it fairer. We want to do our part to help patients living with COPD or asthma who struggle to pay for their medications.”

Similar announcements were made by AstraZeneca and GSK. GSK’s cap will go into effect on January 1, 2025, and includes Advair Diskus, Advair HFA, Anoro Ellipta, Arnuity Ellipta, Breo Ellipta, Incruse Ellipta, Serevent Diskus, Trelegy Ellipta, and Ventolin HFA. The AstraZeneca cap, which covers Airsupra, Bevespi Aerosphere, Breztri Aeroshpere, and Symbicort, goes into effect on June 1, 2024.
 

Senate statement on pricing

These companies plus Teva had received letters sent on January 8, 2024, by the members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: senators Sanders, Baldwin, Luján and Markey. The letters cited enormous inhaler price discrepancies, for example $489 for Combivent Respimat in the United States but just $7 in France, and announced the conduct of an investigation into efforts by these companies to artificially inflate and manipulate prices of asthma inhalers that have been on the market for decades. A statement from Sen. Sanders’ office noted that AstraZeneca, GSK, and Teva made more than $25 billion in revenue from inhalers alone in the past 5 years (Boehringer Ingelheim does not provide public US inhaler revenue information).

Suit claims generic delay

A federal lawsuit filed in Boston on March 6, according to a Reuters brief from March 7, cited Boehringer for improperly submitting patents to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The purpose of those patents, the suit charges, was to delay generic competition and inflate Combivent Respimat and Spiriva Respimat inhaler prices.

Inhaler prices soared in the United States, according to a March 10 U.S. News & World Report commentary by The Conversation, a nonprofit news organization, after the 2008 FDA ban on chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-propellants led to the phase-out of CFC-containing inhalers and their replacement with hydrofluoroalkane-propellant inhalers. For the insured that meant an average out-of-pocket inhaler cost increase from $13.60 per prescription in 2004 to $25 in 2015. The current rate for the now nongeneric HFA-propelled but otherwise identical albuterol inhaler is $98. Competition from a more recently FDA-approved (2020) generic version has not been robust enough to effect meaningful price reductions, the report stated. While good insurance generally covers most of inhaler costs, the more than 25 million uninsured in 2023 faced steep market prices that put strain even on some insured, the CDC found, driving many in the United States to purchase from Mexican, Canadian, or other foreign pharmacies. The Teva QVAR REdiHaler corticosteroid inhaler, costing $9 in Germany, costs $286 in the US. Dosages, however, may not be identical. A first FDA-authorization of drug importing this past January applied only to agents for a limited number of disease states and pertained only to Florida, but may serve as a model for other states, according to the commentary.

“The announced price cap from Boehringer Ingelheim,” stated Kenneth Mendez, president and CEO of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) in a press release, “is a step toward improving access to essential asthma medicine and demonstrates that the voice of the asthma patient community is being heard.” The AAFA release noted further that asthma death rates, while declining overall, are triple in Blacks compared with Whites. Death rates, asthma rates, and rates of being uninsured or underinsured are much higher in Black and Puerto Rican populations than in Whites. The complex layers of the current US system, composed of pharmaceutical manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, insurance companies, employers, and federal policies often conspire against those people who need asthma drugs the most. AAFA research has shown that when drug prices become a barrier to treatment, people with asthma ration or simply discontinue their essential asthma medications. Beyond saved lives, access to asthma medications can reduce hospitalizations and lower the more than $82 billion in annual asthma costs to the US economy.

Sen. Sanders, on March 20, applauded the GSK announcement: “As Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I very much appreciate GlaxoSmithKline’s announcement today that Americans throughout the country with asthma and COPD will pay no more than $35 for the brand name inhalers they manufacture. I look forward to working with GSK to make sure that this decision reaches as many patients as possible.”

“Inhaled medications continue to be an essential part of the therapy for patients with asthma, COPD, and other respiratory conditions,” said Diego J. Maselli, professor and chief, Division of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care, UT Health at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, in an interview with CHEST Physician. He added, “Unfortunately, with increasing cost of these and other treatments, access has been challenging for many patients. Patients, families, and providers constantly experience frustration with the difficulties of obtaining these lifesaving medications, and cost is the main barrier. Even those with ample insurance coverage face difficult challenges, as the high prices of these medications motivate insurance carriers to constantly adjust what is the ‘preferred’ option among inhalers. Regrettably, noncompliance and nonadherence to inhaled therapies has been linked to poor patient outcomes and increased health care utilization in both asthma and COPD. Because of the high prevalence of these diseases in the US and worldwide, efforts to increase the access of these vital medications has been a priority. With the leveling of the prices of these medications across the world, we hope that there will be both improved access and, as a consequence, better patient outcomes.”

In addition to warmer weather, June will usher in changes in asthma and COPD inhaler costs for many patients, potentially reducing barriers to those seeing high prescription prices. Price ceilings have been set by some companies, likely following action earlier this year by a Senate Committee which pointed to higher costs of US inhalers compared with other countries.

Senator Sanders stated: “In my view, Americans who have asthma and COPD should not be forced to pay, in many cases, 10-70 times more for the same exact inhalers as patients in Europe and other parts of the world.”

Starting June 1, Boehringer Ingelheim will cap out-of-pocket costs for the company’s inhaler products for chronic lung disease and asthma at $35 per month, according to a March 7, 2024, press release from the German drugmaker’s US headquarters in Ridgefield, Conn. The reductions cover the full range of the company’s inhaler products for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) including Atrovent, Combivent Respimat and Spiriva HandiHaler and Respimat, Stiolto Respimat and Striverdi Respimat. In the release, Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corporation’s President and CEO Jean-Michel Boers stated, “The US health care system is complex and often doesn’t work for patients, especially the most vulnerable. While we can’t fix the entire system alone, we are bringing forward a solution to make it fairer. We want to do our part to help patients living with COPD or asthma who struggle to pay for their medications.”

Similar announcements were made by AstraZeneca and GSK. GSK’s cap will go into effect on January 1, 2025, and includes Advair Diskus, Advair HFA, Anoro Ellipta, Arnuity Ellipta, Breo Ellipta, Incruse Ellipta, Serevent Diskus, Trelegy Ellipta, and Ventolin HFA. The AstraZeneca cap, which covers Airsupra, Bevespi Aerosphere, Breztri Aeroshpere, and Symbicort, goes into effect on June 1, 2024.
 

Senate statement on pricing

These companies plus Teva had received letters sent on January 8, 2024, by the members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: senators Sanders, Baldwin, Luján and Markey. The letters cited enormous inhaler price discrepancies, for example $489 for Combivent Respimat in the United States but just $7 in France, and announced the conduct of an investigation into efforts by these companies to artificially inflate and manipulate prices of asthma inhalers that have been on the market for decades. A statement from Sen. Sanders’ office noted that AstraZeneca, GSK, and Teva made more than $25 billion in revenue from inhalers alone in the past 5 years (Boehringer Ingelheim does not provide public US inhaler revenue information).

Suit claims generic delay

A federal lawsuit filed in Boston on March 6, according to a Reuters brief from March 7, cited Boehringer for improperly submitting patents to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The purpose of those patents, the suit charges, was to delay generic competition and inflate Combivent Respimat and Spiriva Respimat inhaler prices.

Inhaler prices soared in the United States, according to a March 10 U.S. News & World Report commentary by The Conversation, a nonprofit news organization, after the 2008 FDA ban on chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-propellants led to the phase-out of CFC-containing inhalers and their replacement with hydrofluoroalkane-propellant inhalers. For the insured that meant an average out-of-pocket inhaler cost increase from $13.60 per prescription in 2004 to $25 in 2015. The current rate for the now nongeneric HFA-propelled but otherwise identical albuterol inhaler is $98. Competition from a more recently FDA-approved (2020) generic version has not been robust enough to effect meaningful price reductions, the report stated. While good insurance generally covers most of inhaler costs, the more than 25 million uninsured in 2023 faced steep market prices that put strain even on some insured, the CDC found, driving many in the United States to purchase from Mexican, Canadian, or other foreign pharmacies. The Teva QVAR REdiHaler corticosteroid inhaler, costing $9 in Germany, costs $286 in the US. Dosages, however, may not be identical. A first FDA-authorization of drug importing this past January applied only to agents for a limited number of disease states and pertained only to Florida, but may serve as a model for other states, according to the commentary.

“The announced price cap from Boehringer Ingelheim,” stated Kenneth Mendez, president and CEO of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America (AAFA) in a press release, “is a step toward improving access to essential asthma medicine and demonstrates that the voice of the asthma patient community is being heard.” The AAFA release noted further that asthma death rates, while declining overall, are triple in Blacks compared with Whites. Death rates, asthma rates, and rates of being uninsured or underinsured are much higher in Black and Puerto Rican populations than in Whites. The complex layers of the current US system, composed of pharmaceutical manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers, insurance companies, employers, and federal policies often conspire against those people who need asthma drugs the most. AAFA research has shown that when drug prices become a barrier to treatment, people with asthma ration or simply discontinue their essential asthma medications. Beyond saved lives, access to asthma medications can reduce hospitalizations and lower the more than $82 billion in annual asthma costs to the US economy.

Sen. Sanders, on March 20, applauded the GSK announcement: “As Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I very much appreciate GlaxoSmithKline’s announcement today that Americans throughout the country with asthma and COPD will pay no more than $35 for the brand name inhalers they manufacture. I look forward to working with GSK to make sure that this decision reaches as many patients as possible.”

“Inhaled medications continue to be an essential part of the therapy for patients with asthma, COPD, and other respiratory conditions,” said Diego J. Maselli, professor and chief, Division of Pulmonary Diseases & Critical Care, UT Health at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, in an interview with CHEST Physician. He added, “Unfortunately, with increasing cost of these and other treatments, access has been challenging for many patients. Patients, families, and providers constantly experience frustration with the difficulties of obtaining these lifesaving medications, and cost is the main barrier. Even those with ample insurance coverage face difficult challenges, as the high prices of these medications motivate insurance carriers to constantly adjust what is the ‘preferred’ option among inhalers. Regrettably, noncompliance and nonadherence to inhaled therapies has been linked to poor patient outcomes and increased health care utilization in both asthma and COPD. Because of the high prevalence of these diseases in the US and worldwide, efforts to increase the access of these vital medications has been a priority. With the leveling of the prices of these medications across the world, we hope that there will be both improved access and, as a consequence, better patient outcomes.”

A contentious scientific debate is clouding prospects for a deeper understanding of the microbiome’s role in cancer, a relatively young field of research that some believe could lead to breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of the second-leading cause of death in the United States. 

Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.

The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.

This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies? 
 

Cancer Controversy

The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.

The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes. 

“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.” 

For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.

“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.” 

The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?

This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. 

Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study. 

“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”

Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.

Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.

Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed. 

The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.

For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading. 

It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.

Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed. 

Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.” 

Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions. 

“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
 

Underdeveloped Technology 

Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question. 

For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies. 

Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one. 

Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible. 

“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.

Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.

Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.

“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said. 
 

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.

The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.

“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost. 

“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said. 

In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said. 

Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.

Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”

It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted. 
 

No Consensus Yet

Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans. 

It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges. 

“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.

“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A contentious scientific debate is clouding prospects for a deeper understanding of the microbiome’s role in cancer, a relatively young field of research that some believe could lead to breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of the second-leading cause of death in the United States. 

Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.

The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.

This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies? 
 

Cancer Controversy

The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.

The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes. 

“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.” 

For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.

“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.” 

The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?

This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. 

Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study. 

“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”

Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.

Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.

Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed. 

The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.

For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading. 

It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.

Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed. 

Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.” 

Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions. 

“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
 

Underdeveloped Technology 

Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question. 

For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies. 

Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one. 

Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible. 

“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.

Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.

Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.

“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said. 
 

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.

The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.

“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost. 

“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said. 

In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said. 

Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.

Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”

It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted. 
 

No Consensus Yet

Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans. 

It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges. 

“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.

“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A contentious scientific debate is clouding prospects for a deeper understanding of the microbiome’s role in cancer, a relatively young field of research that some believe could lead to breakthroughs in the diagnosis and treatment of the second-leading cause of death in the United States. 

Last year, the controversy heightened when experts questioned a high-profile study — a 2020 analysis claiming that the tumors of 33 different cancers had their own unique microbiomes — on whether the “signature” of these bacterial compositions could help diagnose cancer.

The incident renewed the spotlight on “tumor microbiomes” because of the bold claims of the original paper and the strongly worded refutations of those claims. The broader field has focused primarily on ways the body’s microbiome interacts with cancers and cancer treatment.

This controversy has highlighted the challenges of making headway in a field where researchers may not even have the tools yet to puzzle-out the wide-ranging implications the microbiome holds for cancer diagnosis and treatment.

But it is also part of a provocative question within that larger field: whether tumors in the body, far from the natural microbiome in the gut, have their own thriving communities of bacteria, viruses, and fungi. And, if they do, how do those tumor microbiomes affect the development and progression of the cancer and the effectiveness of cancer therapies? 
 

Cancer Controversy

The evidence is undeniable that some microbes can directly cause certain cancers and that the human gut microbiome can influence the effectiveness of certain therapies. Beyond that established science, however, the research has raised as many questions as answers about what we do and don’t know about microbiota and cancer.

The only confirmed microbiomes are on the skin and in the gut, mouth, and vagina, which are all areas with an easy direct route for bacteria to enter and grow in or on the body. A series of papers in recent years have suggested that other internal organs, and tumors within them, may have their own microbiomes. 

“Whether microbes exist in tumors of internal organs beyond body surfaces exposed to the environment is a different matter,” said Ivan Vujkovic-Cvijin, PhD, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences and gastroenterology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, whose lab studies how human gut microbes affect inflammatory diseases. “We’ve only recently had the tools to study that question on a molecular level, and the reported results have been conflicting.” 

For example, research allegedly identified microbiota in the human placenta nearly one decade ago. But subsequent research contradicted those claims and showed that the source of the “placental microbiome” was actually contamination. Subsequent similar studies for other parts of the body faced the same scrutiny and, often, eventual debunking.

“Most likely, our immune system has undergone selective pressure to eliminate everything that crosses the gut barrier because there’s not much benefit to the body to have bacteria run amok in our internal organs,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. “That can only disrupt the functioning of our tissues, to have an external organism living inside them.” 

The controversy that erupted last summer, surrounding research from the lab of Rob Knight, PhD, at the University of California, San Diego, centered on a slightly different but related question: Could tumors harbor their own microbiomes?

This news organization spoke with two of the authors who published a paper contesting Dr. Knight’s findings: Steven Salzberg, PhD, a professor of biomedical engineering at John Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and Abraham Gihawi, PhD, a research fellow at Norwich Medical School at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. 

Dr. Salzberg described two major problems with Dr. Knight’s study. 

“What they found were false positives because of contamination in the database and flaws in their methods,” Dr. Salzberg said. “I can’t prove there’s no cancer microbiome, but I can say the cancer microbiomes that they reported don’t exist because the species they were finding aren’t there.”

Dr. Knight disagrees with Dr. Salzberg’s findings, noting that Dr. Salzberg and his co-authors did not examine the publicly available databases used in his study. In a written response, he said that his team’s examination of the database revealed that less than 1% of the microbial genomes overlapped with human ones and that removing them did not change their findings.

Dr. Knight also noted that his team could still “distinguish cancer types by their microbiome” even after running their analysis without the technique that Dr. Salzberg found fault with.

Dr. Salzberg said that the database linked above is not the one Dr. Knight’s study used, however. “The primary database in their study was never made public (it’s too large, they said), and it has/had about 69,000 genomes,” Dr. Salzberg said by email. “But even if we did, this is irrelevant. He’s trying to distract from the primary errors in their study,” which Dr. Salzberg said Dr. Knight’s team has not addressed. 

The critiques Dr. Salzberg raised have been leveled at other studies investigating microbiomes specifically within tumors and independent of the body’s microbiome.

For example, a 2019 study in Nature described a fungal microbiome in pancreatic cancer that a Nature paper 4 years later directly contradicted, citing flaws that invalidated the original findings. A different 2019 study in Cell examined pancreatic tumor microbiota and patient outcomes, but it’s unclear whether the microorganisms moved from the gut to the pancreas or “constitute a durably colonized community that lives inside the tumor,” which remains a matter of debate, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

A 2020 study in Science suggested diverse microbial communities in seven tumor types, but those findings were similarly called into question. That study stated that “bacteria were first detected in human tumors more than 100 years ago” and that “bacteria are well-known residents in human tumors,” but Dr. Salzberg considers those statements misleading. 

It’s true that bacteria and viruses have been detected in tumors because “there’s very good evidence that an acute infection caused by a very small number of viruses and bacteria can cause a tumor,” Dr. Salzberg said. Human papillomavirus, for example, can cause six different types of cancer. Inflammation and ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori may progress to stomach cancer, and Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis have been shown to contribute to colorectal cancer. Those examples differ from a microbiome; this “a community of bacteria and possibly other microscopic bugs, like fungi, that are happily living in the tumor” the same way microbes reside in our guts, he said.

Dr. Knight said that many bacteria his team identified “have been confirmed independently in subsequent work.” He acknowledged, however, that more research is needed. 

Several of the contested studies above were among a lengthy list that Dr. Knight provided, noting that most of the disagreements “have two sides to them, and critiques from one particular group does not immediately invalidate a reported finding.” 

Yet, many of the papers Dr. Knight listed are precisely the types that skeptics like Dr. Salzberg believe are too flawed to draw reliable conclusions. 

“I think many agree that microbes may exist within tumors that are exposed to the environment, like tumors of the skin, gut, and mouth,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. It’s less clear, however, whether tumors further from the body’s microbiome harbor any microbes or where they came from if they do. Microbial signals in organs elsewhere in the body become faint quickly, he said.
 

Underdeveloped Technology 

Though Dr. Salzberg said that the concept of a tumor microbiome is “implausible” because there’s no easy route for bacteria to reach internal organs, it’s unclear whether scientists have the technology yet to adequately answer this question. 

For one thing, samples in these types of studies are typically “ultra-low biomass samples, where the signal — the amount of microbes in the sample — is so low that it’s comparable to how much would be expected to be found in reagents and environmental contamination through processing,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin explained. Many polymerases used to amplify a DNA signal, for example, are made in bacteria and may retain trace amounts identified in these studies. 

Dr. Knight agreed that low biomass is a challenge in this field but is not an unsurmountable one. 

Another challenge is that study samples, as with Dr. Knight’s work, were collected during routine surgeries without the intent to find a microbial signal. Simply using a scalpel to cut through the skin means cutting through a layer of bacteria, and surgery rooms are not designed to eliminate all bacteria. Some work has even shown there is a “hospital microbiome,” so “you can easily have that creep into your signal and mistake it for tumor-resident bacteria,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Dr. Knight asserted that the samples are taken under sterile conditions, but other researchers do not think the level of sterility necessary for completely clean samples is possible. 

“Just because it’s in your sample doesn’t mean it was in your tumor,” Dr. Gihawi said.

Even if scientists can retrieve a reliable sample without contamination, analyzing it requires comparing the genetic material to existing databases of microbial genomes. Yet, contamination and misclassification of genetic sequences can be problems in those reference genomes too, Dr. Gihawi explained.

Machine learning algorithms have a role in interpreting data, but “we need to be careful of what we use them for,” he added.

“These techniques are in their infancy, and we’re starting to chase them down, which is why we need to move microbiome research in a way that can be used clinically,” Dr. Gihawi said. 
 

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

Again, however, the question of whether microbiomes exist within tumors is only one slice of the much larger field looking at microbiomes and cancer, including its influence on cancer treatment outcomes. Although much remains to be learned, less controversy exists over the thousands of studies in the past two decades that have gradually revealed how the body’s microbiome can affect both the course of a cancer and the effectiveness of different treatments.

The growing research showing the importance of the gut microbiome in cancer treatments is not surprising given its role in immunity more broadly. Because the human immune system must recognize and defend against microbes, the microbiome helps train it, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. 

Some bacteria can escape the gut — a phenomenon called bacterial translocation — and may aid in fighting tumors. To grow large enough to be seen on imaging, tumors need to evolve several abilities, such as growing enough vascularization to receive blood flow and shutting down local immune responses.

“Any added boost, like immunotherapy, has a chance of breaking through that immune forcefield and killing the tumor cells,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said. Escaped gut bacteria may provide that boost. 

“There’s a lot of evidence that depletion of the gut microbiome impairs immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The thinking behind some of those studies is that gut microbes can cross the gut barrier and when they do, they activate the immune system,” he said. 

In mice engineered to have sterile guts, for example, the lack of bacteria results in less effective immune systems, Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin pointed out. A host of research has shown that antibiotic exposure during and even 6 months before immunotherapy dramatically reduces survival rates. “That’s pretty convincing to me that gut microbes are important,” he said. 

Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin cautioned that there continues to be controversy on understanding which bacteria are important for response to immunotherapy. “The field is still in its infancy in terms of understanding which bacteria are most important for these effects,” he said.

Dr. Knight suggested that escaped bacteria may be the genesis of the ones that he and other researchers believe exist in tumors. “Because tumor microbes must come from somewhere, it is to be expected that some of those microbes will be co-opted from body-site specific commensals.”

It’s also possible that metabolites released from gut bacteria escape the gut and could theoretically affect distant tumor growth, Dr. Gihawi said. The most promising avenue of research in this area is metabolites being used as biomarkers, added Dr. Gihawi, whose lab published research on a link between bacteria detected in men’s urine and a more aggressive subset of prostate cancers. But that research is not far enough along to develop lab tests for clinical use, he noted. 
 

No Consensus Yet

Even before the controversy erupted around Dr. Knight’s research, he co-founded the company Micronoma to develop cancer tests based on his microbe findings. The company has raised $17.5 million from private investors as of August 2023 and received the US Food and Drug Administration’s Breakthrough Device designation, allowing the firm to fast-track clinical trials testing the technology. The recent critiques have not changed the company’s plans. 

It’s safe to say that scientists will continue to research and debate the possibility of tumor microbiomes until a consensus emerges. 

“The field is evolving and studies testing the reproducibility of tumor-resident microbial signals are essential for developing our understanding in this area,” Dr. Vujkovic-Cvijin said.

Even if that path ultimately leads nowhere, as Dr. Salzberg expects, research into microbiomes and cancer has plenty of other directions to go.

“I’m actually quite an optimist,” Dr. Gihawi said. “I think there’s a lot of scope for some really good research here, especially in the sites where we know there is a strong microbiome, such as the gastrointestinal tract.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines, proposing two major changes: start cervical cancer screening at age 25, rather than 21, and perform primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, instead of a Pap test. 

But a recent survey, published earlier this year, found that few clinicians are following these ACS recommendations. And the reasons are multifaceted.

First, healthcare providers in the US may be unsure how to reconcile conflicting cervical cancer screening guidelines from another major organization — the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which published guidelines in 2018. 

Although the ACS guidelines are based on an analysis of the latest evidence, 

the recommendations challenge those from the USPSTF, which dictates insurance coverage in the US. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) aligned its guidelines with those from the USPSTF.

The USPSTF recommends average-risk individuals start Pap, not HPV, testing at age 21, and broadens the options to primary HPV testing, Pap testing, or both together starting at age 30. The ACS, on the other hand, says primary HPV testing is the preferred screening approach from the start, which should be age 25. 

Because the ACS guidelines marked a notable departure from prevailing practice, a team of researchers from five US universities decided to find out if anyone was following them. 

The results, published in the journal Cancer in March, revealed that most healthcare providers had not changed practice.

Lead author Rebecca Perkins, MD, MSc, and colleagues found that, among the 70 respondents, few were starting screening at age 25, and none had switched to primary HPV testing. 

The survey then probed clinicians’ willingness to adopt the ACS guidelines as well as their reservations and barriers to doing so. 

Notably, more than half of the survey participants said they would be willing to adopt the ACS guidelines if the best evidence supported the changes and other professional medical organizations endorsed them.

On the age change, participants highlighted a range of benefits to moving to a later screening age, including that earlier screening may not be valuable and delaying screening could reduce overtreatment. 

One participant noted: “We know that cervical cancer is usually a slow‐growing, long‐term progressive disease that does not typically show up that early in life, and we also know that, if infected, oftentimes their immune system can fight off the virus. So, it sounds reasonable at first glance [to delay screening to age 25 years].” 

Others, however, brought up barriers to initiating screening at age 25. Some mentioned that later screening may not work for high‐risk populations and others voiced concerns about missing high‐grade precancer or cancer. “It’s not unusual for us to see women in their early 20s that have already had 10 or 15 partners. … a lot of them smoke too … they just have a lot of bad habits that put them at more risk,” one respondent noted.

On the HPV vs Pap testing front, many participants described a growing confidence in HPV tests after trying co-testing. One participant said, “Honestly, I do look more at the HPV results than the cytology. I put more faith in knowing what their HPV status is than anything.” 

The main barriers to primary HPV testing, however, included lack of autonomy when working in a large health system, concerns about the efficacy of HPV testing, and a belief that cytology was valuable.

Some clinicians were worried about missing high-grade lesions or cancer. One healthcare provider said, “My only concern with primary HPV screening is occasionally you will pick up endometrial abnormalities on a Pap that you’re not going to pick up with HPV screening.”

Logistics and finances also played a role in clinicians’ hesitancy to switch to the ACS recommendation. Labs that could handle primary HPV tests were not available to some participants, and lack of insurance coverage was a barrier for others. One respondent noted, for instance, that his institution has a “cytology infrastructure that already exists in the lab and I can’t really see them switching.” 

Many survey respondents also said they were waiting for endorsement from organizations, such as ACOG and USPSTF. “We run by the USPSTF and … ACOG. We don’t run by the ACS guidelines,” one person said. 

Finally, some participants were not aware of the ACS recommendations at all or the data behind them but said they would be willing to change to primary HPV testing in the future. 

Overall, Dr. Perkins said she was happy to see that more than half of the respondents would be willing to shift to the ACS screening guidelines, but noted that many remain reluctant to do so until the USPSTF and ACOG change their guidelines. 

“It’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing” the ACS guidelines, said Dr. Perkins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University. 

The USPSTF is currently updating its cervical screening guidelines, which could potentially help reconcile this discord between the guidelines and close the gaps in practice patterns. 

The USPSTF’s review of the evidence, which led to the 2018 guidelines, did highlight the effectiveness of HPV testing. The review authors concluded that “the evidence was consistent across trials” that primary, high-risk HPV screening increased detection of grade 3 or worse cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the initial round of screening “by as much as 2 to 3 times when compared with cytology.”

However, Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, first author on the USPSTF evidence review, explained that the reviewers factored in access to HPV testing when making their final recommendations.

“The consideration was making sure that a recommendation could be inclusive of all providers and all populations and not restricting access for clinics that couldn’t afford or didn’t have the machine to do [HPV testing],” Dr. Melnikow, director of the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research and professor of family and community medicine at the University of California Davis, told this news organization.

The ACS, however, did not consider potential access problems in its analysis of the evidence.

Although the ACS evidence is “excellent,” Dr. Perkins said, “it’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing that, and then it seems like a lot of people are willing to make the change.”

Dr. Perkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines, proposing two major changes: start cervical cancer screening at age 25, rather than 21, and perform primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, instead of a Pap test. 

But a recent survey, published earlier this year, found that few clinicians are following these ACS recommendations. And the reasons are multifaceted.

First, healthcare providers in the US may be unsure how to reconcile conflicting cervical cancer screening guidelines from another major organization — the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which published guidelines in 2018. 

Although the ACS guidelines are based on an analysis of the latest evidence, 

the recommendations challenge those from the USPSTF, which dictates insurance coverage in the US. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) aligned its guidelines with those from the USPSTF.

The USPSTF recommends average-risk individuals start Pap, not HPV, testing at age 21, and broadens the options to primary HPV testing, Pap testing, or both together starting at age 30. The ACS, on the other hand, says primary HPV testing is the preferred screening approach from the start, which should be age 25. 

Because the ACS guidelines marked a notable departure from prevailing practice, a team of researchers from five US universities decided to find out if anyone was following them. 

The results, published in the journal Cancer in March, revealed that most healthcare providers had not changed practice.

Lead author Rebecca Perkins, MD, MSc, and colleagues found that, among the 70 respondents, few were starting screening at age 25, and none had switched to primary HPV testing. 

The survey then probed clinicians’ willingness to adopt the ACS guidelines as well as their reservations and barriers to doing so. 

Notably, more than half of the survey participants said they would be willing to adopt the ACS guidelines if the best evidence supported the changes and other professional medical organizations endorsed them.

On the age change, participants highlighted a range of benefits to moving to a later screening age, including that earlier screening may not be valuable and delaying screening could reduce overtreatment. 

One participant noted: “We know that cervical cancer is usually a slow‐growing, long‐term progressive disease that does not typically show up that early in life, and we also know that, if infected, oftentimes their immune system can fight off the virus. So, it sounds reasonable at first glance [to delay screening to age 25 years].” 

Others, however, brought up barriers to initiating screening at age 25. Some mentioned that later screening may not work for high‐risk populations and others voiced concerns about missing high‐grade precancer or cancer. “It’s not unusual for us to see women in their early 20s that have already had 10 or 15 partners. … a lot of them smoke too … they just have a lot of bad habits that put them at more risk,” one respondent noted.

On the HPV vs Pap testing front, many participants described a growing confidence in HPV tests after trying co-testing. One participant said, “Honestly, I do look more at the HPV results than the cytology. I put more faith in knowing what their HPV status is than anything.” 

The main barriers to primary HPV testing, however, included lack of autonomy when working in a large health system, concerns about the efficacy of HPV testing, and a belief that cytology was valuable.

Some clinicians were worried about missing high-grade lesions or cancer. One healthcare provider said, “My only concern with primary HPV screening is occasionally you will pick up endometrial abnormalities on a Pap that you’re not going to pick up with HPV screening.”

Logistics and finances also played a role in clinicians’ hesitancy to switch to the ACS recommendation. Labs that could handle primary HPV tests were not available to some participants, and lack of insurance coverage was a barrier for others. One respondent noted, for instance, that his institution has a “cytology infrastructure that already exists in the lab and I can’t really see them switching.” 

Many survey respondents also said they were waiting for endorsement from organizations, such as ACOG and USPSTF. “We run by the USPSTF and … ACOG. We don’t run by the ACS guidelines,” one person said. 

Finally, some participants were not aware of the ACS recommendations at all or the data behind them but said they would be willing to change to primary HPV testing in the future. 

Overall, Dr. Perkins said she was happy to see that more than half of the respondents would be willing to shift to the ACS screening guidelines, but noted that many remain reluctant to do so until the USPSTF and ACOG change their guidelines. 

“It’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing” the ACS guidelines, said Dr. Perkins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University. 

The USPSTF is currently updating its cervical screening guidelines, which could potentially help reconcile this discord between the guidelines and close the gaps in practice patterns. 

The USPSTF’s review of the evidence, which led to the 2018 guidelines, did highlight the effectiveness of HPV testing. The review authors concluded that “the evidence was consistent across trials” that primary, high-risk HPV screening increased detection of grade 3 or worse cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the initial round of screening “by as much as 2 to 3 times when compared with cytology.”

However, Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, first author on the USPSTF evidence review, explained that the reviewers factored in access to HPV testing when making their final recommendations.

“The consideration was making sure that a recommendation could be inclusive of all providers and all populations and not restricting access for clinics that couldn’t afford or didn’t have the machine to do [HPV testing],” Dr. Melnikow, director of the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research and professor of family and community medicine at the University of California Davis, told this news organization.

The ACS, however, did not consider potential access problems in its analysis of the evidence.

Although the ACS evidence is “excellent,” Dr. Perkins said, “it’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing that, and then it seems like a lot of people are willing to make the change.”

Dr. Perkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2020, the American Cancer Society (ACS) updated its cervical screening guidelines, proposing two major changes: start cervical cancer screening at age 25, rather than 21, and perform primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, instead of a Pap test. 

But a recent survey, published earlier this year, found that few clinicians are following these ACS recommendations. And the reasons are multifaceted.

First, healthcare providers in the US may be unsure how to reconcile conflicting cervical cancer screening guidelines from another major organization — the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which published guidelines in 2018. 

Although the ACS guidelines are based on an analysis of the latest evidence, 

the recommendations challenge those from the USPSTF, which dictates insurance coverage in the US. Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) aligned its guidelines with those from the USPSTF.

The USPSTF recommends average-risk individuals start Pap, not HPV, testing at age 21, and broadens the options to primary HPV testing, Pap testing, or both together starting at age 30. The ACS, on the other hand, says primary HPV testing is the preferred screening approach from the start, which should be age 25. 

Because the ACS guidelines marked a notable departure from prevailing practice, a team of researchers from five US universities decided to find out if anyone was following them. 

The results, published in the journal Cancer in March, revealed that most healthcare providers had not changed practice.

Lead author Rebecca Perkins, MD, MSc, and colleagues found that, among the 70 respondents, few were starting screening at age 25, and none had switched to primary HPV testing. 

The survey then probed clinicians’ willingness to adopt the ACS guidelines as well as their reservations and barriers to doing so. 

Notably, more than half of the survey participants said they would be willing to adopt the ACS guidelines if the best evidence supported the changes and other professional medical organizations endorsed them.

On the age change, participants highlighted a range of benefits to moving to a later screening age, including that earlier screening may not be valuable and delaying screening could reduce overtreatment. 

One participant noted: “We know that cervical cancer is usually a slow‐growing, long‐term progressive disease that does not typically show up that early in life, and we also know that, if infected, oftentimes their immune system can fight off the virus. So, it sounds reasonable at first glance [to delay screening to age 25 years].” 

Others, however, brought up barriers to initiating screening at age 25. Some mentioned that later screening may not work for high‐risk populations and others voiced concerns about missing high‐grade precancer or cancer. “It’s not unusual for us to see women in their early 20s that have already had 10 or 15 partners. … a lot of them smoke too … they just have a lot of bad habits that put them at more risk,” one respondent noted.

On the HPV vs Pap testing front, many participants described a growing confidence in HPV tests after trying co-testing. One participant said, “Honestly, I do look more at the HPV results than the cytology. I put more faith in knowing what their HPV status is than anything.” 

The main barriers to primary HPV testing, however, included lack of autonomy when working in a large health system, concerns about the efficacy of HPV testing, and a belief that cytology was valuable.

Some clinicians were worried about missing high-grade lesions or cancer. One healthcare provider said, “My only concern with primary HPV screening is occasionally you will pick up endometrial abnormalities on a Pap that you’re not going to pick up with HPV screening.”

Logistics and finances also played a role in clinicians’ hesitancy to switch to the ACS recommendation. Labs that could handle primary HPV tests were not available to some participants, and lack of insurance coverage was a barrier for others. One respondent noted, for instance, that his institution has a “cytology infrastructure that already exists in the lab and I can’t really see them switching.” 

Many survey respondents also said they were waiting for endorsement from organizations, such as ACOG and USPSTF. “We run by the USPSTF and … ACOG. We don’t run by the ACS guidelines,” one person said. 

Finally, some participants were not aware of the ACS recommendations at all or the data behind them but said they would be willing to change to primary HPV testing in the future. 

Overall, Dr. Perkins said she was happy to see that more than half of the respondents would be willing to shift to the ACS screening guidelines, but noted that many remain reluctant to do so until the USPSTF and ACOG change their guidelines. 

“It’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing” the ACS guidelines, said Dr. Perkins, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University. 

The USPSTF is currently updating its cervical screening guidelines, which could potentially help reconcile this discord between the guidelines and close the gaps in practice patterns. 

The USPSTF’s review of the evidence, which led to the 2018 guidelines, did highlight the effectiveness of HPV testing. The review authors concluded that “the evidence was consistent across trials” that primary, high-risk HPV screening increased detection of grade 3 or worse cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the initial round of screening “by as much as 2 to 3 times when compared with cytology.”

However, Joy Melnikow, MD, MPH, first author on the USPSTF evidence review, explained that the reviewers factored in access to HPV testing when making their final recommendations.

“The consideration was making sure that a recommendation could be inclusive of all providers and all populations and not restricting access for clinics that couldn’t afford or didn’t have the machine to do [HPV testing],” Dr. Melnikow, director of the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research and professor of family and community medicine at the University of California Davis, told this news organization.

The ACS, however, did not consider potential access problems in its analysis of the evidence.

Although the ACS evidence is “excellent,” Dr. Perkins said, “it’s really just a matter of the USPSTF and ACOG endorsing that, and then it seems like a lot of people are willing to make the change.”

Dr. Perkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — British investigators have demonstrated a “potentially curative” neoadjuvant regimen for early-stage germline BRCA 1/2–mutated breast cancer.

In a small trial, 39 patients randomized to the regimen — a combination of standard chemotherapy with the poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib — were alive at 3 years vs 39 of 45 (87%) randomized to chemotherapy alone.

“A remarkable 100% of patients were still alive at 36 months, which is a significant landmark for these patients,” said chief investigator Jean Abraham, PhD, a breast oncologist at the University of Cambridge, England, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

It’s a “small but very powerful signal” of “what could be a potentially curative regimen that definitely does need to be confirmed in a larger study,” Dr. Abraham added.

The study, a part of the PARTNER trial, included 84 patients with T1-2 tumors of any hormone status. Just over 70% in both arms had BRCA 1 mutations, and the rest had BRCA 2 mutations.

Past attempts at combining chemotherapy with PARP inhibitors have been hampered by excess bone marrow toxicity. To counter the problem, patients randomized to the combination therapy received olaparib 48 hours after carboplatin to give their bone marrow a chance to recover.

The median age was 38 years in the control group and 47 years in the olaparib arm. A greater proportion of patients in the control arm (42% vs 23%) had axillary node involvement.

Overall, patients received neoadjuvant carboplatin on day 1 and paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by anthracycline every 3 weeks for three cycles. In the study arm, olaparib 150 mg was administered twice daily starting on day 3 continuing to day 14 during the first four cycles. Almost 90% of patients received at least 80% of their planned olaparib dose.

Despite the delay in olaparib dosing, 56.4% of patients in the combination arm required a transfusion vs 48.9% with chemotherapy alone.

At a median follow-up of 40.7 months, 96% of patients in the combination arm demonstrated event-free survival, with one patient relapsing, vs 80% in the chemotherapy-alone group, with nine patients relapsing.

In the final analysis, 64% of patients who received olaparib had a pathological complete response compared with almost 70% in the chemotherapy group, though the difference was not statistically significant.

The trial was stopped short at 50% enrollment after the data monitoring safety committee determined that olaparib add-on was unlikely to improve pathological complete response rates, the trial’s primary endpoint.

However, pathological complete response rates did not appear to affect overall survival.

“It didn’t seem to matter whether you had a non-pathological complete response, you still survived 100%” with the combination, Dr. Abraham said, adding that this is not the first study to show a disconnect between response rates and survival.

Perhaps, this disconnect could be due to “doomed cells” that look like residual disease but are, in fact, dying and unable to metastasize, she said.

No patients in the combination arm and two in the control arm received olaparib, immunotherapy, or capecitabine after surgery. Both control participants relapsed, and one died.

Toxicity was more severe for patients in the combination arm. More patients who received olaparib (76.9%) experienced a grade 3 or worse adverse event vs 60% of patients in the control arm.

Study discussant Hope S. Rugo, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, highlighted a few limitations and remaining questions.

First, “this is a very small population, so small differences in the biology of the tumor, the patients, and even stage that we can’t assess in the neoadjuvant setting could make a difference that would affect event-free and overall survival,” she said.

Second, two patients with pathological complete responses relapsed in the control arm and died, “which is quite unusual,” Dr. Rugo said. “Patients who achieve a pathological complete response generally have an excellent outcome.”

Dr. Rugo noted that “gap sequencing doesn’t appear to avoid the toxicity of PARP inhibitors.”

However, she said, “the efficacy results are intriguing” and would need confirmation in a larger randomized trial, perhaps with newer, more selective PARP inhibitors.

The work was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of olaparib. Researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Abraham is an adviser to and disclosed grants, travel costs, and honoraria from the company. Dr. Rugo disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — British investigators have demonstrated a “potentially curative” neoadjuvant regimen for early-stage germline BRCA 1/2–mutated breast cancer.

In a small trial, 39 patients randomized to the regimen — a combination of standard chemotherapy with the poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib — were alive at 3 years vs 39 of 45 (87%) randomized to chemotherapy alone.

“A remarkable 100% of patients were still alive at 36 months, which is a significant landmark for these patients,” said chief investigator Jean Abraham, PhD, a breast oncologist at the University of Cambridge, England, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

It’s a “small but very powerful signal” of “what could be a potentially curative regimen that definitely does need to be confirmed in a larger study,” Dr. Abraham added.

The study, a part of the PARTNER trial, included 84 patients with T1-2 tumors of any hormone status. Just over 70% in both arms had BRCA 1 mutations, and the rest had BRCA 2 mutations.

Past attempts at combining chemotherapy with PARP inhibitors have been hampered by excess bone marrow toxicity. To counter the problem, patients randomized to the combination therapy received olaparib 48 hours after carboplatin to give their bone marrow a chance to recover.

The median age was 38 years in the control group and 47 years in the olaparib arm. A greater proportion of patients in the control arm (42% vs 23%) had axillary node involvement.

Overall, patients received neoadjuvant carboplatin on day 1 and paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by anthracycline every 3 weeks for three cycles. In the study arm, olaparib 150 mg was administered twice daily starting on day 3 continuing to day 14 during the first four cycles. Almost 90% of patients received at least 80% of their planned olaparib dose.

Despite the delay in olaparib dosing, 56.4% of patients in the combination arm required a transfusion vs 48.9% with chemotherapy alone.

At a median follow-up of 40.7 months, 96% of patients in the combination arm demonstrated event-free survival, with one patient relapsing, vs 80% in the chemotherapy-alone group, with nine patients relapsing.

In the final analysis, 64% of patients who received olaparib had a pathological complete response compared with almost 70% in the chemotherapy group, though the difference was not statistically significant.

The trial was stopped short at 50% enrollment after the data monitoring safety committee determined that olaparib add-on was unlikely to improve pathological complete response rates, the trial’s primary endpoint.

However, pathological complete response rates did not appear to affect overall survival.

“It didn’t seem to matter whether you had a non-pathological complete response, you still survived 100%” with the combination, Dr. Abraham said, adding that this is not the first study to show a disconnect between response rates and survival.

Perhaps, this disconnect could be due to “doomed cells” that look like residual disease but are, in fact, dying and unable to metastasize, she said.

No patients in the combination arm and two in the control arm received olaparib, immunotherapy, or capecitabine after surgery. Both control participants relapsed, and one died.

Toxicity was more severe for patients in the combination arm. More patients who received olaparib (76.9%) experienced a grade 3 or worse adverse event vs 60% of patients in the control arm.

Study discussant Hope S. Rugo, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, highlighted a few limitations and remaining questions.

First, “this is a very small population, so small differences in the biology of the tumor, the patients, and even stage that we can’t assess in the neoadjuvant setting could make a difference that would affect event-free and overall survival,” she said.

Second, two patients with pathological complete responses relapsed in the control arm and died, “which is quite unusual,” Dr. Rugo said. “Patients who achieve a pathological complete response generally have an excellent outcome.”

Dr. Rugo noted that “gap sequencing doesn’t appear to avoid the toxicity of PARP inhibitors.”

However, she said, “the efficacy results are intriguing” and would need confirmation in a larger randomized trial, perhaps with newer, more selective PARP inhibitors.

The work was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of olaparib. Researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Abraham is an adviser to and disclosed grants, travel costs, and honoraria from the company. Dr. Rugo disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — British investigators have demonstrated a “potentially curative” neoadjuvant regimen for early-stage germline BRCA 1/2–mutated breast cancer.

In a small trial, 39 patients randomized to the regimen — a combination of standard chemotherapy with the poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib — were alive at 3 years vs 39 of 45 (87%) randomized to chemotherapy alone.

“A remarkable 100% of patients were still alive at 36 months, which is a significant landmark for these patients,” said chief investigator Jean Abraham, PhD, a breast oncologist at the University of Cambridge, England, who presented the findings at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

It’s a “small but very powerful signal” of “what could be a potentially curative regimen that definitely does need to be confirmed in a larger study,” Dr. Abraham added.

The study, a part of the PARTNER trial, included 84 patients with T1-2 tumors of any hormone status. Just over 70% in both arms had BRCA 1 mutations, and the rest had BRCA 2 mutations.

Past attempts at combining chemotherapy with PARP inhibitors have been hampered by excess bone marrow toxicity. To counter the problem, patients randomized to the combination therapy received olaparib 48 hours after carboplatin to give their bone marrow a chance to recover.

The median age was 38 years in the control group and 47 years in the olaparib arm. A greater proportion of patients in the control arm (42% vs 23%) had axillary node involvement.

Overall, patients received neoadjuvant carboplatin on day 1 and paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15 every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by anthracycline every 3 weeks for three cycles. In the study arm, olaparib 150 mg was administered twice daily starting on day 3 continuing to day 14 during the first four cycles. Almost 90% of patients received at least 80% of their planned olaparib dose.

Despite the delay in olaparib dosing, 56.4% of patients in the combination arm required a transfusion vs 48.9% with chemotherapy alone.

At a median follow-up of 40.7 months, 96% of patients in the combination arm demonstrated event-free survival, with one patient relapsing, vs 80% in the chemotherapy-alone group, with nine patients relapsing.

In the final analysis, 64% of patients who received olaparib had a pathological complete response compared with almost 70% in the chemotherapy group, though the difference was not statistically significant.

The trial was stopped short at 50% enrollment after the data monitoring safety committee determined that olaparib add-on was unlikely to improve pathological complete response rates, the trial’s primary endpoint.

However, pathological complete response rates did not appear to affect overall survival.

“It didn’t seem to matter whether you had a non-pathological complete response, you still survived 100%” with the combination, Dr. Abraham said, adding that this is not the first study to show a disconnect between response rates and survival.

Perhaps, this disconnect could be due to “doomed cells” that look like residual disease but are, in fact, dying and unable to metastasize, she said.

No patients in the combination arm and two in the control arm received olaparib, immunotherapy, or capecitabine after surgery. Both control participants relapsed, and one died.

Toxicity was more severe for patients in the combination arm. More patients who received olaparib (76.9%) experienced a grade 3 or worse adverse event vs 60% of patients in the control arm.

Study discussant Hope S. Rugo, MD, a breast oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, highlighted a few limitations and remaining questions.

First, “this is a very small population, so small differences in the biology of the tumor, the patients, and even stage that we can’t assess in the neoadjuvant setting could make a difference that would affect event-free and overall survival,” she said.

Second, two patients with pathological complete responses relapsed in the control arm and died, “which is quite unusual,” Dr. Rugo said. “Patients who achieve a pathological complete response generally have an excellent outcome.”

Dr. Rugo noted that “gap sequencing doesn’t appear to avoid the toxicity of PARP inhibitors.”

However, she said, “the efficacy results are intriguing” and would need confirmation in a larger randomized trial, perhaps with newer, more selective PARP inhibitors.

The work was funded by AstraZeneca, maker of olaparib. Researchers included AstraZeneca employees. Dr. Abraham is an adviser to and disclosed grants, travel costs, and honoraria from the company. Dr. Rugo disclosed research funding from AstraZeneca and other companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women who are considered to be at average risk for breast cancer should have mammograms every other year starting at age 40 years until age 74, according to the latest recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

In its updated recommendations published April 30 in JAMA, the USPSTF also made an urgent call to address reasons why Black women are more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women and pressed for more research to address persisting questions about how best to screen for cancer in dense breasts, which about 40% of women have. The USPSTF highlighted evidence gaps on the benefits and harms of continuing mammography after age 75 years as well.

The updated USPSTF recommendations were first unveiled last year in a draft version. 

In 2016, the task force recommended biennial mammograms for women starting 10 years later, at age 50 years, while stressing a need for clinicians and patients to weigh the risks and benefits of screening for those in their 40s. 

The shift to a general recommendation to start at age 40 years is based on a broad review of available data on mammography, including modeling from Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET).

Alongside the USPSTF report, JAMA published three separate editorials — a reflection of the controversy that these breast cancer screening recommendations often generate. 

In one editorial, published in JAMA Network Open, Lydia E. Pace, MD, MPH, and Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, highlighted that though screening earlier will prevent more deaths from breast cancer, it will also lead to more false positive findings and increase rates of overdiagnosis. 

Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating explained that the modeling study commissioned by the USPSTF estimated that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avoid an additional 1.3 breast cancer deaths compared with screening at age 50 years. Among Black women, screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avert an extra 1.8 breast cancer deaths per 1000 people screened. 

However, the model also found that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would lead to more false positive tests — a rate of about 8.5% vs 7.8% for those starting at age 50.

“Given mammography screening’s modest benefits, we feel that all women — and particularly those aged 40 to 49 years —should be counseled about the benefits and harms of mammography and supported in deciding whether the balance of benefits to harms fits with their priorities and values,” wrote Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating, who specialize in internal medicine.

In a second editorial, in JAMA, Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, of UCLA, and Christoph I. Lee, MD, MS, of the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the revised recommendations “shed light on 2 major issues that demand greater attention: addressing health inequities related to breast cancer outcomes and ensuring benefits for all women amid rapid screening technological advancements.” 

The USPSTF’s decision to recommend an earlier start age for routine mammography was partly intended to begin to address the fact that Black women are about 40% more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women.

“Despite greater absolute benefits of screening for Black women, the modeling study and systematic review underscore that mammography’s benefits (ie, breast cancer deaths averted) are modest for both Black women and the general population,” wrote Dr. Elmore and Dr. Lee.

The editorialists also cautioned against adopting artificial intelligence (AI) support tools too rapidly, criticizing the USPSTF for overlooking this “pressing issue.” 

“While AI algorithms show promise for enhancing cancer detection, their impact on patient outcomes and the balance between benefit and harms remain uncertain,” the editorialists wrote.

In a third editorial, in JAMA Oncology, Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD, a radiologist at the University of Pittsburgh, argued that though the updated recommendations are “an important step forward,” they don’t go far enough.

Dr. Berg, for instance, noted her surprise “ to see the USPSTF recommendation only for biennial, rather than annual, screening among women aged 40 to 74 years.”

Compared with no screening, annual screening would reduce rates of breast cancer mortality (35.2%) more than biennial (28.4%) screening does among women aged 40-74 years, according to the CISNET modeling that informed the USPSTF’s decision.

Plus, Dr. Berg noted, regular risk assessments should begin at age 25 years “to identify women at high risk who should start annual MRI screenings.”

The American College of Radiology (ACR) offered similar views in a statement, saying the recommendations “do not go far enough to save more women’s lives.” It urged a more aggressive screening schedule, which starts at age 40 years but occurs annually vs biennially and continues past age 74 years. Like Dr. Berg, the ACR advocated for breast cancer risk assessments to begin at age 25 years.

The American Cancer Society also recommended annual mammography screening, starting as early as age 40 years in average-risk women, with high-risk women receiving a breast MRI and a mammogram every year starting at age 30 years. 
 

Ongoing Uncertainties 

The USPSTF’s 2024 update highlighted persistent evidence gaps in several key areas. 

The USPSTF, for instance, highlighted insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of continuing to screen women who are 75 years or older as well as the benefits and harms of supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography or MRI in women with dense breasts who had a negative screening mammogram.

In the update, USPSTF noted that it’s still clear what proportion of ductal carcinoma in situ involves lesions detected by screening would not have ultimately caused harm. 

For women with dense breasts, the USPSTF said that “research is needed to help clinicians and patients understand the best strategy for breast cancer screening in women found to have dense breasts,” which includes supplemental screening.

Women with dense breasts should still get mammograms, but there is not enough evidence for a blanket statement about which benefit they might get from additional screening, Carol Mangione, MD, past chair of USPSTF, told this news organization. 

“We don’t want to send a message that the mammogram doesn’t have value in that group, because it does have high value,” said Dr. Mangione, chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at UCLA Health. 

Women with dense breasts should work with primary care clinicians who can take a holistic view of their preferences and needs, allowing them to make an informed choice about additional screening, she said.

“But we can’t make a global population choice because we don’t have the studies to do that,” Dr. Mangione said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women who are considered to be at average risk for breast cancer should have mammograms every other year starting at age 40 years until age 74, according to the latest recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

In its updated recommendations published April 30 in JAMA, the USPSTF also made an urgent call to address reasons why Black women are more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women and pressed for more research to address persisting questions about how best to screen for cancer in dense breasts, which about 40% of women have. The USPSTF highlighted evidence gaps on the benefits and harms of continuing mammography after age 75 years as well.

The updated USPSTF recommendations were first unveiled last year in a draft version. 

In 2016, the task force recommended biennial mammograms for women starting 10 years later, at age 50 years, while stressing a need for clinicians and patients to weigh the risks and benefits of screening for those in their 40s. 

The shift to a general recommendation to start at age 40 years is based on a broad review of available data on mammography, including modeling from Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET).

Alongside the USPSTF report, JAMA published three separate editorials — a reflection of the controversy that these breast cancer screening recommendations often generate. 

In one editorial, published in JAMA Network Open, Lydia E. Pace, MD, MPH, and Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, highlighted that though screening earlier will prevent more deaths from breast cancer, it will also lead to more false positive findings and increase rates of overdiagnosis. 

Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating explained that the modeling study commissioned by the USPSTF estimated that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avoid an additional 1.3 breast cancer deaths compared with screening at age 50 years. Among Black women, screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avert an extra 1.8 breast cancer deaths per 1000 people screened. 

However, the model also found that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would lead to more false positive tests — a rate of about 8.5% vs 7.8% for those starting at age 50.

“Given mammography screening’s modest benefits, we feel that all women — and particularly those aged 40 to 49 years —should be counseled about the benefits and harms of mammography and supported in deciding whether the balance of benefits to harms fits with their priorities and values,” wrote Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating, who specialize in internal medicine.

In a second editorial, in JAMA, Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, of UCLA, and Christoph I. Lee, MD, MS, of the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the revised recommendations “shed light on 2 major issues that demand greater attention: addressing health inequities related to breast cancer outcomes and ensuring benefits for all women amid rapid screening technological advancements.” 

The USPSTF’s decision to recommend an earlier start age for routine mammography was partly intended to begin to address the fact that Black women are about 40% more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women.

“Despite greater absolute benefits of screening for Black women, the modeling study and systematic review underscore that mammography’s benefits (ie, breast cancer deaths averted) are modest for both Black women and the general population,” wrote Dr. Elmore and Dr. Lee.

The editorialists also cautioned against adopting artificial intelligence (AI) support tools too rapidly, criticizing the USPSTF for overlooking this “pressing issue.” 

“While AI algorithms show promise for enhancing cancer detection, their impact on patient outcomes and the balance between benefit and harms remain uncertain,” the editorialists wrote.

In a third editorial, in JAMA Oncology, Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD, a radiologist at the University of Pittsburgh, argued that though the updated recommendations are “an important step forward,” they don’t go far enough.

Dr. Berg, for instance, noted her surprise “ to see the USPSTF recommendation only for biennial, rather than annual, screening among women aged 40 to 74 years.”

Compared with no screening, annual screening would reduce rates of breast cancer mortality (35.2%) more than biennial (28.4%) screening does among women aged 40-74 years, according to the CISNET modeling that informed the USPSTF’s decision.

Plus, Dr. Berg noted, regular risk assessments should begin at age 25 years “to identify women at high risk who should start annual MRI screenings.”

The American College of Radiology (ACR) offered similar views in a statement, saying the recommendations “do not go far enough to save more women’s lives.” It urged a more aggressive screening schedule, which starts at age 40 years but occurs annually vs biennially and continues past age 74 years. Like Dr. Berg, the ACR advocated for breast cancer risk assessments to begin at age 25 years.

The American Cancer Society also recommended annual mammography screening, starting as early as age 40 years in average-risk women, with high-risk women receiving a breast MRI and a mammogram every year starting at age 30 years. 
 

Ongoing Uncertainties 

The USPSTF’s 2024 update highlighted persistent evidence gaps in several key areas. 

The USPSTF, for instance, highlighted insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of continuing to screen women who are 75 years or older as well as the benefits and harms of supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography or MRI in women with dense breasts who had a negative screening mammogram.

In the update, USPSTF noted that it’s still clear what proportion of ductal carcinoma in situ involves lesions detected by screening would not have ultimately caused harm. 

For women with dense breasts, the USPSTF said that “research is needed to help clinicians and patients understand the best strategy for breast cancer screening in women found to have dense breasts,” which includes supplemental screening.

Women with dense breasts should still get mammograms, but there is not enough evidence for a blanket statement about which benefit they might get from additional screening, Carol Mangione, MD, past chair of USPSTF, told this news organization. 

“We don’t want to send a message that the mammogram doesn’t have value in that group, because it does have high value,” said Dr. Mangione, chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at UCLA Health. 

Women with dense breasts should work with primary care clinicians who can take a holistic view of their preferences and needs, allowing them to make an informed choice about additional screening, she said.

“But we can’t make a global population choice because we don’t have the studies to do that,” Dr. Mangione said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women who are considered to be at average risk for breast cancer should have mammograms every other year starting at age 40 years until age 74, according to the latest recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).

In its updated recommendations published April 30 in JAMA, the USPSTF also made an urgent call to address reasons why Black women are more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women and pressed for more research to address persisting questions about how best to screen for cancer in dense breasts, which about 40% of women have. The USPSTF highlighted evidence gaps on the benefits and harms of continuing mammography after age 75 years as well.

The updated USPSTF recommendations were first unveiled last year in a draft version. 

In 2016, the task force recommended biennial mammograms for women starting 10 years later, at age 50 years, while stressing a need for clinicians and patients to weigh the risks and benefits of screening for those in their 40s. 

The shift to a general recommendation to start at age 40 years is based on a broad review of available data on mammography, including modeling from Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET).

Alongside the USPSTF report, JAMA published three separate editorials — a reflection of the controversy that these breast cancer screening recommendations often generate. 

In one editorial, published in JAMA Network Open, Lydia E. Pace, MD, MPH, and Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, highlighted that though screening earlier will prevent more deaths from breast cancer, it will also lead to more false positive findings and increase rates of overdiagnosis. 

Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating explained that the modeling study commissioned by the USPSTF estimated that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avoid an additional 1.3 breast cancer deaths compared with screening at age 50 years. Among Black women, screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would avert an extra 1.8 breast cancer deaths per 1000 people screened. 

However, the model also found that screening every 2 years starting at age 40 years would lead to more false positive tests — a rate of about 8.5% vs 7.8% for those starting at age 50.

“Given mammography screening’s modest benefits, we feel that all women — and particularly those aged 40 to 49 years —should be counseled about the benefits and harms of mammography and supported in deciding whether the balance of benefits to harms fits with their priorities and values,” wrote Dr. Pace and Dr. Keating, who specialize in internal medicine.

In a second editorial, in JAMA, Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, of UCLA, and Christoph I. Lee, MD, MS, of the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that the revised recommendations “shed light on 2 major issues that demand greater attention: addressing health inequities related to breast cancer outcomes and ensuring benefits for all women amid rapid screening technological advancements.” 

The USPSTF’s decision to recommend an earlier start age for routine mammography was partly intended to begin to address the fact that Black women are about 40% more likely to die from breast cancer than are White women.

“Despite greater absolute benefits of screening for Black women, the modeling study and systematic review underscore that mammography’s benefits (ie, breast cancer deaths averted) are modest for both Black women and the general population,” wrote Dr. Elmore and Dr. Lee.

The editorialists also cautioned against adopting artificial intelligence (AI) support tools too rapidly, criticizing the USPSTF for overlooking this “pressing issue.” 

“While AI algorithms show promise for enhancing cancer detection, their impact on patient outcomes and the balance between benefit and harms remain uncertain,” the editorialists wrote.

In a third editorial, in JAMA Oncology, Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD, a radiologist at the University of Pittsburgh, argued that though the updated recommendations are “an important step forward,” they don’t go far enough.

Dr. Berg, for instance, noted her surprise “ to see the USPSTF recommendation only for biennial, rather than annual, screening among women aged 40 to 74 years.”

Compared with no screening, annual screening would reduce rates of breast cancer mortality (35.2%) more than biennial (28.4%) screening does among women aged 40-74 years, according to the CISNET modeling that informed the USPSTF’s decision.

Plus, Dr. Berg noted, regular risk assessments should begin at age 25 years “to identify women at high risk who should start annual MRI screenings.”

The American College of Radiology (ACR) offered similar views in a statement, saying the recommendations “do not go far enough to save more women’s lives.” It urged a more aggressive screening schedule, which starts at age 40 years but occurs annually vs biennially and continues past age 74 years. Like Dr. Berg, the ACR advocated for breast cancer risk assessments to begin at age 25 years.

The American Cancer Society also recommended annual mammography screening, starting as early as age 40 years in average-risk women, with high-risk women receiving a breast MRI and a mammogram every year starting at age 30 years. 
 

Ongoing Uncertainties 

The USPSTF’s 2024 update highlighted persistent evidence gaps in several key areas. 

The USPSTF, for instance, highlighted insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of continuing to screen women who are 75 years or older as well as the benefits and harms of supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography or MRI in women with dense breasts who had a negative screening mammogram.

In the update, USPSTF noted that it’s still clear what proportion of ductal carcinoma in situ involves lesions detected by screening would not have ultimately caused harm. 

For women with dense breasts, the USPSTF said that “research is needed to help clinicians and patients understand the best strategy for breast cancer screening in women found to have dense breasts,” which includes supplemental screening.

Women with dense breasts should still get mammograms, but there is not enough evidence for a blanket statement about which benefit they might get from additional screening, Carol Mangione, MD, past chair of USPSTF, told this news organization. 

“We don’t want to send a message that the mammogram doesn’t have value in that group, because it does have high value,” said Dr. Mangione, chief of the division of general internal medicine and health services research at UCLA Health. 

Women with dense breasts should work with primary care clinicians who can take a holistic view of their preferences and needs, allowing them to make an informed choice about additional screening, she said.

“But we can’t make a global population choice because we don’t have the studies to do that,” Dr. Mangione said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Girls are catching up with and sometimes surpassing boys in terms of adolescent substance use, warned the authors of a new report detailing trends across several regions between 2018 and 2022. The latest 4-yearly Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children study, in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe, concluded that substance use remains “a crucial public health problem among adolescents” despite overall declines in smoking, alcohol, and cannabis use.

The new report: A focus on adolescent substance use in Europe, central Asia, and Canada, detailed substance use among adolescents aged 11, 13, and 15 years across 44 countries and regions in Europe, Central Asia, and Canada in the 2021-2022 school-based survey.

Principal findings included:

• Cigarette smoking: Lifetime smoking declined between 2018 and 2022, particularly among 13-year-old boys and 15-year-old boys and girls. There was also a small but significant decrease in current smoking among 15-year-old boys.
• Alcohol use: Lifetime use decreased overall in boys between 2018 and 2022, particularly among 15-year-olds. An increase was observed among 11- and 13-year-old girls but not 15-year-old girls. There was a small but significant decrease in the proportion of current drinkers among 15-year-old boys, with no change among 11- and 13-year-old boys. Current alcohol use increased among girls in all age groups.
• Cannabis use: Lifetime use among 15-year-olds decreased slightly from 14% to 12% between 2018 and 2022, while 6% of 15-year-olds reported having used cannabis in the previous 30 days.
• Vaping: In 2022 vapes (e-cigarettes) were more popular among adolescents than conventional tobacco cigarettes.

Traditional Gender Gap Narrowing or Reversing

Report coauthor Judith Brown from the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, and a project manager for the Scottish survey, said that “there was an overall increase in current alcohol use and drunkenness among older girls” despite the overall decrease in boys’ alcohol use.

She explained: “Substance use has traditionally been more prevalent among boys, and the survey findings confirm a well-established gender difference, with higher prevalence in boys than in girls among 11-year-olds. By the age of 13, however, gender differences diminish or even disappear in many countries and regions.”

“Among 15-year-olds, girls often reported more frequent substance use than boys. While this pattern has been known for cigarette smoking in many countries and regions for about two decades, especially among 15-year-olds, it is a new phenomenon for behaviors related to other substances (such as alcohol consumption and drunkenness) in most countries and regions. Historically, prevalence for these behaviors has been higher among boys than girls.”

The new survey results highlight this gender reversal for several substances, she said. “Cannabis is the only substance for which both lifetime and current use is consistently higher in boys.”
 

Vaping Is an Emerging Public Health Concern

Dr. Brown added that the 2022 survey was the first time that vaping data had been collected from all countries. Although this is against the background of continuing decreases in smoking rates, “researchers suggest the transition to e-cigarettes, as a more popular choice than conventional cigarettes, highlights an urgent need for more targeted interventions to address this emerging public health concern.”

The report authors commented that because young people’s brains are still developing, they are “very sensitive to substances such as nicotine,” making it “easier for them to get hooked.”

Margreet de Looze, PhD, assistant professor of interdisciplinary social science at Utrecht University in Utrecht, the Netherlands, agreed with the authors’ concerns. “Vaping is extremely attractive for young people,” she said, “because the taste is more attractive than that of traditional cigarettes.” Until recently, many people were not aware of health hazards attached to vaping. “While more research is needed, vaping may function as a first step toward tobacco use and is hazardous for young people’s health. Therefore, it should be strongly discouraged.”
 

Substance Use Trends May Be Stabilizing or Rising Again

Increased awareness of the harmful effects of alcohol for adolescent development is also one postulated reason for declining adolescent alcohol consumption in both Europe and North America over the past two decades, which Dr. de Looze’s research has explored. Her work has also noted the “growing trend” of young people abstaining from alcohol altogether and some evidence of reductions in adolescent risk behaviors more generally, including early sexual initiation and juvenile crime.

“It may be good to realize that, in fact, the current generation of youth in many respects is healthier and reports less risky health behaviors as compared to previous generations,” she said.

However, “The declining trend in adolescent substance use that took place in many countries since the beginning of the 21st century seems to have stabilized, and moreover, in some countries and subgroups of adolescents, substance use appears to be on the rise again.” She cited particularly an overall increase in current alcohol use and drunkenness among older girls between 2018 and 2022. “It appears that, especially for girls, recent trends over time are less favorable as compared with boys.”
 

Multiple Influences on Adolescent Substance Abuse

Peer group influences are known to come to the fore during adolescence, and Dr. de Looze added that the early 21st century saw marked reductions in adolescent face-to-face contacts with their peers due to the rise in digital communications. “Adolescents typically use substances in the presence of peers (and in the absence of adults/parents), as it increases their status in their peer group.” Reduced in person interactions with friends may therefore have contributed to the earlier decline in substance use.

However, her team had found that adolescents who spend much time online with friends often also spend much time with friends offline. “They are what you could call the ‘social’ youth, who just spend much time with peers, be it offline or online,” she said. “More research is needed to disentangle exactly how, what kind, for whom the digital environment may be related to young people’s substance use,” she said.

“We also see that young people actively select their friends. So, if you are curious and a bit of a sensation-seeker yourself, you are more likely to become friends with youth who are just like you, and together, you may be more likely to try out substances.”

Factors underlying adolescent substance use and differences between countries are influenced by a complex interplay of factors, said Carina Ferreira-Borges, PhD, regional adviser for alcohol, illicit drugs, and prison health at the WHO Regional Office for Europe.

“Prevention measures definitely play a critical role in reducing substance use,” she said, “but other factors, such as cultural norms and socioeconomic conditions, also significantly impact these patterns.”

“Variations in substance use among countries can be attributed to different levels of implemented polices, public health initiatives, and the extent to which substance use is normalized or stigmatized within each society.”
 

Policy Efforts Must Be Targeted

“To address these disparities effectively, interventions and population-level policies need to be culturally adapted and target the specific environments where substance use is normalized among adolescents. By understanding and modifying the broader context in which young people make choices about substance use, we can better influence their behavior and health outcomes.”

Dr. de Looze cautioned, “In the past two decades, public health efforts in many countries have focused on reducing young people’s engagement in substance use. It is important that these efforts continue, as every year a new generation of youth is born. If public health efforts do not continue to focus on supporting a healthy lifestyle among young people, it should not come as a surprise that rates start or continue to rise again.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Girls are catching up with and sometimes surpassing boys in terms of adolescent substance use, warned the authors of a new report detailing trends across several regions between 2018 and 2022. The latest 4-yearly Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children study, in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe, concluded that substance use remains “a crucial public health problem among adolescents” despite overall declines in smoking, alcohol, and cannabis use.

The new report: A focus on adolescent substance use in Europe, central Asia, and Canada, detailed substance use among adolescents aged 11, 13, and 15 years across 44 countries and regions in Europe, Central Asia, and Canada in the 2021-2022 school-based survey.

Principal findings included:

• Cigarette smoking: Lifetime smoking declined between 2018 and 2022, particularly among 13-year-old boys and 15-year-old boys and girls. There was also a small but significant decrease in current smoking among 15-year-old boys.
• Alcohol use: Lifetime use decreased overall in boys between 2018 and 2022, particularly among 15-year-olds. An increase was observed among 11- and 13-year-old girls but not 15-year-old girls. There was a small but significant decrease in the proportion of current drinkers among 15-year-old boys, with no change among 11- and 13-year-old boys. Current alcohol use increased among girls in all age groups.
• Cannabis use: Lifetime use among 15-year-olds decreased slightly from 14% to 12% between 2018 and 2022, while 6% of 15-year-olds reported having used cannabis in the previous 30 days.
• Vaping: In 2022 vapes (e-cigarettes) were more popular among adolescents than conventional tobacco cigarettes.

Traditional Gender Gap Narrowing or Reversing

Report coauthor Judith Brown from the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, and a project manager for the Scottish survey, said that “there was an overall increase in current alcohol use and drunkenness among older girls” despite the overall decrease in boys’ alcohol use.

She explained: “Substance use has traditionally been more prevalent among boys, and the survey findings confirm a well-established gender difference, with higher prevalence in boys than in girls among 11-year-olds. By the age of 13, however, gender differences diminish or even disappear in many countries and regions.”

“Among 15-year-olds, girls often reported more frequent substance use than boys. While this pattern has been known for cigarette smoking in many countries and regions for about two decades, especially among 15-year-olds, it is a new phenomenon for behaviors related to other substances (such as alcohol consumption and drunkenness) in most countries and regions. Historically, prevalence for these behaviors has been higher among boys than girls.”

The new survey results highlight this gender reversal for several substances, she said. “Cannabis is the only substance for which both lifetime and current use is consistently higher in boys.”
 

Vaping Is an Emerging Public Health Concern

Dr. Brown added that the 2022 survey was the first time that vaping data had been collected from all countries. Although this is against the background of continuing decreases in smoking rates, “researchers suggest the transition to e-cigarettes, as a more popular choice than conventional cigarettes, highlights an urgent need for more targeted interventions to address this emerging public health concern.”

The report authors commented that because young people’s brains are still developing, they are “very sensitive to substances such as nicotine,” making it “easier for them to get hooked.”

Margreet de Looze, PhD, assistant professor of interdisciplinary social science at Utrecht University in Utrecht, the Netherlands, agreed with the authors’ concerns. “Vaping is extremely attractive for young people,” she said, “because the taste is more attractive than that of traditional cigarettes.” Until recently, many people were not aware of health hazards attached to vaping. “While more research is needed, vaping may function as a first step toward tobacco use and is hazardous for young people’s health. Therefore, it should be strongly discouraged.”
 

Substance Use Trends May Be Stabilizing or Rising Again

Increased awareness of the harmful effects of alcohol for adolescent development is also one postulated reason for declining adolescent alcohol consumption in both Europe and North America over the past two decades, which Dr. de Looze’s research has explored. Her work has also noted the “growing trend” of young people abstaining from alcohol altogether and some evidence of reductions in adolescent risk behaviors more generally, including early sexual initiation and juvenile crime.

“It may be good to realize that, in fact, the current generation of youth in many respects is healthier and reports less risky health behaviors as compared to previous generations,” she said.

However, “The declining trend in adolescent substance use that took place in many countries since the beginning of the 21st century seems to have stabilized, and moreover, in some countries and subgroups of adolescents, substance use appears to be on the rise again.” She cited particularly an overall increase in current alcohol use and drunkenness among older girls between 2018 and 2022. “It appears that, especially for girls, recent trends over time are less favorable as compared with boys.”
 

Multiple Influences on Adolescent Substance Abuse

Peer group influences are known to come to the fore during adolescence, and Dr. de Looze added that the early 21st century saw marked reductions in adolescent face-to-face contacts with their peers due to the rise in digital communications. “Adolescents typically use substances in the presence of peers (and in the absence of adults/parents), as it increases their status in their peer group.” Reduced in person interactions with friends may therefore have contributed to the earlier decline in substance use.

However, her team had found that adolescents who spend much time online with friends often also spend much time with friends offline. “They are what you could call the ‘social’ youth, who just spend much time with peers, be it offline or online,” she said. “More research is needed to disentangle exactly how, what kind, for whom the digital environment may be related to young people’s substance use,” she said.

“We also see that young people actively select their friends. So, if you are curious and a bit of a sensation-seeker yourself, you are more likely to become friends with youth who are just like you, and together, you may be more likely to try out substances.”

Factors underlying adolescent substance use and differences between countries are influenced by a complex interplay of factors, said Carina Ferreira-Borges, PhD, regional adviser for alcohol, illicit drugs, and prison health at the WHO Regional Office for Europe.

“Prevention measures definitely play a critical role in reducing substance use,” she said, “but other factors, such as cultural norms and socioeconomic conditions, also significantly impact these patterns.”

“Variations in substance use among countries can be attributed to different levels of implemented polices, public health initiatives, and the extent to which substance use is normalized or stigmatized within each society.”
 

Policy Efforts Must Be Targeted

“To address these disparities effectively, interventions and population-level policies need to be culturally adapted and target the specific environments where substance use is normalized among adolescents. By understanding and modifying the broader context in which young people make choices about substance use, we can better influence their behavior and health outcomes.”

Dr. de Looze cautioned, “In the past two decades, public health efforts in many countries have focused on reducing young people’s engagement in substance use. It is important that these efforts continue, as every year a new generation of youth is born. If public health efforts do not continue to focus on supporting a healthy lifestyle among young people, it should not come as a surprise that rates start or continue to rise again.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Girls are catching up with and sometimes surpassing boys in terms of adolescent substance use, warned the authors of a new report detailing trends across several regions between 2018 and 2022. The latest 4-yearly Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children study, in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe, concluded that substance use remains “a crucial public health problem among adolescents” despite overall declines in smoking, alcohol, and cannabis use.

The new report: A focus on adolescent substance use in Europe, central Asia, and Canada, detailed substance use among adolescents aged 11, 13, and 15 years across 44 countries and regions in Europe, Central Asia, and Canada in the 2021-2022 school-based survey.

Principal findings included:

• Cigarette smoking: Lifetime smoking declined between 2018 and 2022, particularly among 13-year-old boys and 15-year-old boys and girls. There was also a small but significant decrease in current smoking among 15-year-old boys.
• Alcohol use: Lifetime use decreased overall in boys between 2018 and 2022, particularly among 15-year-olds. An increase was observed among 11- and 13-year-old girls but not 15-year-old girls. There was a small but significant decrease in the proportion of current drinkers among 15-year-old boys, with no change among 11- and 13-year-old boys. Current alcohol use increased among girls in all age groups.
• Cannabis use: Lifetime use among 15-year-olds decreased slightly from 14% to 12% between 2018 and 2022, while 6% of 15-year-olds reported having used cannabis in the previous 30 days.
• Vaping: In 2022 vapes (e-cigarettes) were more popular among adolescents than conventional tobacco cigarettes.

Traditional Gender Gap Narrowing or Reversing

Report coauthor Judith Brown from the University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, and a project manager for the Scottish survey, said that “there was an overall increase in current alcohol use and drunkenness among older girls” despite the overall decrease in boys’ alcohol use.

She explained: “Substance use has traditionally been more prevalent among boys, and the survey findings confirm a well-established gender difference, with higher prevalence in boys than in girls among 11-year-olds. By the age of 13, however, gender differences diminish or even disappear in many countries and regions.”

“Among 15-year-olds, girls often reported more frequent substance use than boys. While this pattern has been known for cigarette smoking in many countries and regions for about two decades, especially among 15-year-olds, it is a new phenomenon for behaviors related to other substances (such as alcohol consumption and drunkenness) in most countries and regions. Historically, prevalence for these behaviors has been higher among boys than girls.”

The new survey results highlight this gender reversal for several substances, she said. “Cannabis is the only substance for which both lifetime and current use is consistently higher in boys.”
 

Vaping Is an Emerging Public Health Concern

Dr. Brown added that the 2022 survey was the first time that vaping data had been collected from all countries. Although this is against the background of continuing decreases in smoking rates, “researchers suggest the transition to e-cigarettes, as a more popular choice than conventional cigarettes, highlights an urgent need for more targeted interventions to address this emerging public health concern.”

The report authors commented that because young people’s brains are still developing, they are “very sensitive to substances such as nicotine,” making it “easier for them to get hooked.”

Margreet de Looze, PhD, assistant professor of interdisciplinary social science at Utrecht University in Utrecht, the Netherlands, agreed with the authors’ concerns. “Vaping is extremely attractive for young people,” she said, “because the taste is more attractive than that of traditional cigarettes.” Until recently, many people were not aware of health hazards attached to vaping. “While more research is needed, vaping may function as a first step toward tobacco use and is hazardous for young people’s health. Therefore, it should be strongly discouraged.”
 

Substance Use Trends May Be Stabilizing or Rising Again

Increased awareness of the harmful effects of alcohol for adolescent development is also one postulated reason for declining adolescent alcohol consumption in both Europe and North America over the past two decades, which Dr. de Looze’s research has explored. Her work has also noted the “growing trend” of young people abstaining from alcohol altogether and some evidence of reductions in adolescent risk behaviors more generally, including early sexual initiation and juvenile crime.

“It may be good to realize that, in fact, the current generation of youth in many respects is healthier and reports less risky health behaviors as compared to previous generations,” she said.

However, “The declining trend in adolescent substance use that took place in many countries since the beginning of the 21st century seems to have stabilized, and moreover, in some countries and subgroups of adolescents, substance use appears to be on the rise again.” She cited particularly an overall increase in current alcohol use and drunkenness among older girls between 2018 and 2022. “It appears that, especially for girls, recent trends over time are less favorable as compared with boys.”
 

Multiple Influences on Adolescent Substance Abuse

Peer group influences are known to come to the fore during adolescence, and Dr. de Looze added that the early 21st century saw marked reductions in adolescent face-to-face contacts with their peers due to the rise in digital communications. “Adolescents typically use substances in the presence of peers (and in the absence of adults/parents), as it increases their status in their peer group.” Reduced in person interactions with friends may therefore have contributed to the earlier decline in substance use.

However, her team had found that adolescents who spend much time online with friends often also spend much time with friends offline. “They are what you could call the ‘social’ youth, who just spend much time with peers, be it offline or online,” she said. “More research is needed to disentangle exactly how, what kind, for whom the digital environment may be related to young people’s substance use,” she said.

“We also see that young people actively select their friends. So, if you are curious and a bit of a sensation-seeker yourself, you are more likely to become friends with youth who are just like you, and together, you may be more likely to try out substances.”

Factors underlying adolescent substance use and differences between countries are influenced by a complex interplay of factors, said Carina Ferreira-Borges, PhD, regional adviser for alcohol, illicit drugs, and prison health at the WHO Regional Office for Europe.

“Prevention measures definitely play a critical role in reducing substance use,” she said, “but other factors, such as cultural norms and socioeconomic conditions, also significantly impact these patterns.”

“Variations in substance use among countries can be attributed to different levels of implemented polices, public health initiatives, and the extent to which substance use is normalized or stigmatized within each society.”
 

Policy Efforts Must Be Targeted

“To address these disparities effectively, interventions and population-level policies need to be culturally adapted and target the specific environments where substance use is normalized among adolescents. By understanding and modifying the broader context in which young people make choices about substance use, we can better influence their behavior and health outcomes.”

Dr. de Looze cautioned, “In the past two decades, public health efforts in many countries have focused on reducing young people’s engagement in substance use. It is important that these efforts continue, as every year a new generation of youth is born. If public health efforts do not continue to focus on supporting a healthy lifestyle among young people, it should not come as a surprise that rates start or continue to rise again.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

By February of 2022, Ella, a 25-year-old behavioral interventionist in Colorado Springs, Colorado, was sick with strep-like symptoms for the third time in 3 months. She didn’t bother to call her doctor.

The first two times she had strep throat, she’d tried to schedule an appointment with her newest primary care doctor but couldn’t get in. They only had available appointments 5 and even 10 days out, but she’d already had symptoms for 3 days.

Until she graduated college, Ella had only known easy-access primary care. Her childhood family doctor and the nurse practitioners at her college clinic knew her. They anticipated her yearly allergies and knew about her predisposition for strep throat. Appointments were easy to schedule, and providers responded to her messages. But since entering the workforce and leaving her parent’s insurance, the kind of primary care she’d come to rely on was nearly impossible to find.

“I went to urgent care, and that became my primary care,” she told this news organization.
 

Patients Can’t Get Appointments

Primary care is in crisis. A growing number of Americans, like Ella, can’t access care when they need it. According to a 2024 report, 29% of adults and 14% of children don’t have a regular source of care. Those looking for a new primary care provider face extensive research and 6- to 9-month waits for a new patient appointment — if they can get in at all.

But even those with a primary care provider face long wait times: Days to weeks for a sick visit and months for a wellness checkup. Over one third of Medicare beneficiaries wait more than a month to see a doctor. Accessing primary care is more difficult than access to surgery, physical therapy, or rehabilitative care, according to a survey of Medicare beneficiaries by the Commonwealth Fund.

“Shortages tend to be in rural and urban underserved areas, but now, you’re hearing about primary care shortages in Boston, which is a mecca of healthcare,” said Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the Primary Care Coalition.

While retail clinics, urgent care, and telehealth help close the gap in acute needs, they miss one of primary care’s most critical benefits: A doctor who knows you. There’s strong evidence that ongoing treatment from a primary care physician (PCP) who knows your history, family, and context results in better long-term outcomes and fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits.

If patients continue to find it too hard to break into primary care or set up an appointment, experts are concerned that they’ll stop pursuing primary care altogether.
 

Doctors’ Hands Are Tied

“I want to highlight that this is not an issue of primary care doctors not wanting to be accessible,” said Lisa Rotenstein, MD, MBA, a PCP and medical director of Ambulatory Quality and Safety at the University of California San Francisco Health. “These access issues are symptoms of the design of primary care in the United States.”

Across the United States, there’s a dearth of family medicine doctors, pediatricians, and internists. And without significantly more primary care providers, there’s simply no way for all Americans to get optimal primary care. The Health Resources and Services administration estimates a current shortage of 13,000 primary care providers. And that shortage will skyrocket to 68,000 by 2036 as the number of Americans needing care balloons and existing PCPs retire with too few trainees to fill their shoes.

The American Association of Medical Colleges predicts a slightly lower shortage in 2036 — between 20,000 and 40,000 primary care physicians — only if more residency positions are funded nationwide.

However, even with more positions, medical trainees see little incentive to pursue primary care. Young doctors are avoiding primary care because of the pressures, Dr. Rotenstein said. There’s incredible pressure to get reimbursement for primary care doctors. And the added administrative burden makes “the work life of these specialties not really manageable,” she said.
 

Continued Shortages of PCPs

“We know there’s a documented pajama time,” Ms. Greiner said. For every 1 hour spent with a patient, primary care must spend nearly 2 additional hours on electronic health records and desk work, according to a study by the American Medical Association. Even with all those additional hours devoted to getting paid, primary care doctors make an average of $103,000 less annually compared with their counterparts in surgery and oncology.

It’s not an attractive combination for a new doctor with medical debt. This year, Ms. Greiner said that residency positions in internal medicine and pediatrics went unfilled. Of those trainees who do go into a primary care specialty, many won’t last. Only half of primary care residents practice in primary care 3-5 years later. The rest choose to subspecialize or become hospitalists.

These untenable demands on a primary care provider don’t go unnoticed by patients. In Ella’s attempts to invest in a new primary care relationship, she often doesn’t feel heard and can tell the doctor is rushed. “[Urgent care is] probably not the best care because they don’t know me, but it does seem like they are able to listen to me better,” Ella said.
 

Patients Want to Invest in Primary Care

Primary care should work like putting money in a bank account, Dr. Rotenstein said. Young patients invest in the relationship and reap the benefits of a doctor who knows them later in life when they need more complex care. But if seeing a doctor is so difficult, many young people may stop investing in their PCP relationship.

“One thing ... that I worry about in this kind of situation where patients really have to put in a lot of work to get the care they need is in inequities of care,” Dr. Rotenstein said. “We know some of our patients are more able to undertake that work.”

Alternatively, the primary care shortage could be reshaping how patients seek care. A 2023 study showed the proportion of primary care preventative visits increased over 20 years. Policies under the Affordable Care Act were the driving force. But it’s also true that sick visits are being diverted to urgent care.

Ella told this news organization she doesn’t even consider primary care for sick visits at this point. “I can’t wait 5 days or a week and a half. Unless I have bigger issues, like I need tests, I’m not even going to go to primary care.” It’s possible that other patients also see primary care as a place for testing and wellness checks and leave sick visits to retail and urgent care.
 

The Road Ahead

There’s no single fix for primary care, but experts agree that the fee-for-service model is a core issue for the specialty. In a 2021 report, the National Association of Engineering and Medicine said that primary care reform needs to include higher reimbursement rates for primary care and that US primary care should be restructured so that payers “pay primary care teams to care for people, not doctors to deliver services.”

In the current model, the doctor-patient clinic time is the only income-generating part of a primary care practice. A better model would consider the communication, administration, teams, and support doctors have to fund to provide the best primary care.

“We need to change how we pay and how much we pay, so [primary care doctors] are properly incentivized to build out a team to provide the comprehensive care you need,” Ms. Greiner said.

In the meantime, primary care doctors are adapting. Some drop down to part-time to account for the additional administrative workload. Others are transitioning to concierge services to offer the quality of care they want while getting the income they need. Still, others specialize their practice, offering primary care to a subset of the population, like older adults.

Employers are also looking to improve care access for their employees, hiring in-house doctors to provide primary care on site. Ms. Greiner recently met with a group of chief medical officers from major companies to discuss expanding primary care access via the workplace.

The efforts to adapt amid a broken system are admirable, Dr. Rotenstein said. And whatever a PCP has to do to keep practicing in primary care is laudable. The only problem with these adaptations is they largely limit a doctor’s patient pool and, therefore, limit access, she said. More significant reforms that adequately reimburse primary care and incentivize new doctors are still needed.

As for Ella, she got married. Her wife is in the military, so now she has Tricare, which comes with a more streamlined process to access primary care. However, doctor shortages are just as evident in that system. The couple called to schedule new patient appointments after their recent move to Virginia. The first available ones were 6 weeks out.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

By February of 2022, Ella, a 25-year-old behavioral interventionist in Colorado Springs, Colorado, was sick with strep-like symptoms for the third time in 3 months. She didn’t bother to call her doctor.

The first two times she had strep throat, she’d tried to schedule an appointment with her newest primary care doctor but couldn’t get in. They only had available appointments 5 and even 10 days out, but she’d already had symptoms for 3 days.

Until she graduated college, Ella had only known easy-access primary care. Her childhood family doctor and the nurse practitioners at her college clinic knew her. They anticipated her yearly allergies and knew about her predisposition for strep throat. Appointments were easy to schedule, and providers responded to her messages. But since entering the workforce and leaving her parent’s insurance, the kind of primary care she’d come to rely on was nearly impossible to find.

“I went to urgent care, and that became my primary care,” she told this news organization.
 

Patients Can’t Get Appointments

Primary care is in crisis. A growing number of Americans, like Ella, can’t access care when they need it. According to a 2024 report, 29% of adults and 14% of children don’t have a regular source of care. Those looking for a new primary care provider face extensive research and 6- to 9-month waits for a new patient appointment — if they can get in at all.

But even those with a primary care provider face long wait times: Days to weeks for a sick visit and months for a wellness checkup. Over one third of Medicare beneficiaries wait more than a month to see a doctor. Accessing primary care is more difficult than access to surgery, physical therapy, or rehabilitative care, according to a survey of Medicare beneficiaries by the Commonwealth Fund.

“Shortages tend to be in rural and urban underserved areas, but now, you’re hearing about primary care shortages in Boston, which is a mecca of healthcare,” said Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the Primary Care Coalition.

While retail clinics, urgent care, and telehealth help close the gap in acute needs, they miss one of primary care’s most critical benefits: A doctor who knows you. There’s strong evidence that ongoing treatment from a primary care physician (PCP) who knows your history, family, and context results in better long-term outcomes and fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits.

If patients continue to find it too hard to break into primary care or set up an appointment, experts are concerned that they’ll stop pursuing primary care altogether.
 

Doctors’ Hands Are Tied

“I want to highlight that this is not an issue of primary care doctors not wanting to be accessible,” said Lisa Rotenstein, MD, MBA, a PCP and medical director of Ambulatory Quality and Safety at the University of California San Francisco Health. “These access issues are symptoms of the design of primary care in the United States.”

Across the United States, there’s a dearth of family medicine doctors, pediatricians, and internists. And without significantly more primary care providers, there’s simply no way for all Americans to get optimal primary care. The Health Resources and Services administration estimates a current shortage of 13,000 primary care providers. And that shortage will skyrocket to 68,000 by 2036 as the number of Americans needing care balloons and existing PCPs retire with too few trainees to fill their shoes.

The American Association of Medical Colleges predicts a slightly lower shortage in 2036 — between 20,000 and 40,000 primary care physicians — only if more residency positions are funded nationwide.

However, even with more positions, medical trainees see little incentive to pursue primary care. Young doctors are avoiding primary care because of the pressures, Dr. Rotenstein said. There’s incredible pressure to get reimbursement for primary care doctors. And the added administrative burden makes “the work life of these specialties not really manageable,” she said.
 

Continued Shortages of PCPs

“We know there’s a documented pajama time,” Ms. Greiner said. For every 1 hour spent with a patient, primary care must spend nearly 2 additional hours on electronic health records and desk work, according to a study by the American Medical Association. Even with all those additional hours devoted to getting paid, primary care doctors make an average of $103,000 less annually compared with their counterparts in surgery and oncology.

It’s not an attractive combination for a new doctor with medical debt. This year, Ms. Greiner said that residency positions in internal medicine and pediatrics went unfilled. Of those trainees who do go into a primary care specialty, many won’t last. Only half of primary care residents practice in primary care 3-5 years later. The rest choose to subspecialize or become hospitalists.

These untenable demands on a primary care provider don’t go unnoticed by patients. In Ella’s attempts to invest in a new primary care relationship, she often doesn’t feel heard and can tell the doctor is rushed. “[Urgent care is] probably not the best care because they don’t know me, but it does seem like they are able to listen to me better,” Ella said.
 

Patients Want to Invest in Primary Care

Primary care should work like putting money in a bank account, Dr. Rotenstein said. Young patients invest in the relationship and reap the benefits of a doctor who knows them later in life when they need more complex care. But if seeing a doctor is so difficult, many young people may stop investing in their PCP relationship.

“One thing ... that I worry about in this kind of situation where patients really have to put in a lot of work to get the care they need is in inequities of care,” Dr. Rotenstein said. “We know some of our patients are more able to undertake that work.”

Alternatively, the primary care shortage could be reshaping how patients seek care. A 2023 study showed the proportion of primary care preventative visits increased over 20 years. Policies under the Affordable Care Act were the driving force. But it’s also true that sick visits are being diverted to urgent care.

Ella told this news organization she doesn’t even consider primary care for sick visits at this point. “I can’t wait 5 days or a week and a half. Unless I have bigger issues, like I need tests, I’m not even going to go to primary care.” It’s possible that other patients also see primary care as a place for testing and wellness checks and leave sick visits to retail and urgent care.
 

The Road Ahead

There’s no single fix for primary care, but experts agree that the fee-for-service model is a core issue for the specialty. In a 2021 report, the National Association of Engineering and Medicine said that primary care reform needs to include higher reimbursement rates for primary care and that US primary care should be restructured so that payers “pay primary care teams to care for people, not doctors to deliver services.”

In the current model, the doctor-patient clinic time is the only income-generating part of a primary care practice. A better model would consider the communication, administration, teams, and support doctors have to fund to provide the best primary care.

“We need to change how we pay and how much we pay, so [primary care doctors] are properly incentivized to build out a team to provide the comprehensive care you need,” Ms. Greiner said.

In the meantime, primary care doctors are adapting. Some drop down to part-time to account for the additional administrative workload. Others are transitioning to concierge services to offer the quality of care they want while getting the income they need. Still, others specialize their practice, offering primary care to a subset of the population, like older adults.

Employers are also looking to improve care access for their employees, hiring in-house doctors to provide primary care on site. Ms. Greiner recently met with a group of chief medical officers from major companies to discuss expanding primary care access via the workplace.

The efforts to adapt amid a broken system are admirable, Dr. Rotenstein said. And whatever a PCP has to do to keep practicing in primary care is laudable. The only problem with these adaptations is they largely limit a doctor’s patient pool and, therefore, limit access, she said. More significant reforms that adequately reimburse primary care and incentivize new doctors are still needed.

As for Ella, she got married. Her wife is in the military, so now she has Tricare, which comes with a more streamlined process to access primary care. However, doctor shortages are just as evident in that system. The couple called to schedule new patient appointments after their recent move to Virginia. The first available ones were 6 weeks out.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

By February of 2022, Ella, a 25-year-old behavioral interventionist in Colorado Springs, Colorado, was sick with strep-like symptoms for the third time in 3 months. She didn’t bother to call her doctor.

The first two times she had strep throat, she’d tried to schedule an appointment with her newest primary care doctor but couldn’t get in. They only had available appointments 5 and even 10 days out, but she’d already had symptoms for 3 days.

Until she graduated college, Ella had only known easy-access primary care. Her childhood family doctor and the nurse practitioners at her college clinic knew her. They anticipated her yearly allergies and knew about her predisposition for strep throat. Appointments were easy to schedule, and providers responded to her messages. But since entering the workforce and leaving her parent’s insurance, the kind of primary care she’d come to rely on was nearly impossible to find.

“I went to urgent care, and that became my primary care,” she told this news organization.
 

Patients Can’t Get Appointments

Primary care is in crisis. A growing number of Americans, like Ella, can’t access care when they need it. According to a 2024 report, 29% of adults and 14% of children don’t have a regular source of care. Those looking for a new primary care provider face extensive research and 6- to 9-month waits for a new patient appointment — if they can get in at all.

But even those with a primary care provider face long wait times: Days to weeks for a sick visit and months for a wellness checkup. Over one third of Medicare beneficiaries wait more than a month to see a doctor. Accessing primary care is more difficult than access to surgery, physical therapy, or rehabilitative care, according to a survey of Medicare beneficiaries by the Commonwealth Fund.

“Shortages tend to be in rural and urban underserved areas, but now, you’re hearing about primary care shortages in Boston, which is a mecca of healthcare,” said Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the Primary Care Coalition.

While retail clinics, urgent care, and telehealth help close the gap in acute needs, they miss one of primary care’s most critical benefits: A doctor who knows you. There’s strong evidence that ongoing treatment from a primary care physician (PCP) who knows your history, family, and context results in better long-term outcomes and fewer hospitalizations and emergency room visits.

If patients continue to find it too hard to break into primary care or set up an appointment, experts are concerned that they’ll stop pursuing primary care altogether.
 

Doctors’ Hands Are Tied

“I want to highlight that this is not an issue of primary care doctors not wanting to be accessible,” said Lisa Rotenstein, MD, MBA, a PCP and medical director of Ambulatory Quality and Safety at the University of California San Francisco Health. “These access issues are symptoms of the design of primary care in the United States.”

Across the United States, there’s a dearth of family medicine doctors, pediatricians, and internists. And without significantly more primary care providers, there’s simply no way for all Americans to get optimal primary care. The Health Resources and Services administration estimates a current shortage of 13,000 primary care providers. And that shortage will skyrocket to 68,000 by 2036 as the number of Americans needing care balloons and existing PCPs retire with too few trainees to fill their shoes.

The American Association of Medical Colleges predicts a slightly lower shortage in 2036 — between 20,000 and 40,000 primary care physicians — only if more residency positions are funded nationwide.

However, even with more positions, medical trainees see little incentive to pursue primary care. Young doctors are avoiding primary care because of the pressures, Dr. Rotenstein said. There’s incredible pressure to get reimbursement for primary care doctors. And the added administrative burden makes “the work life of these specialties not really manageable,” she said.
 

Continued Shortages of PCPs

“We know there’s a documented pajama time,” Ms. Greiner said. For every 1 hour spent with a patient, primary care must spend nearly 2 additional hours on electronic health records and desk work, according to a study by the American Medical Association. Even with all those additional hours devoted to getting paid, primary care doctors make an average of $103,000 less annually compared with their counterparts in surgery and oncology.

It’s not an attractive combination for a new doctor with medical debt. This year, Ms. Greiner said that residency positions in internal medicine and pediatrics went unfilled. Of those trainees who do go into a primary care specialty, many won’t last. Only half of primary care residents practice in primary care 3-5 years later. The rest choose to subspecialize or become hospitalists.

These untenable demands on a primary care provider don’t go unnoticed by patients. In Ella’s attempts to invest in a new primary care relationship, she often doesn’t feel heard and can tell the doctor is rushed. “[Urgent care is] probably not the best care because they don’t know me, but it does seem like they are able to listen to me better,” Ella said.
 

Patients Want to Invest in Primary Care

Primary care should work like putting money in a bank account, Dr. Rotenstein said. Young patients invest in the relationship and reap the benefits of a doctor who knows them later in life when they need more complex care. But if seeing a doctor is so difficult, many young people may stop investing in their PCP relationship.

“One thing ... that I worry about in this kind of situation where patients really have to put in a lot of work to get the care they need is in inequities of care,” Dr. Rotenstein said. “We know some of our patients are more able to undertake that work.”

Alternatively, the primary care shortage could be reshaping how patients seek care. A 2023 study showed the proportion of primary care preventative visits increased over 20 years. Policies under the Affordable Care Act were the driving force. But it’s also true that sick visits are being diverted to urgent care.

Ella told this news organization she doesn’t even consider primary care for sick visits at this point. “I can’t wait 5 days or a week and a half. Unless I have bigger issues, like I need tests, I’m not even going to go to primary care.” It’s possible that other patients also see primary care as a place for testing and wellness checks and leave sick visits to retail and urgent care.
 

The Road Ahead

There’s no single fix for primary care, but experts agree that the fee-for-service model is a core issue for the specialty. In a 2021 report, the National Association of Engineering and Medicine said that primary care reform needs to include higher reimbursement rates for primary care and that US primary care should be restructured so that payers “pay primary care teams to care for people, not doctors to deliver services.”

In the current model, the doctor-patient clinic time is the only income-generating part of a primary care practice. A better model would consider the communication, administration, teams, and support doctors have to fund to provide the best primary care.

“We need to change how we pay and how much we pay, so [primary care doctors] are properly incentivized to build out a team to provide the comprehensive care you need,” Ms. Greiner said.

In the meantime, primary care doctors are adapting. Some drop down to part-time to account for the additional administrative workload. Others are transitioning to concierge services to offer the quality of care they want while getting the income they need. Still, others specialize their practice, offering primary care to a subset of the population, like older adults.

Employers are also looking to improve care access for their employees, hiring in-house doctors to provide primary care on site. Ms. Greiner recently met with a group of chief medical officers from major companies to discuss expanding primary care access via the workplace.

The efforts to adapt amid a broken system are admirable, Dr. Rotenstein said. And whatever a PCP has to do to keep practicing in primary care is laudable. The only problem with these adaptations is they largely limit a doctor’s patient pool and, therefore, limit access, she said. More significant reforms that adequately reimburse primary care and incentivize new doctors are still needed.

As for Ella, she got married. Her wife is in the military, so now she has Tricare, which comes with a more streamlined process to access primary care. However, doctor shortages are just as evident in that system. The couple called to schedule new patient appointments after their recent move to Virginia. The first available ones were 6 weeks out.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.