Feature

The chemotherapy drug asparaginase revolutionized childhood cancer care in the 1970s, and it’s still a mainstay of treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) today. But asparaginase remains difficult for some to tolerate, and clinicians keep needing to adjust therapy to address toxicity.

The good news, hematologists note, is that new strategies have been developed to address side effects. “We’ve gotten better at managing them,” pediatric oncologist Birte Wistinghausen, MD, of Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC, said in an interview.

According to her, key approaches include sensitivity testing and “pre-medication” to prevent adverse effects from appearing in the first place.

The American Cancer Society estimates that 6,550 new cases of ALL appear in the United States each year, and 1,330 people die from the disease.

“Most cases of ALL occur in children, but most deaths from ALL (about 4 out of 5) occur in adults,” the organization reports. Indeed, the 5-year survival rate in children is now at about 90%, a number that hematologists partially attribute to the power of asparaginase.

Researchers believe that asparaginase, an enzyme, works by breaking down a substance called asparagine, which ALL cells use to reproduce. The drug is “universally used throughout the treatment of ALL in children and adolescents,” Luke Maese, DO, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Utah–Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, and director of Leukemia/Lymphoma at Primary Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “It has become more and more adopted in the treatment of young adults as well.”

The formulations of available asparaginase have evolved over the years, Dr. Maese said. “Currently, the first-line asparaginase products delivered in the majority of patients throughout the world are pegylated, meaning they have an extended duration of action. There are non-pegylated asparaginase products that are used as well.”

The pegylated drugs are much easier on patients since they don’t require frequent injections, according to experts.

Treatment protocols vary, Dr. Maese said. “Some use the drug intermittently intermixed throughout therapy, and others have periods of continuous asparaginase use — i.e. 10-20 weeks of repeated doses of the drug.”

All patients are likely to experience side effects, he said, and about 5%-10% of standard-risk and 20%-25% of high-risk patients will experience clinically significant problems.

When asparaginase is given by IV, its rapid onset can lead to a condition called acute hyperammonemia, in which ammonia levels rise and patients develop flushing, anxiety, and low blood pressure, said Dr. Wistinghausen of Children’s National Hospital. “But that is not a reason to abandon asparaginase.”

It can be difficult to differentiate this effect from hypersensitivity — allergic reactions — which can range from hives to full anaphylactic shock that requires treatment with epinephrine, she said.

According to Dr. Maese, other major side effects other than hypersensitivity include pancreatitis, hepatotoxicity, and thrombosis. The most dangerous of these side effects are hypersensitivity and pancreatitis, which can lead to discontinuation of treatment, he said. Indeed, a 2017 study found that 2% of 465 patients with ALL who developed asparaginase-associated pancreatitis died, and 8% needed mechanical ventilation.

There’s no way to predict which patients may be susceptible to pancreatitis, Michael J. Burke, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of leukemia/lymphoma director at Children’s Wisconsin and Medical College of Wisconsin, said in an interview.

As for therapy options if pancreatitis develops, a 2022 review cowritten by Dr. Maese reported that clinicians have been leaning toward re-treating patients with asparaginase since it’s so crucial to treatment. This has worked about 50% of the time, the review reported, and “many groups consider it in the setting of all grade 2 pancreatitis and grade 3 pancreatitis without prolonged illness or severe complications.”

As for hypersensitivity, the most prevalent adverse effect, clinicians frequently administer anti-allergy medications prior to infusion. This approach, known as “pre-medication,” is controversial. Research has produced conflicting results, with a 2022 study in the journal Blood finding that pre-medication had no effect on hypersensitivity in children with ALL.

“Although there is mixed data, most institutions utilize this,” Dr. Maese said. “At our institution, we continue to use pre-medication prior to pegylated asparaginase but do not use it with non-pegylated asparaginase.”

Specifically, most institutions administer H2 and H1 blockers, Dr. Wistinghausen said. “Some institutions also use hydrocortisone” — a steroid — “but our institution only uses it if patients have a reaction.”

Other potential adverse effects to treatment include infusion reactions, which can mimic allergic reactions such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and flushing, Dr. Maese said.

Asked how to treat patients who cannot tolerate first-line treatment with asparaginase, Dr. Burke responded, “There are second-generation asparaginase formulations for once a patient develops an allergy.”

Dr. Maese said his institution switches patients when necessary to asparaginase Erwinia chrysanthemi (recombinant)-rywn, also known as Rylaze.

Another recent development in ALL treatment is the widespread use of drug monitoring to make sure asparaginase is reaching therapeutic levels. “Asparagine itself is difficult to measure so we use a surrogate of asparaginase levels to demonstrate efficacy of the drug,” he said. “There is conflicting literature as to what constitutes a therapeutic level, but the internationally accepted standard is a level of ≥ 0.1 IU/mL. We monitor asparaginase levels routinely with pegylated asparaginase but not with non-pegylated asparaginase.”

Tests can turn up “silent inactivation,” a term that refers to when the drug is “inactivated” and is not effective, Dr. Maese said. “There are several guidelines that have defined inactivation.” According to the 2022 report cowritten by Dr. Maese, Rylaze can be an alternative option if initial asparaginase treatment isn’t working.

With regard to cost, treatment with asparaginase can cost tens of thousands of dollars. However, insurers routinely pay for treatment plus pre-medication and testing, Dr. Burke said. “There’s no pushback. It seems to be accepted.”

What’s next on the horizon? “We need to understand better those patients who are at risk for toxicity,” Dr. Maese noted. “We understand obesity causes risk for certain toxicities, but have little else to go on. There has been some work with genomics and its relationship to risk of toxicity. However, it has been difficult to translate what has been found to patients.”

There’s work in progress that is exploring other preventive approaches to decrease toxicity, he said. Also, “optimizing the dosing of asparaginase has been explored more in Europe and within a smaller consortium in North America.”

In addition, he said, “as we begin to increase use of immunotherapy within our chemotherapy backbones, we need to understand the relationship these drugs have with asparaginase treatment.”

Dr. Burke and Dr. Wistinghausen have no disclosures. Dr. Maese discloses relationships with Jazz (advisory board, consultant, speakers bureau) and Servier (advisory board).

The chemotherapy drug asparaginase revolutionized childhood cancer care in the 1970s, and it’s still a mainstay of treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) today. But asparaginase remains difficult for some to tolerate, and clinicians keep needing to adjust therapy to address toxicity.

The good news, hematologists note, is that new strategies have been developed to address side effects. “We’ve gotten better at managing them,” pediatric oncologist Birte Wistinghausen, MD, of Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC, said in an interview.

According to her, key approaches include sensitivity testing and “pre-medication” to prevent adverse effects from appearing in the first place.

The American Cancer Society estimates that 6,550 new cases of ALL appear in the United States each year, and 1,330 people die from the disease.

“Most cases of ALL occur in children, but most deaths from ALL (about 4 out of 5) occur in adults,” the organization reports. Indeed, the 5-year survival rate in children is now at about 90%, a number that hematologists partially attribute to the power of asparaginase.

Researchers believe that asparaginase, an enzyme, works by breaking down a substance called asparagine, which ALL cells use to reproduce. The drug is “universally used throughout the treatment of ALL in children and adolescents,” Luke Maese, DO, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Utah–Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, and director of Leukemia/Lymphoma at Primary Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “It has become more and more adopted in the treatment of young adults as well.”

The formulations of available asparaginase have evolved over the years, Dr. Maese said. “Currently, the first-line asparaginase products delivered in the majority of patients throughout the world are pegylated, meaning they have an extended duration of action. There are non-pegylated asparaginase products that are used as well.”

The pegylated drugs are much easier on patients since they don’t require frequent injections, according to experts.

Treatment protocols vary, Dr. Maese said. “Some use the drug intermittently intermixed throughout therapy, and others have periods of continuous asparaginase use — i.e. 10-20 weeks of repeated doses of the drug.”

All patients are likely to experience side effects, he said, and about 5%-10% of standard-risk and 20%-25% of high-risk patients will experience clinically significant problems.

When asparaginase is given by IV, its rapid onset can lead to a condition called acute hyperammonemia, in which ammonia levels rise and patients develop flushing, anxiety, and low blood pressure, said Dr. Wistinghausen of Children’s National Hospital. “But that is not a reason to abandon asparaginase.”

It can be difficult to differentiate this effect from hypersensitivity — allergic reactions — which can range from hives to full anaphylactic shock that requires treatment with epinephrine, she said.

According to Dr. Maese, other major side effects other than hypersensitivity include pancreatitis, hepatotoxicity, and thrombosis. The most dangerous of these side effects are hypersensitivity and pancreatitis, which can lead to discontinuation of treatment, he said. Indeed, a 2017 study found that 2% of 465 patients with ALL who developed asparaginase-associated pancreatitis died, and 8% needed mechanical ventilation.

There’s no way to predict which patients may be susceptible to pancreatitis, Michael J. Burke, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of leukemia/lymphoma director at Children’s Wisconsin and Medical College of Wisconsin, said in an interview.

As for therapy options if pancreatitis develops, a 2022 review cowritten by Dr. Maese reported that clinicians have been leaning toward re-treating patients with asparaginase since it’s so crucial to treatment. This has worked about 50% of the time, the review reported, and “many groups consider it in the setting of all grade 2 pancreatitis and grade 3 pancreatitis without prolonged illness or severe complications.”

As for hypersensitivity, the most prevalent adverse effect, clinicians frequently administer anti-allergy medications prior to infusion. This approach, known as “pre-medication,” is controversial. Research has produced conflicting results, with a 2022 study in the journal Blood finding that pre-medication had no effect on hypersensitivity in children with ALL.

“Although there is mixed data, most institutions utilize this,” Dr. Maese said. “At our institution, we continue to use pre-medication prior to pegylated asparaginase but do not use it with non-pegylated asparaginase.”

Specifically, most institutions administer H2 and H1 blockers, Dr. Wistinghausen said. “Some institutions also use hydrocortisone” — a steroid — “but our institution only uses it if patients have a reaction.”

Other potential adverse effects to treatment include infusion reactions, which can mimic allergic reactions such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and flushing, Dr. Maese said.

Asked how to treat patients who cannot tolerate first-line treatment with asparaginase, Dr. Burke responded, “There are second-generation asparaginase formulations for once a patient develops an allergy.”

Dr. Maese said his institution switches patients when necessary to asparaginase Erwinia chrysanthemi (recombinant)-rywn, also known as Rylaze.

Another recent development in ALL treatment is the widespread use of drug monitoring to make sure asparaginase is reaching therapeutic levels. “Asparagine itself is difficult to measure so we use a surrogate of asparaginase levels to demonstrate efficacy of the drug,” he said. “There is conflicting literature as to what constitutes a therapeutic level, but the internationally accepted standard is a level of ≥ 0.1 IU/mL. We monitor asparaginase levels routinely with pegylated asparaginase but not with non-pegylated asparaginase.”

Tests can turn up “silent inactivation,” a term that refers to when the drug is “inactivated” and is not effective, Dr. Maese said. “There are several guidelines that have defined inactivation.” According to the 2022 report cowritten by Dr. Maese, Rylaze can be an alternative option if initial asparaginase treatment isn’t working.

With regard to cost, treatment with asparaginase can cost tens of thousands of dollars. However, insurers routinely pay for treatment plus pre-medication and testing, Dr. Burke said. “There’s no pushback. It seems to be accepted.”

What’s next on the horizon? “We need to understand better those patients who are at risk for toxicity,” Dr. Maese noted. “We understand obesity causes risk for certain toxicities, but have little else to go on. There has been some work with genomics and its relationship to risk of toxicity. However, it has been difficult to translate what has been found to patients.”

There’s work in progress that is exploring other preventive approaches to decrease toxicity, he said. Also, “optimizing the dosing of asparaginase has been explored more in Europe and within a smaller consortium in North America.”

In addition, he said, “as we begin to increase use of immunotherapy within our chemotherapy backbones, we need to understand the relationship these drugs have with asparaginase treatment.”

Dr. Burke and Dr. Wistinghausen have no disclosures. Dr. Maese discloses relationships with Jazz (advisory board, consultant, speakers bureau) and Servier (advisory board).

The chemotherapy drug asparaginase revolutionized childhood cancer care in the 1970s, and it’s still a mainstay of treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) today. But asparaginase remains difficult for some to tolerate, and clinicians keep needing to adjust therapy to address toxicity.

The good news, hematologists note, is that new strategies have been developed to address side effects. “We’ve gotten better at managing them,” pediatric oncologist Birte Wistinghausen, MD, of Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC, said in an interview.

According to her, key approaches include sensitivity testing and “pre-medication” to prevent adverse effects from appearing in the first place.

The American Cancer Society estimates that 6,550 new cases of ALL appear in the United States each year, and 1,330 people die from the disease.

“Most cases of ALL occur in children, but most deaths from ALL (about 4 out of 5) occur in adults,” the organization reports. Indeed, the 5-year survival rate in children is now at about 90%, a number that hematologists partially attribute to the power of asparaginase.

Researchers believe that asparaginase, an enzyme, works by breaking down a substance called asparagine, which ALL cells use to reproduce. The drug is “universally used throughout the treatment of ALL in children and adolescents,” Luke Maese, DO, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Utah–Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, and director of Leukemia/Lymphoma at Primary Children’s Hospital, said in an interview. “It has become more and more adopted in the treatment of young adults as well.”

The formulations of available asparaginase have evolved over the years, Dr. Maese said. “Currently, the first-line asparaginase products delivered in the majority of patients throughout the world are pegylated, meaning they have an extended duration of action. There are non-pegylated asparaginase products that are used as well.”

The pegylated drugs are much easier on patients since they don’t require frequent injections, according to experts.

Treatment protocols vary, Dr. Maese said. “Some use the drug intermittently intermixed throughout therapy, and others have periods of continuous asparaginase use — i.e. 10-20 weeks of repeated doses of the drug.”

All patients are likely to experience side effects, he said, and about 5%-10% of standard-risk and 20%-25% of high-risk patients will experience clinically significant problems.

When asparaginase is given by IV, its rapid onset can lead to a condition called acute hyperammonemia, in which ammonia levels rise and patients develop flushing, anxiety, and low blood pressure, said Dr. Wistinghausen of Children’s National Hospital. “But that is not a reason to abandon asparaginase.”

It can be difficult to differentiate this effect from hypersensitivity — allergic reactions — which can range from hives to full anaphylactic shock that requires treatment with epinephrine, she said.

According to Dr. Maese, other major side effects other than hypersensitivity include pancreatitis, hepatotoxicity, and thrombosis. The most dangerous of these side effects are hypersensitivity and pancreatitis, which can lead to discontinuation of treatment, he said. Indeed, a 2017 study found that 2% of 465 patients with ALL who developed asparaginase-associated pancreatitis died, and 8% needed mechanical ventilation.

There’s no way to predict which patients may be susceptible to pancreatitis, Michael J. Burke, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of leukemia/lymphoma director at Children’s Wisconsin and Medical College of Wisconsin, said in an interview.

As for therapy options if pancreatitis develops, a 2022 review cowritten by Dr. Maese reported that clinicians have been leaning toward re-treating patients with asparaginase since it’s so crucial to treatment. This has worked about 50% of the time, the review reported, and “many groups consider it in the setting of all grade 2 pancreatitis and grade 3 pancreatitis without prolonged illness or severe complications.”

As for hypersensitivity, the most prevalent adverse effect, clinicians frequently administer anti-allergy medications prior to infusion. This approach, known as “pre-medication,” is controversial. Research has produced conflicting results, with a 2022 study in the journal Blood finding that pre-medication had no effect on hypersensitivity in children with ALL.

“Although there is mixed data, most institutions utilize this,” Dr. Maese said. “At our institution, we continue to use pre-medication prior to pegylated asparaginase but do not use it with non-pegylated asparaginase.”

Specifically, most institutions administer H2 and H1 blockers, Dr. Wistinghausen said. “Some institutions also use hydrocortisone” — a steroid — “but our institution only uses it if patients have a reaction.”

Other potential adverse effects to treatment include infusion reactions, which can mimic allergic reactions such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and flushing, Dr. Maese said.

Asked how to treat patients who cannot tolerate first-line treatment with asparaginase, Dr. Burke responded, “There are second-generation asparaginase formulations for once a patient develops an allergy.”

Dr. Maese said his institution switches patients when necessary to asparaginase Erwinia chrysanthemi (recombinant)-rywn, also known as Rylaze.

Another recent development in ALL treatment is the widespread use of drug monitoring to make sure asparaginase is reaching therapeutic levels. “Asparagine itself is difficult to measure so we use a surrogate of asparaginase levels to demonstrate efficacy of the drug,” he said. “There is conflicting literature as to what constitutes a therapeutic level, but the internationally accepted standard is a level of ≥ 0.1 IU/mL. We monitor asparaginase levels routinely with pegylated asparaginase but not with non-pegylated asparaginase.”

Tests can turn up “silent inactivation,” a term that refers to when the drug is “inactivated” and is not effective, Dr. Maese said. “There are several guidelines that have defined inactivation.” According to the 2022 report cowritten by Dr. Maese, Rylaze can be an alternative option if initial asparaginase treatment isn’t working.

With regard to cost, treatment with asparaginase can cost tens of thousands of dollars. However, insurers routinely pay for treatment plus pre-medication and testing, Dr. Burke said. “There’s no pushback. It seems to be accepted.”

What’s next on the horizon? “We need to understand better those patients who are at risk for toxicity,” Dr. Maese noted. “We understand obesity causes risk for certain toxicities, but have little else to go on. There has been some work with genomics and its relationship to risk of toxicity. However, it has been difficult to translate what has been found to patients.”

There’s work in progress that is exploring other preventive approaches to decrease toxicity, he said. Also, “optimizing the dosing of asparaginase has been explored more in Europe and within a smaller consortium in North America.”

In addition, he said, “as we begin to increase use of immunotherapy within our chemotherapy backbones, we need to understand the relationship these drugs have with asparaginase treatment.”

Dr. Burke and Dr. Wistinghausen have no disclosures. Dr. Maese discloses relationships with Jazz (advisory board, consultant, speakers bureau) and Servier (advisory board).

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

Screening mammograms miss close to one in eight breast cancers. But early research suggests artificial intelligence (AI) could close this detection gap and markedly improve early diagnosis of the disease. Still, questions remain regarding how to best incorporate AI into screenings and whether it’s too soon to deploy the technology.

Already, some radiology clinics are offering AI analysis of mammograms through an add-on cost method.

Mammography patients who visit RadNet facilities, for example, have the option of an additional AI screening of their images. RadNet, the largest national owner and operator of fixed-site diagnostic imaging centers in the United States with more than 370 locations, first launched its AI program in the Northeast. The company has now rolled out its product across all regions in the country.

Because the AI is not reimbursed by insurers, patients must pay a $40 out-of-pocket fee if they want the AI analysis.

“RadNet practices have identified more than 400 women whose cancer was found earlier than it would have been had the AI not been present,” said Greg Sorensen MD, chief science officer for RadNet.
 

How RadNet’s AI Program Works

Patients coming to RadNet facilities for screening mammography undergo 3D high-resolution mammography that includes the use of 70-micron resolution detector technology, said Dr. Sorensen. The mammogram is reviewed by a qualified radiologist with assistance from two Food and Drug Administration–cleared AI programs, Saige-Q and Saige-Density. The radiologist then makes an interpretation.

Saige-Q is an AI tool that helps identify more suspicious mammograms by providing a quick signal to radiologists if the AI considers a given mammogram to be in a suspicious category, according to Dr. Sorensen. Saige-Density provides a density rating for each mammogram using one of the four standard categories:

• A. Almost entirely fatty
• B. Scattered areas of fibroglandular density
• C. Heterogeneously dense
• D. Extremely dense

Starting in September 2024, the FDA will require all mammogram reports to indicate density.

For patients who choose the $40 add-on service, called Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection, two other FDA-registered AI programs are also applied: Saige-Dx and Saige-Assure. These AI programs go a step further by placing marks on areas within the images that they find suspicious. Mammograms flagged as “high-suspicion” by the AI are then reviewed by a second human radiologist. The first and second radiologists confer to agree on a final diagnosis, Dr. Sorensen explained.

“Our research shows that approximately 20% more cancers are found when the safeguard review process is in place,” Dr. Sorensen said. “We also have seen [30%] decreases in recall rates” — the percentage of screening cases in which further tests are recommended by the radiologist.

Bethesda radiologist Janet Storella, MD, has used the AI program for about 3 years and said the technology has improved her screening performance.

The AI is linked to her practice’s imaging software, and radiologists have the option of turning the AI on at any time during their reading of screening mammograms, Dr. Storella explained. Some radiologists review the mammogram first and then initiate the AI, while others like Dr. Storella turn it on at the start, she said. Once initiated, the AI draws bounding boxes — or outlines — around areas that it deems suspicious.

The AI helps focus Dr. Storella’s attention on suspicious areas and grades the level of suspicion into one of four categories: high, intermediate, low, and minimal, she said.

“I find it especially useful in patients who have dense breast tissue,” said Dr. Storella, medical director of women’s imaging at Community Radiology Associates, a RadNet practice. “In these situations, the tissue on the mammogram is a field of white, and cancers are also white, so you’re looking for that little white golf ball on a sea of snow. The AI really helps hone that down to specific areas.”

About 35% of RadNet’s screening mammography patients have enrolled in the Enhanced Breast Cancer Detection program, according to RadNet data. In a recent study of nine general radiologists and nine breast imaging specialists, all radiologists improved their interpretation performance of DBT screening mammograms when reading with RadNet’s AI versus without it. (An average AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve] of 0.93 versus 0.87, demonstrating a difference in AUC of 0.06 (95% CI, 0.04-0.08; P < .001)
 

Is Mammography Ready for AI?

RadNet is among a growing number of commercial companies offering AI solutions for mammography. MammoScreen and Hologic, for example, are two other companies that provide AI programs to assist radiologists in reading screening mammograms.

“We are at the start of the AI integration into breast imaging at this point,” said Laura Heacock, MD, a breast imaging radiologist and associate professor of radiology at NYU Langone Health. “There are multiple commercial AI models now available to radiologists to use in their practice [ and] there will likely be more. We’re in the transition stage where people are still deciding: Which is the best model to go with? How do I put it in my system? How do I ensure it works they way it was intended? Every practice and medical system will have a different answer to that question.”

At NYU Langone Health, researchers have been developing and studying optimal AI models for breast imaging for several years, Dr. Heacock said. Researchers thus far, have developed AI models for 2D digital mammography, 3D mammograms, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI. Similar to commercial AI systems, the AI is embedded into the picture archiving and communication (PACS) system used by radiologists to review images. Radiologists press a button to launch the AI, which draws a box around suspicious areas of the image and scores the suspicion.

“I take a look of where it is on the mammogram and decide whether that fits my level of suspicion,” Dr. Heacock said. The AI may not understand things about the mammogram like we do. For example, surgical scars look very suspicious to an AI model. But if I’m looking at a mammogram where [the patient] has had a stable scar that hasn’t changed in 10 years, I’m not concerned that the AI found it suspicious. My clinical judgment is the ultimate decider. This is just an additional piece of information that’s helpful to me.”

Research by New York University (NYU) has shown that when used by an expert radiologist the AI models have improved breast cancer detection in all four modalities, she said.

However, the AI has not yet launched at NYU Langone. More research is needed before deploying the technology, according to Dr. Heacock.

“At NYU, we are still testing the benefits to patients,” she said. “We know it improves cancer detection, but we want to make sure there are no drawbacks. We are still exploring the best ways to put it into effect at our institution.”

Dr. Heacock pointed to recent studies on AI in screening mammography that show promise.

An analysis of more than 80,000 women, for example, published in The Lancet Oncology in August, found that AI-supported screen reading led to a similar cancer detection rate as compared with a two-person reader system. This screening resulted in 244 screen-detected cancers, 861 recalls, and a total of 46,345 screen readings, according to the study. Standard screening resulted in 203 screen-detected cancers, 817 recalls, and a total of 83,231 screen readings.

The AI system also reduced the screen-reading workload for radiologists by 44%, the study found.

Meanwhile, a September 2023 study, published in The Lancet Digital Health, found that replacing one radiologist with AI resulted in more cancer detection without a large increase in false-positive cases. The AI led to a 4% higher, noninferior cancer detection rate, compared with radiologist double reading, the study found.

Dr. Heacock emphasized that both studies were conducted in Europe where the standard is for two radiologists to evaluate mammograms.

“That makes the results exciting, but not directly applicable to US practice just yet,” she said.
 

What Do the Experts Recommend?

Stamatia V. Destounis, MD, FACR, chair of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Commission, said the college welcomes ongoing research into the efficacy of AI technologies and that AI may prove to be beneficial as an improved workflow tool.

The ACR has not released any guidance about the use of AI for radiologists and have no recommendation about best practices, Dr. Destounis said.

“The decisions regarding which technologies that various health systems and radiology sites choose to use are made by those facilities,” she said.

Dr. Destounis said more research is needed to demonstrate whether or not AI technologies help radiologists produce better results in identifying disease, injury, and illnesses among the general population or in specific groups — whether based on age, physical characteristics, race, ethnicity or risk status for breast cancer.

“Also, a way to measure each AI product is needed so that we can be certain they are relatively equivalent in their efficacy and accuracy — initially and over a prolonged period of time,” she said.

No consensus or concrete recommendation exists about the use of AI in mammography screening, adds Peter P. Yu, MD, FACP, FASCO, physician-in-chief at the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute and a member of the newly-created American Society of Clinical Oncology AI task force.

One of the many discussions concerning AI is to what degree patients should be aware that AI is being used in their healthcare and whether they should be required to give consent to its use, Dr. Yu said.

If AI is used to assist radiologists with mammographic interpretation, radiologists should discuss with patients how it’s being used and explain the ultimate reading is in the hands of their physician radiologist, he said.

“In the unlikely situation where there wasn’t a human in the loop and AI was in effect making a medical decision, the patient needs to be aware,” he said. “I’m not aware that any such situation exists today. AI is more likely to be subtly embedded in the software that operates technology, much like it is embedded in manufacturing and transportation.”
 

Who Will Pay for AI?

When it comes to payment, Dr. Yu said shifting the cost of AI to patients creates serious risk.

“It has enormous potential to increase health inequities,” he said. “If we believe health care is a fundamental human right, AI should inure to the benefit of all, not just those who can afford it. Healthcare should not be a luxury item; if it works, it works for all.”

In general, the issue of payment for AI is still pretty “thorny,” Dr. Heacock noted. Currently, there’s no way for physicians to request direct reimbursement for AI reads of mammograms.

While Dr. Heacock says she is sympathetic to the companies that spend significant time and effort on their AI technology, she doesn’t think charging patients is the right solution.

“We know that many women already have difficulty in paying for mammography-related services and this is just one more charge to confuse them or that they can’t pay,” she said.

Dr. Sorensen expects that, similar to 3D mammography, payers will eventually cover RadNet’s AI technology and that patients will no longer need to pay out of pocket. One Blue Cross carrier will start covering the AI in April 2024, he said.

Your patients come in wanting a script for the latest medication they saw on a television commercial (Ozempic anyone?), a request for a medical marijuana card for their shoulder ache, or any number of pleas for drugs, procedures, or tests that are medically inappropriate.

One of the toughest parts of the job as a physician is balancing patient requests with patient satisfaction. In the age of Healthgrades, Yelp reviews, and patients sharing their visit high points on multiple social media platforms, how can you keep patients happy and satisfied when you have to say no?

Turns out, you can likely reroute those patient-driven requests if you can get to the heart of the issue the patient is looking to resolve, suggested Peter Lee, MD, a plastic surgeon at Wave Plastic Surgery in Los Angeles.

“The conversation between physicians and patients hinges less on the answer ‘no’ than it does on being a careful listener,” he said. “This includes focusing on the different available treatment options and then deciding which of these is most suitable to the particular situation facing that patient.”

Here are a few failsafe ways to say no — and why physicians think these approaches can make the difference between a contentious appointment and a positive one.
 

Hear Patients Out

When patients book an appointment with a physician to discuss a noncritical issue, they likely have a sense from Google of what they might need, which is why Dara Kass, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Hartford, Connecticut, always asks patients “why did you come in” and “what test do you think you need.”

“For example, they may say, ‘I came for a CT scan of my head because I’ve had a headache for 2 years, and it’s frustrating trying to find a neurologist,’” she said. “Maybe they don’t need a CT scan after all, but it’s up to me to figure that out, and letting them share what they think they need frames out a feeling that we’re making joint decisions.”
 

Help Patients Rethink Requests

The ubiquity of online searching is just one reason patients may tend to arrive at your office armed with “information.” This is especially true for patients seeking plastic surgery, said Dr. Lee. “A plastic surgeon’s reaction to such a request may be less about saying ‘no’ than taking the patient a few steps back in the decision-making process,” he said. “The goal should be to educate the patient, in the case of plastic surgery, about what is actually causing the appearance he or she is trying to correct.”

For something like a marijuana card for a slight ache, explaining that it may not be appropriate and “here’s what we can do instead” goes a long way in getting the patient to rethink and understand that their request may not be legitimate.
 

Use Safety Concerns as an Out

Often, a patient just isn’t a good candidate for a procedure, said Samuel Lin, MD, a plastic surgeon in Boston and an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They may think they need to have a procedure, but it might not be a safe thing for them to have it,” he said.

“I would lean heavily on the fact that it may not be medically safe for this patient to have this procedure due to elements of their medical history or the fact that they have had prior surgeries. Then, if you pivot to the more conservative things you can do, this can help you say no when a patient is seeking a certain procedure.”

Likewise, explaining that a weight loss drug may have more risks than benefits and isn’t appropriate for that 15 pounds they’re struggling with couched as a safety concern can ease the disappointment of a no.
 

Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly

It’s one thing for a patient to request certain tests, say an MRI or a CT scan, but those same patients may grumble when they get the bill for the tests. That said, it’s always a good idea to remind them of the costs of these tests, said Dr. Kass. Patients will get bills in the mail after their visit for those extra tests and scans. “They may not realize this until after they asked for it, and if they, for example, have $1000 in coinsurance, that bill may be a very upsetting surprise.”
 

You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review

No matter how hard you try, a patient may still be unhappy that you’ve declined their request, and this may show up in the form of a negative review for all to see. However, it’s always best to keep these reviews in perspective. “The ‘no’ that might result in a bad review can happen for everything from waiting 15 minutes to see the doctor to not getting a discount at checkout and everything in between including being told they don’t need the drug, test, or procedure they requested.”

“I feel like people who write bad reviews want money back, or they have an alternative agenda. That’s why, I educate patients and empower them to make the right decisions,” said Jody A. Levine, MD, director of dermatology at Plastic Surgery & Dermatology of New York City.

Dr. Lee told this news organization that the fundamental pledge to “do no harm” is as good as any other credo when saying no to patients. “If we don’t believe there is a likely probability that a surgery will be safe to perform on a patient and leave the patient satisfied with the result, then it is our duty to decline to perform that surgery.”

Ultimately, being transparent leads to a happy doctor-patient relationship. “As long as you are clear and honest in explaining to a patient why you are declining to perform a procedure, most patients, rather than being angry with you, will thank you for your candor,” he said. “They’ll leave your office a little bit wiser, too.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Your patients come in wanting a script for the latest medication they saw on a television commercial (Ozempic anyone?), a request for a medical marijuana card for their shoulder ache, or any number of pleas for drugs, procedures, or tests that are medically inappropriate.

One of the toughest parts of the job as a physician is balancing patient requests with patient satisfaction. In the age of Healthgrades, Yelp reviews, and patients sharing their visit high points on multiple social media platforms, how can you keep patients happy and satisfied when you have to say no?

Turns out, you can likely reroute those patient-driven requests if you can get to the heart of the issue the patient is looking to resolve, suggested Peter Lee, MD, a plastic surgeon at Wave Plastic Surgery in Los Angeles.

“The conversation between physicians and patients hinges less on the answer ‘no’ than it does on being a careful listener,” he said. “This includes focusing on the different available treatment options and then deciding which of these is most suitable to the particular situation facing that patient.”

Here are a few failsafe ways to say no — and why physicians think these approaches can make the difference between a contentious appointment and a positive one.
 

Hear Patients Out

When patients book an appointment with a physician to discuss a noncritical issue, they likely have a sense from Google of what they might need, which is why Dara Kass, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Hartford, Connecticut, always asks patients “why did you come in” and “what test do you think you need.”

“For example, they may say, ‘I came for a CT scan of my head because I’ve had a headache for 2 years, and it’s frustrating trying to find a neurologist,’” she said. “Maybe they don’t need a CT scan after all, but it’s up to me to figure that out, and letting them share what they think they need frames out a feeling that we’re making joint decisions.”
 

Help Patients Rethink Requests

The ubiquity of online searching is just one reason patients may tend to arrive at your office armed with “information.” This is especially true for patients seeking plastic surgery, said Dr. Lee. “A plastic surgeon’s reaction to such a request may be less about saying ‘no’ than taking the patient a few steps back in the decision-making process,” he said. “The goal should be to educate the patient, in the case of plastic surgery, about what is actually causing the appearance he or she is trying to correct.”

For something like a marijuana card for a slight ache, explaining that it may not be appropriate and “here’s what we can do instead” goes a long way in getting the patient to rethink and understand that their request may not be legitimate.
 

Use Safety Concerns as an Out

Often, a patient just isn’t a good candidate for a procedure, said Samuel Lin, MD, a plastic surgeon in Boston and an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They may think they need to have a procedure, but it might not be a safe thing for them to have it,” he said.

“I would lean heavily on the fact that it may not be medically safe for this patient to have this procedure due to elements of their medical history or the fact that they have had prior surgeries. Then, if you pivot to the more conservative things you can do, this can help you say no when a patient is seeking a certain procedure.”

Likewise, explaining that a weight loss drug may have more risks than benefits and isn’t appropriate for that 15 pounds they’re struggling with couched as a safety concern can ease the disappointment of a no.
 

Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly

It’s one thing for a patient to request certain tests, say an MRI or a CT scan, but those same patients may grumble when they get the bill for the tests. That said, it’s always a good idea to remind them of the costs of these tests, said Dr. Kass. Patients will get bills in the mail after their visit for those extra tests and scans. “They may not realize this until after they asked for it, and if they, for example, have $1000 in coinsurance, that bill may be a very upsetting surprise.”
 

You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review

No matter how hard you try, a patient may still be unhappy that you’ve declined their request, and this may show up in the form of a negative review for all to see. However, it’s always best to keep these reviews in perspective. “The ‘no’ that might result in a bad review can happen for everything from waiting 15 minutes to see the doctor to not getting a discount at checkout and everything in between including being told they don’t need the drug, test, or procedure they requested.”

“I feel like people who write bad reviews want money back, or they have an alternative agenda. That’s why, I educate patients and empower them to make the right decisions,” said Jody A. Levine, MD, director of dermatology at Plastic Surgery & Dermatology of New York City.

Dr. Lee told this news organization that the fundamental pledge to “do no harm” is as good as any other credo when saying no to patients. “If we don’t believe there is a likely probability that a surgery will be safe to perform on a patient and leave the patient satisfied with the result, then it is our duty to decline to perform that surgery.”

Ultimately, being transparent leads to a happy doctor-patient relationship. “As long as you are clear and honest in explaining to a patient why you are declining to perform a procedure, most patients, rather than being angry with you, will thank you for your candor,” he said. “They’ll leave your office a little bit wiser, too.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Your patients come in wanting a script for the latest medication they saw on a television commercial (Ozempic anyone?), a request for a medical marijuana card for their shoulder ache, or any number of pleas for drugs, procedures, or tests that are medically inappropriate.

One of the toughest parts of the job as a physician is balancing patient requests with patient satisfaction. In the age of Healthgrades, Yelp reviews, and patients sharing their visit high points on multiple social media platforms, how can you keep patients happy and satisfied when you have to say no?

Turns out, you can likely reroute those patient-driven requests if you can get to the heart of the issue the patient is looking to resolve, suggested Peter Lee, MD, a plastic surgeon at Wave Plastic Surgery in Los Angeles.

“The conversation between physicians and patients hinges less on the answer ‘no’ than it does on being a careful listener,” he said. “This includes focusing on the different available treatment options and then deciding which of these is most suitable to the particular situation facing that patient.”

Here are a few failsafe ways to say no — and why physicians think these approaches can make the difference between a contentious appointment and a positive one.
 

Hear Patients Out

When patients book an appointment with a physician to discuss a noncritical issue, they likely have a sense from Google of what they might need, which is why Dara Kass, MD, an emergency medicine physician in Hartford, Connecticut, always asks patients “why did you come in” and “what test do you think you need.”

“For example, they may say, ‘I came for a CT scan of my head because I’ve had a headache for 2 years, and it’s frustrating trying to find a neurologist,’” she said. “Maybe they don’t need a CT scan after all, but it’s up to me to figure that out, and letting them share what they think they need frames out a feeling that we’re making joint decisions.”
 

Help Patients Rethink Requests

The ubiquity of online searching is just one reason patients may tend to arrive at your office armed with “information.” This is especially true for patients seeking plastic surgery, said Dr. Lee. “A plastic surgeon’s reaction to such a request may be less about saying ‘no’ than taking the patient a few steps back in the decision-making process,” he said. “The goal should be to educate the patient, in the case of plastic surgery, about what is actually causing the appearance he or she is trying to correct.”

For something like a marijuana card for a slight ache, explaining that it may not be appropriate and “here’s what we can do instead” goes a long way in getting the patient to rethink and understand that their request may not be legitimate.
 

Use Safety Concerns as an Out

Often, a patient just isn’t a good candidate for a procedure, said Samuel Lin, MD, a plastic surgeon in Boston and an associate professor of surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They may think they need to have a procedure, but it might not be a safe thing for them to have it,” he said.

“I would lean heavily on the fact that it may not be medically safe for this patient to have this procedure due to elements of their medical history or the fact that they have had prior surgeries. Then, if you pivot to the more conservative things you can do, this can help you say no when a patient is seeking a certain procedure.”

Likewise, explaining that a weight loss drug may have more risks than benefits and isn’t appropriate for that 15 pounds they’re struggling with couched as a safety concern can ease the disappointment of a no.
 

Remind Patients That Tests Can Be Costly

It’s one thing for a patient to request certain tests, say an MRI or a CT scan, but those same patients may grumble when they get the bill for the tests. That said, it’s always a good idea to remind them of the costs of these tests, said Dr. Kass. Patients will get bills in the mail after their visit for those extra tests and scans. “They may not realize this until after they asked for it, and if they, for example, have $1000 in coinsurance, that bill may be a very upsetting surprise.”
 

You Can’t Always Prevent a Negative Patient Review

No matter how hard you try, a patient may still be unhappy that you’ve declined their request, and this may show up in the form of a negative review for all to see. However, it’s always best to keep these reviews in perspective. “The ‘no’ that might result in a bad review can happen for everything from waiting 15 minutes to see the doctor to not getting a discount at checkout and everything in between including being told they don’t need the drug, test, or procedure they requested.”

“I feel like people who write bad reviews want money back, or they have an alternative agenda. That’s why, I educate patients and empower them to make the right decisions,” said Jody A. Levine, MD, director of dermatology at Plastic Surgery & Dermatology of New York City.

Dr. Lee told this news organization that the fundamental pledge to “do no harm” is as good as any other credo when saying no to patients. “If we don’t believe there is a likely probability that a surgery will be safe to perform on a patient and leave the patient satisfied with the result, then it is our duty to decline to perform that surgery.”

Ultimately, being transparent leads to a happy doctor-patient relationship. “As long as you are clear and honest in explaining to a patient why you are declining to perform a procedure, most patients, rather than being angry with you, will thank you for your candor,” he said. “They’ll leave your office a little bit wiser, too.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2013, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test revealed that Richard LaFrate’s levels had jumped. 

Previously in a normal range, his PSA was now above 6 ng/mL, indicating an elevated likelihood for prostate cancer. The jazz guitarist from Leesburg, Florida, then 70 years old, underwent a biopsy, which found two Gleason 6 lesions. 

Mr. LaFrate had low-risk prostate cancer.

Guidelines now recommend active surveillance for patients like Mr. LaFrate, who have low-risk disease. This strategy would mean monitoring the cancer until LaFrate required treatment, with the upside being he might never need therapy.

Mr. LaFrate’s urologist, however, was pushing whole gland surgery — an invasive and unnecessary procedure given his diagnosis and age. 

Mr. LaFrate decided to look for another doctor. He filled out a form online that pointed him to a new urologist who offered him one option: An investigational procedure known as high-intensity focused ultrasound.

At the time, high-intensity focused ultrasound — a form of focal therapy — was being studied in the United States to treat men with low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, but it was still relatively early days.

Mr. LaFrate’s urologist asked him to pay $25,000 out of pocket to undergo the focal procedure at a clinic in the Bahamas. He refused and, ultimately, landed on active surveillance as the best strategy to manage for his low-risk disease.

That urologist was “a shyster in my opinion,” Mr. LaFrate said. 

Over the past 10 years, the popularity of focal therapy has grown among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer — Gleason 3+4 (grade group 2) tumors — as an alternative to invasive surgery and active surveillance. Prestigious medical centers, such as Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan Kettering, UCLA, and the University of Chicago, routinely offer focal therapy. 

But use of the techniques remains controversial and costly.

As the Cleveland Clinic’s website acknowledges, although “the use of focal therapy for localized prostate cancer appears to be a promising development in a number of ways, it is still considered investigational and not yet part of standard therapy.” Major caveats to focal therapy include unknown long-term effectiveness, the possibility of leaving behind untreated cancer, and higher overall costs. 

No major national guidelines endorse the use of focal therapy, unless offered in a research or clinical trial setting. Insurance companies, such as Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and United, also consider focal therapy for prostate cancer investigational and don’t cover it.

Without a stamp of approval from guideline bodies and insurance companies, patients, like Mr. LaFrate, remain vulnerable to the high out-of-pocket costs for these focal techniques. 

“Almost every place charges $15,000-$30,000 in cash,” said Daniel Spratt, MD, radiation oncology chair at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. 

Dr. Spratt has seen hundreds of patients after focal therapy, some from prominent centers, who have emptied their bank accounts to undergo treatment with the promise of great results and ultimately felt misled when the cancer has recurred.

“It pains me that there are doctors willing to ignore the Hippocratic oath of ‘Do No Harm’ simply to jump on this fad to bring in revenue,” Dr. Spratt said. 
 

Evidence-Based or Oversold?

Focal therapy gained a foothold in the United Kingdom well before the United States.

Hashim Ahmed, FRCS, urology chair at Imperial College London, has used focal therapy for 15 years, treated over 1000 patients, and taught dozens of surgeons how to use the leading focal therapies — focal cryoablation, in which surgeons use a needle-thin probe to target, freeze, and kill prostate tumors, as well as high-intensity focused ultrasound, which uses sound wave energy to superheat and kill tumors.

“Certainly, in the United Kingdom, focal therapy has been prime time in a number of centers for a number of years,” Dr. Ahmed said. 

In the United States, focal therapy has become an attractive option for men with prostate cancer who want to avoid radiation or radical prostatectomy but don’t feel comfortable simply monitoring their disease with active surveillance. Experts from specialized focal therapy centers touting the promise of this “innovative technique” predict its routine use in the next few years.

But the excitement surrounding the use of focal therapy in prostate cancer has outpaced broader acceptance.

In 2015, the FDA approved high-intensity focused ultrasound to treat prostatic disease, but not prostate cancer specifically. Although the approval language “means that companies cannot advertise that their devices can be used for prostate cancer,” physicians can still determine how to use the technology, which includes treating prostate cancer, Dr. Ahmed said. 

The evidence is starting to catch up to the demand. The latest research suggests that the partial-gland techniques may stand up well to radical prostatectomy.

A 2022 prospective database study comparing radical prostatectomies to focal therapy — mostly high-intensity focused ultrasound — in more than 800 men found similar rates of failure-free survival in the two groups at the 8-year follow-up. A 2019 registry study found that failure-free survival at 3 years was just over 90% in high and intermediate-risk patients receiving focal cryotherapy, with the rate rising to about 93% for the intermediate-risk group. And a 2018 prospective study of 625 patients with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer who underwent high-intensity focused ultrasound had 5-year metastasis-free survival of 98% and overall survival rates of 100%.

One of the biggest draws of focal therapy vs more aggressive treatments is the “massive differences in side-effect profiles,” said Dr. Ahmed.

In a 2021 meta-analysis, researchers found that 6 months after high-intensity focused ultrasound, 98% of patients remained continent and 80% retained erectile function, while erectile dysfunction can occur in 30% to as many as 85% of patients following prostatectomy or radiotherapy and urinary incontinence can occur in as many as 40% of patients.

Despite these potential advantages of focal therapy, the long-term efficacy of the techniques remains uncertain.

A recent study from a team at MSK, for instance, reported that 40% of men with intermediate (grade 2) or high-risk (grade 3) disease had residual cancer following MRI-guided focused ultrasound. A 2020 prospective registry study found that almost 20% of patients undergoing high-intensity focal ultrasound required a second round following a recurrence. 

Dr. Spratt worries that patients who recur after focal therapy may go on to receive a second round — often offered at half price — and will still ultimately need surgery or radiation therapy later. By that point, however, patients may have spent as much as $45,000 — ie, $30,000 on the initial and another $15,000 on the follow-up procedure.

When patients see Dr. Spratt after a recurrence, he informs them that their side effects will be worse if he gives them radiation or surgery now vs if he had given them curative therapy upfront. “But this is what we’re left with,” he tells them.

Another big concern in the field is “the quality of data for focal therapy is overwhelmingly poor,” said Jonathan Shoag, MD, a urologic oncologist at University Hospitals and an associate professor of urology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland. “Essentially, the bulk of the data is from single-institution retrospective series without defined follow-up protocols or endpoints.”

The American Urological Association (AUA) has even cautioned experts and patients about the lack of high-quality data comparing focal therapy techniques to radiation therapy, surgery, and active surveillance. According to the AUA, focal options should only be considered in intermediate-risk prostate cancer in a clinical trial setting.

“The lack of randomized clinical trials poses a major stumbling block for the field,” said Dr. Ahmed.

Although randomized trials would be ideal, the results would take many years to mature, and growing patient demand for these less invasive focal procedures has made randomized trials difficult to complete, explained Arvin George, MD, associate professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. Several randomized trials attempted in Norway and the United Kingdom, for instance, fell apart when patients refused to be randomized between focal and radical therapy, Dr. George said.

Focal therapy is now in the same position that active surveillance was a few years ago, according to Dr. George.

“We are hearing the same concerns about focal therapy now as we did about active surveillance,” he said. The initial evidence supporting active surveillance largely came from real-world experience and retrospective studies. The randomized data came later, and skeptics of active surveillance “were proven wrong,” he added.

But Dr. Shoag has a different take on the trajectory of focal therapy research and care in the United States. 

“I think there’s this emerging kind of tragedy happening in our field now, where you have even academic institutions offering focal therapy to patients off-trial with essentially no data to suggest it is oncologically effective,” Dr. Shoag said.

William Catalona, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, agreed, noting that too many low-risk patients are undergoing focal treatment who should be on active surveillance. “Many men are attracted to focal because they just are uncomfortable having a cancer in their body that’s not treated,” Dr. Catalona said. But “giving these patients focal therapy is really overtreatment.”

Patients with higher-risk disease who want to avoid aggressive treatment are also being lured into focal without guidelines or clear evidence to back up that option, Dr. Catalona explained.

Although it’s not clear how many men in the United States are receiving focal therapy who shouldn’t, even proponents of focal therapy, like George, have expressed concern.

Dr. George agreed that focal therapy marketing geared towards patients is drawing in some men who are not good candidates for these techniques, and feels there’s not enough objective material from medical societies or academic centers giving patients a realistic picture of focal therapy. 

“There is concern that patients may be receiving biased information,” Dr. George said, adding that it’s ultimately up to the physician to reconcile the best available evidence, understand the outcomes, and discuss these options with the patient to guide them to what’s best.

At the end of the day, Dr. Spratt said, physicians giving focal therapy off a clinical trial need to pause and ask themselves “why are they giving a treatment that remains investigational by payers, not recommended by any major guideline, and that lacks any randomized evidence?” 

Mr. LaFrate does not regret his decision to forgo focal therapy in 2013. He has been on active surveillance for about a decade now.

Following an MRI in 2022, Mr. LaFrate’s radiology report found that “clinically significant cancer is very unlikely to be present.”

Still, his PSA has risen two points in the past year to 14. His current urologist feels that the PSA is going up because there’s cancer present and is suggesting focal therapy for Mr. LaFrate.

Mr. LaFrate, who has prostate enlargement issues, remains skeptical of focal therapy and is still resisting the sales pitch.

“My doctor is not aggressively pushing it. He’s just giving me that as one of my options,” he said. “I just have a hunch I don’t need it at this point.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2013, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test revealed that Richard LaFrate’s levels had jumped. 

Previously in a normal range, his PSA was now above 6 ng/mL, indicating an elevated likelihood for prostate cancer. The jazz guitarist from Leesburg, Florida, then 70 years old, underwent a biopsy, which found two Gleason 6 lesions. 

Mr. LaFrate had low-risk prostate cancer.

Guidelines now recommend active surveillance for patients like Mr. LaFrate, who have low-risk disease. This strategy would mean monitoring the cancer until LaFrate required treatment, with the upside being he might never need therapy.

Mr. LaFrate’s urologist, however, was pushing whole gland surgery — an invasive and unnecessary procedure given his diagnosis and age. 

Mr. LaFrate decided to look for another doctor. He filled out a form online that pointed him to a new urologist who offered him one option: An investigational procedure known as high-intensity focused ultrasound.

At the time, high-intensity focused ultrasound — a form of focal therapy — was being studied in the United States to treat men with low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, but it was still relatively early days.

Mr. LaFrate’s urologist asked him to pay $25,000 out of pocket to undergo the focal procedure at a clinic in the Bahamas. He refused and, ultimately, landed on active surveillance as the best strategy to manage for his low-risk disease.

That urologist was “a shyster in my opinion,” Mr. LaFrate said. 

Over the past 10 years, the popularity of focal therapy has grown among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer — Gleason 3+4 (grade group 2) tumors — as an alternative to invasive surgery and active surveillance. Prestigious medical centers, such as Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan Kettering, UCLA, and the University of Chicago, routinely offer focal therapy. 

But use of the techniques remains controversial and costly.

As the Cleveland Clinic’s website acknowledges, although “the use of focal therapy for localized prostate cancer appears to be a promising development in a number of ways, it is still considered investigational and not yet part of standard therapy.” Major caveats to focal therapy include unknown long-term effectiveness, the possibility of leaving behind untreated cancer, and higher overall costs. 

No major national guidelines endorse the use of focal therapy, unless offered in a research or clinical trial setting. Insurance companies, such as Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and United, also consider focal therapy for prostate cancer investigational and don’t cover it.

Without a stamp of approval from guideline bodies and insurance companies, patients, like Mr. LaFrate, remain vulnerable to the high out-of-pocket costs for these focal techniques. 

“Almost every place charges $15,000-$30,000 in cash,” said Daniel Spratt, MD, radiation oncology chair at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. 

Dr. Spratt has seen hundreds of patients after focal therapy, some from prominent centers, who have emptied their bank accounts to undergo treatment with the promise of great results and ultimately felt misled when the cancer has recurred.

“It pains me that there are doctors willing to ignore the Hippocratic oath of ‘Do No Harm’ simply to jump on this fad to bring in revenue,” Dr. Spratt said. 
 

Evidence-Based or Oversold?

Focal therapy gained a foothold in the United Kingdom well before the United States.

Hashim Ahmed, FRCS, urology chair at Imperial College London, has used focal therapy for 15 years, treated over 1000 patients, and taught dozens of surgeons how to use the leading focal therapies — focal cryoablation, in which surgeons use a needle-thin probe to target, freeze, and kill prostate tumors, as well as high-intensity focused ultrasound, which uses sound wave energy to superheat and kill tumors.

“Certainly, in the United Kingdom, focal therapy has been prime time in a number of centers for a number of years,” Dr. Ahmed said. 

In the United States, focal therapy has become an attractive option for men with prostate cancer who want to avoid radiation or radical prostatectomy but don’t feel comfortable simply monitoring their disease with active surveillance. Experts from specialized focal therapy centers touting the promise of this “innovative technique” predict its routine use in the next few years.

But the excitement surrounding the use of focal therapy in prostate cancer has outpaced broader acceptance.

In 2015, the FDA approved high-intensity focused ultrasound to treat prostatic disease, but not prostate cancer specifically. Although the approval language “means that companies cannot advertise that their devices can be used for prostate cancer,” physicians can still determine how to use the technology, which includes treating prostate cancer, Dr. Ahmed said. 

The evidence is starting to catch up to the demand. The latest research suggests that the partial-gland techniques may stand up well to radical prostatectomy.

A 2022 prospective database study comparing radical prostatectomies to focal therapy — mostly high-intensity focused ultrasound — in more than 800 men found similar rates of failure-free survival in the two groups at the 8-year follow-up. A 2019 registry study found that failure-free survival at 3 years was just over 90% in high and intermediate-risk patients receiving focal cryotherapy, with the rate rising to about 93% for the intermediate-risk group. And a 2018 prospective study of 625 patients with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer who underwent high-intensity focused ultrasound had 5-year metastasis-free survival of 98% and overall survival rates of 100%.

One of the biggest draws of focal therapy vs more aggressive treatments is the “massive differences in side-effect profiles,” said Dr. Ahmed.

In a 2021 meta-analysis, researchers found that 6 months after high-intensity focused ultrasound, 98% of patients remained continent and 80% retained erectile function, while erectile dysfunction can occur in 30% to as many as 85% of patients following prostatectomy or radiotherapy and urinary incontinence can occur in as many as 40% of patients.

Despite these potential advantages of focal therapy, the long-term efficacy of the techniques remains uncertain.

A recent study from a team at MSK, for instance, reported that 40% of men with intermediate (grade 2) or high-risk (grade 3) disease had residual cancer following MRI-guided focused ultrasound. A 2020 prospective registry study found that almost 20% of patients undergoing high-intensity focal ultrasound required a second round following a recurrence. 

Dr. Spratt worries that patients who recur after focal therapy may go on to receive a second round — often offered at half price — and will still ultimately need surgery or radiation therapy later. By that point, however, patients may have spent as much as $45,000 — ie, $30,000 on the initial and another $15,000 on the follow-up procedure.

When patients see Dr. Spratt after a recurrence, he informs them that their side effects will be worse if he gives them radiation or surgery now vs if he had given them curative therapy upfront. “But this is what we’re left with,” he tells them.

Another big concern in the field is “the quality of data for focal therapy is overwhelmingly poor,” said Jonathan Shoag, MD, a urologic oncologist at University Hospitals and an associate professor of urology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland. “Essentially, the bulk of the data is from single-institution retrospective series without defined follow-up protocols or endpoints.”

The American Urological Association (AUA) has even cautioned experts and patients about the lack of high-quality data comparing focal therapy techniques to radiation therapy, surgery, and active surveillance. According to the AUA, focal options should only be considered in intermediate-risk prostate cancer in a clinical trial setting.

“The lack of randomized clinical trials poses a major stumbling block for the field,” said Dr. Ahmed.

Although randomized trials would be ideal, the results would take many years to mature, and growing patient demand for these less invasive focal procedures has made randomized trials difficult to complete, explained Arvin George, MD, associate professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. Several randomized trials attempted in Norway and the United Kingdom, for instance, fell apart when patients refused to be randomized between focal and radical therapy, Dr. George said.

Focal therapy is now in the same position that active surveillance was a few years ago, according to Dr. George.

“We are hearing the same concerns about focal therapy now as we did about active surveillance,” he said. The initial evidence supporting active surveillance largely came from real-world experience and retrospective studies. The randomized data came later, and skeptics of active surveillance “were proven wrong,” he added.

But Dr. Shoag has a different take on the trajectory of focal therapy research and care in the United States. 

“I think there’s this emerging kind of tragedy happening in our field now, where you have even academic institutions offering focal therapy to patients off-trial with essentially no data to suggest it is oncologically effective,” Dr. Shoag said.

William Catalona, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, agreed, noting that too many low-risk patients are undergoing focal treatment who should be on active surveillance. “Many men are attracted to focal because they just are uncomfortable having a cancer in their body that’s not treated,” Dr. Catalona said. But “giving these patients focal therapy is really overtreatment.”

Patients with higher-risk disease who want to avoid aggressive treatment are also being lured into focal without guidelines or clear evidence to back up that option, Dr. Catalona explained.

Although it’s not clear how many men in the United States are receiving focal therapy who shouldn’t, even proponents of focal therapy, like George, have expressed concern.

Dr. George agreed that focal therapy marketing geared towards patients is drawing in some men who are not good candidates for these techniques, and feels there’s not enough objective material from medical societies or academic centers giving patients a realistic picture of focal therapy. 

“There is concern that patients may be receiving biased information,” Dr. George said, adding that it’s ultimately up to the physician to reconcile the best available evidence, understand the outcomes, and discuss these options with the patient to guide them to what’s best.

At the end of the day, Dr. Spratt said, physicians giving focal therapy off a clinical trial need to pause and ask themselves “why are they giving a treatment that remains investigational by payers, not recommended by any major guideline, and that lacks any randomized evidence?” 

Mr. LaFrate does not regret his decision to forgo focal therapy in 2013. He has been on active surveillance for about a decade now.

Following an MRI in 2022, Mr. LaFrate’s radiology report found that “clinically significant cancer is very unlikely to be present.”

Still, his PSA has risen two points in the past year to 14. His current urologist feels that the PSA is going up because there’s cancer present and is suggesting focal therapy for Mr. LaFrate.

Mr. LaFrate, who has prostate enlargement issues, remains skeptical of focal therapy and is still resisting the sales pitch.

“My doctor is not aggressively pushing it. He’s just giving me that as one of my options,” he said. “I just have a hunch I don’t need it at this point.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2013, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test revealed that Richard LaFrate’s levels had jumped. 

Previously in a normal range, his PSA was now above 6 ng/mL, indicating an elevated likelihood for prostate cancer. The jazz guitarist from Leesburg, Florida, then 70 years old, underwent a biopsy, which found two Gleason 6 lesions. 

Mr. LaFrate had low-risk prostate cancer.

Guidelines now recommend active surveillance for patients like Mr. LaFrate, who have low-risk disease. This strategy would mean monitoring the cancer until LaFrate required treatment, with the upside being he might never need therapy.

Mr. LaFrate’s urologist, however, was pushing whole gland surgery — an invasive and unnecessary procedure given his diagnosis and age. 

Mr. LaFrate decided to look for another doctor. He filled out a form online that pointed him to a new urologist who offered him one option: An investigational procedure known as high-intensity focused ultrasound.

At the time, high-intensity focused ultrasound — a form of focal therapy — was being studied in the United States to treat men with low or intermediate-risk prostate cancer, but it was still relatively early days.

Mr. LaFrate’s urologist asked him to pay $25,000 out of pocket to undergo the focal procedure at a clinic in the Bahamas. He refused and, ultimately, landed on active surveillance as the best strategy to manage for his low-risk disease.

That urologist was “a shyster in my opinion,” Mr. LaFrate said. 

Over the past 10 years, the popularity of focal therapy has grown among men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer — Gleason 3+4 (grade group 2) tumors — as an alternative to invasive surgery and active surveillance. Prestigious medical centers, such as Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Memorial Sloan Kettering, UCLA, and the University of Chicago, routinely offer focal therapy. 

But use of the techniques remains controversial and costly.

As the Cleveland Clinic’s website acknowledges, although “the use of focal therapy for localized prostate cancer appears to be a promising development in a number of ways, it is still considered investigational and not yet part of standard therapy.” Major caveats to focal therapy include unknown long-term effectiveness, the possibility of leaving behind untreated cancer, and higher overall costs. 

No major national guidelines endorse the use of focal therapy, unless offered in a research or clinical trial setting. Insurance companies, such as Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and United, also consider focal therapy for prostate cancer investigational and don’t cover it.

Without a stamp of approval from guideline bodies and insurance companies, patients, like Mr. LaFrate, remain vulnerable to the high out-of-pocket costs for these focal techniques. 

“Almost every place charges $15,000-$30,000 in cash,” said Daniel Spratt, MD, radiation oncology chair at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. 

Dr. Spratt has seen hundreds of patients after focal therapy, some from prominent centers, who have emptied their bank accounts to undergo treatment with the promise of great results and ultimately felt misled when the cancer has recurred.

“It pains me that there are doctors willing to ignore the Hippocratic oath of ‘Do No Harm’ simply to jump on this fad to bring in revenue,” Dr. Spratt said. 
 

Evidence-Based or Oversold?

Focal therapy gained a foothold in the United Kingdom well before the United States.

Hashim Ahmed, FRCS, urology chair at Imperial College London, has used focal therapy for 15 years, treated over 1000 patients, and taught dozens of surgeons how to use the leading focal therapies — focal cryoablation, in which surgeons use a needle-thin probe to target, freeze, and kill prostate tumors, as well as high-intensity focused ultrasound, which uses sound wave energy to superheat and kill tumors.

“Certainly, in the United Kingdom, focal therapy has been prime time in a number of centers for a number of years,” Dr. Ahmed said. 

In the United States, focal therapy has become an attractive option for men with prostate cancer who want to avoid radiation or radical prostatectomy but don’t feel comfortable simply monitoring their disease with active surveillance. Experts from specialized focal therapy centers touting the promise of this “innovative technique” predict its routine use in the next few years.

But the excitement surrounding the use of focal therapy in prostate cancer has outpaced broader acceptance.

In 2015, the FDA approved high-intensity focused ultrasound to treat prostatic disease, but not prostate cancer specifically. Although the approval language “means that companies cannot advertise that their devices can be used for prostate cancer,” physicians can still determine how to use the technology, which includes treating prostate cancer, Dr. Ahmed said. 

The evidence is starting to catch up to the demand. The latest research suggests that the partial-gland techniques may stand up well to radical prostatectomy.

A 2022 prospective database study comparing radical prostatectomies to focal therapy — mostly high-intensity focused ultrasound — in more than 800 men found similar rates of failure-free survival in the two groups at the 8-year follow-up. A 2019 registry study found that failure-free survival at 3 years was just over 90% in high and intermediate-risk patients receiving focal cryotherapy, with the rate rising to about 93% for the intermediate-risk group. And a 2018 prospective study of 625 patients with intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer who underwent high-intensity focused ultrasound had 5-year metastasis-free survival of 98% and overall survival rates of 100%.

One of the biggest draws of focal therapy vs more aggressive treatments is the “massive differences in side-effect profiles,” said Dr. Ahmed.

In a 2021 meta-analysis, researchers found that 6 months after high-intensity focused ultrasound, 98% of patients remained continent and 80% retained erectile function, while erectile dysfunction can occur in 30% to as many as 85% of patients following prostatectomy or radiotherapy and urinary incontinence can occur in as many as 40% of patients.

Despite these potential advantages of focal therapy, the long-term efficacy of the techniques remains uncertain.

A recent study from a team at MSK, for instance, reported that 40% of men with intermediate (grade 2) or high-risk (grade 3) disease had residual cancer following MRI-guided focused ultrasound. A 2020 prospective registry study found that almost 20% of patients undergoing high-intensity focal ultrasound required a second round following a recurrence. 

Dr. Spratt worries that patients who recur after focal therapy may go on to receive a second round — often offered at half price — and will still ultimately need surgery or radiation therapy later. By that point, however, patients may have spent as much as $45,000 — ie, $30,000 on the initial and another $15,000 on the follow-up procedure.

When patients see Dr. Spratt after a recurrence, he informs them that their side effects will be worse if he gives them radiation or surgery now vs if he had given them curative therapy upfront. “But this is what we’re left with,” he tells them.

Another big concern in the field is “the quality of data for focal therapy is overwhelmingly poor,” said Jonathan Shoag, MD, a urologic oncologist at University Hospitals and an associate professor of urology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland. “Essentially, the bulk of the data is from single-institution retrospective series without defined follow-up protocols or endpoints.”

The American Urological Association (AUA) has even cautioned experts and patients about the lack of high-quality data comparing focal therapy techniques to radiation therapy, surgery, and active surveillance. According to the AUA, focal options should only be considered in intermediate-risk prostate cancer in a clinical trial setting.

“The lack of randomized clinical trials poses a major stumbling block for the field,” said Dr. Ahmed.

Although randomized trials would be ideal, the results would take many years to mature, and growing patient demand for these less invasive focal procedures has made randomized trials difficult to complete, explained Arvin George, MD, associate professor at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. Several randomized trials attempted in Norway and the United Kingdom, for instance, fell apart when patients refused to be randomized between focal and radical therapy, Dr. George said.

Focal therapy is now in the same position that active surveillance was a few years ago, according to Dr. George.

“We are hearing the same concerns about focal therapy now as we did about active surveillance,” he said. The initial evidence supporting active surveillance largely came from real-world experience and retrospective studies. The randomized data came later, and skeptics of active surveillance “were proven wrong,” he added.

But Dr. Shoag has a different take on the trajectory of focal therapy research and care in the United States. 

“I think there’s this emerging kind of tragedy happening in our field now, where you have even academic institutions offering focal therapy to patients off-trial with essentially no data to suggest it is oncologically effective,” Dr. Shoag said.

William Catalona, MD, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, agreed, noting that too many low-risk patients are undergoing focal treatment who should be on active surveillance. “Many men are attracted to focal because they just are uncomfortable having a cancer in their body that’s not treated,” Dr. Catalona said. But “giving these patients focal therapy is really overtreatment.”

Patients with higher-risk disease who want to avoid aggressive treatment are also being lured into focal without guidelines or clear evidence to back up that option, Dr. Catalona explained.

Although it’s not clear how many men in the United States are receiving focal therapy who shouldn’t, even proponents of focal therapy, like George, have expressed concern.

Dr. George agreed that focal therapy marketing geared towards patients is drawing in some men who are not good candidates for these techniques, and feels there’s not enough objective material from medical societies or academic centers giving patients a realistic picture of focal therapy. 

“There is concern that patients may be receiving biased information,” Dr. George said, adding that it’s ultimately up to the physician to reconcile the best available evidence, understand the outcomes, and discuss these options with the patient to guide them to what’s best.

At the end of the day, Dr. Spratt said, physicians giving focal therapy off a clinical trial need to pause and ask themselves “why are they giving a treatment that remains investigational by payers, not recommended by any major guideline, and that lacks any randomized evidence?” 

Mr. LaFrate does not regret his decision to forgo focal therapy in 2013. He has been on active surveillance for about a decade now.

Following an MRI in 2022, Mr. LaFrate’s radiology report found that “clinically significant cancer is very unlikely to be present.”

Still, his PSA has risen two points in the past year to 14. His current urologist feels that the PSA is going up because there’s cancer present and is suggesting focal therapy for Mr. LaFrate.

Mr. LaFrate, who has prostate enlargement issues, remains skeptical of focal therapy and is still resisting the sales pitch.

“My doctor is not aggressively pushing it. He’s just giving me that as one of my options,” he said. “I just have a hunch I don’t need it at this point.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Reports of a small number of patients developing secondary T-cell malignancies following treatment with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapy have raised concerns and prompted a class-wide boxed warning to the labeling of the therapies by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but for now experts underscore that the benefits of the groundbreaking therapies still appear to well outweigh the risks.

Importantly, most specialists agree, so far the risk appears no greater than the known risk of secondary primary malignancies that is well established with other cancer therapies.

“The data that we have so far suggest that the risk of secondary T-cell lymphoma in patients treated with CAR T-cells is similar to [that] of patients treated with other cancer therapies, [including] chemotherapy, radiation, transplantation,” Marco Ruella, MD, said in an interview. He reported on a case of a T-cell lymphoma occurring following CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania.

While his team is still investigating the development of such malignancies, “the FDA notice does not change our clinical practice and patients should be reassured that the benefit of CAR-T therapy significantly outweighs the potential risk of secondary malignancies including T-cell lymphoma,” said Dr. Ruella, scientific director of the Lymphoma Program, Division of Hematology and Oncology and Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
 

FDA: 28 Reports of Malignancies; 3 with Evidence of ‘Likely’ CAR T Involvement

Concerns were raised last November when the FDA announced in a safety communication that it was investigating the “serious risk of T-cell malignancy” following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed or CD19-directed CAR T-cell immunotherapies, citing reports from clinical trials and/or postmarketing adverse event data sources. Subsequently, in January, the FDA called for the boxed warning on all approved BCMA- and CD19-targeted genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies, which include: Abecma (idecabtagene vicleucel); Breyanzi (lisocabtagene maraleucel); Carvykti (ciltacabtagene autoleucel); Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel); Tecartus (brexucabtagene autoleucel); and Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel).

“Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, the FDA continues to investigate the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death,” the FDA reported in discussing the safety warnings.

The cases were detailed in a report from FDA researchers published in the New England Journal of Medicine, noting that as of December 31, 2023, the FDA had become aware of 22 cases of T-cell cancers occurring following CAR T-cell treatment, including T-cell lymphoma, T-cell large granular lymphocytosis, peripheral T-cell lymphoma, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

Report coauthor Peter Marks, MD, PhD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research in Silver Spring, Maryland, said in an interview that since the publication of their report, six new cases have emerged.

“As reported in the NEJM Perspective, there were 22 cases of T-cell malignancy after treatment with CAR T-cell immunotherapies as of December 31, 2023, but we have received additional reports and, as of February 9, 2024, FDA has now received 28 reports,” he said. “Note that as new cases are being reported, there will be updates to the total number of cases under ongoing review by FDA.”

The initial 22 cases all occurred relatively soon after treatment. Of 14 cases with sufficient data, all developed within 2 years of the CAR-T therapy, ranging from 1 to 19 months, with about half occurring in the first year after administration.

The cases involved five of the six FDA-approved CAR-T products, with the numbers too low to suggest an association with any particular product.

In three of the cases, the lymphoma was found in genetic testing to contain the CAR construction, “indicating that the CAR-T product was most likely involved in the development of the T-cell cancer,” according to the FDA researchers.

With inadequate genetic sampling in most of the remaining 19 cases, the association is less clear, however “the timing of several of the cases makes association a possibility,” Dr. Marks said. In their report, Dr. Marks and colleagues added that “determination of whether the T-cell cancer is associated with the CAR construct ... most likely won’t be possible for every case reported to date.”

Even if all the reported cases are assumed to be related to CAR-T treatment, the numbers still represent a very small proportion of the more than 27,000 doses of the six CAR-T therapies approved in the United States, the authors noted, but they cautioned that the numbers could indeed be higher than reported.

“Relying on postmarketing reporting may lead to underestimates of such cases,” they said.
 

Life-Long Monitoring Recommended

In response to the reports, the FDA is urging that clinicians’ monitoring of patients treated with CAR-T therapy should be lifelong.

“Patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored lifelong for new malignancies,” Dr. Marks said.

“In the event that a new malignancy occurs following treatment with these products, contact the manufacturer to report the event and obtain instructions on collection of patient samples for testing for the presence of the CAR transgene.”

In addition, cases should be reported to the FDA, either by calling or through the FDA’s medical product safety reporting program.
 

T-Cell Malignancy Case Report

In describing the case at their medical center in the report in Nature Medicine, Dr. Ruella and colleagues said a T-cell lymphoma occurred in a patient with non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma 3 months after an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell treatment.

As a result, the team conducted a subsequent analysis of 449 patients treated with CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania center, and with a median follow-up of 10.3 months, 16 patients (3.6%) had developed a secondary primary malignancy, with a median onset time of 26.4 months for solid and 9.7 months for hematological malignancies.

The patient who had developed a T-cell lymphoma tested negative for CAR integration upon diagnosis, and regarding the other cancers, Dr. Ruella noted that “we have no indication that the secondary malignancies are directly caused by the CAR-T therapy.

“We have many patients with a very long follow-up beyond 5 and even 10 years,” he said. “In these patients, we don’t see an increased risk of T-cell lymphoma.”
 

‘Cautious Reassurance’ Urged in Discussion with Patients

With alarming headlines on the findings suggesting that CAR-T therapy may cause cancer, Rahul Banerjee, MD, and colleagues at the University of Washington, Seattle, recommend the use of “cautious reassurance” in discussing the issue with patients. In a paper published in January in Blood Advances, they suggest a three-part response: underscoring that the benefits of CAR T “far outweigh” the risks in relapsed/refractory malignancies, that the ‘one-and-done’ nature of CAR-T infusions provide meaningful improvements in quality of life, and that the active cancer at hand is “a much larger threat than a hypothetical cancer years later.”

In many cases, patients may only have months to live without CAR-T therapy and will have already had multiple prior lines of therapy, therefore the CAR-T treatment itself may provide time for the secondary primary cancers from any of the treatments to emerge, as experts have noted.

“One has to be alive to be diagnosed with a secondary primary malignancy, and it’s thus very possible that CAR-T may be creating a type of ‘immortal time bias’ wherein patients live long enough to experience the unfortunate sequelae of their previous therapies,” Dr. Banerjee explained in an interview.

Nevertheless, the potential for substantial improvements in quality of life with CAR-T therapy compared with traditional treatments addresses a top priority for patients, he added.

“For most patients with [for instance], myeloma, the ability of CAR-T to put them rapidly into a deep remission without the need for maintenance is an unheard-of potential for them,” Dr. Banerjee said.

“In multiple myeloma, no CAR-T therapy has (yet) demonstrated an overall survival benefit — but I think the substantial quality-of-life benefit stands by itself as a big reason why patients continue to prefer CAR-T.”
 

Keep Patients In Touch with CAR T Centers

In light of the concerns regarding the secondary malignancies, Dr. Banerjee underscored that CAR-T patients should be kept in close touch with centers that have CAR-T treatment expertise.

With most patients followed primarily at community practices where CAR-T therapy is not administered, “I’d strongly encourage my colleagues in community practices to refer all eligible patients to a CAR-T-capable center for evaluation regardless of what their risk of post-CAR-T secondary primary malignancies may be,” Dr. Banerjee urged.

“Based on the evidence we have currently, which includes the FDA’s updated information, there are many more unknowns about this potential secondary primary malignancy risk than knowns,” he said. “This is of course a much more nuanced issue than any one package insert can convey, and CAR-T experts at treating centers can have these conversations at length with eligible patients who are nervous about these recent updates.”

Dr. Ruella disclosed that he holds patents related to CD19 CAR T cells, as well as relationships with NanoString, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Scailyte, Bayer, AbClon, Oxford NanoImaging, CURIOX, and Beckman Coulter, and he was the scientific founder of viTToria Biotherapeutics. Dr. Banerjee reported ties with BMS, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, SparkCures, Novartis, and Pack Health.

Reports of a small number of patients developing secondary T-cell malignancies following treatment with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapy have raised concerns and prompted a class-wide boxed warning to the labeling of the therapies by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but for now experts underscore that the benefits of the groundbreaking therapies still appear to well outweigh the risks.

Importantly, most specialists agree, so far the risk appears no greater than the known risk of secondary primary malignancies that is well established with other cancer therapies.

“The data that we have so far suggest that the risk of secondary T-cell lymphoma in patients treated with CAR T-cells is similar to [that] of patients treated with other cancer therapies, [including] chemotherapy, radiation, transplantation,” Marco Ruella, MD, said in an interview. He reported on a case of a T-cell lymphoma occurring following CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania.

While his team is still investigating the development of such malignancies, “the FDA notice does not change our clinical practice and patients should be reassured that the benefit of CAR-T therapy significantly outweighs the potential risk of secondary malignancies including T-cell lymphoma,” said Dr. Ruella, scientific director of the Lymphoma Program, Division of Hematology and Oncology and Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
 

FDA: 28 Reports of Malignancies; 3 with Evidence of ‘Likely’ CAR T Involvement

Concerns were raised last November when the FDA announced in a safety communication that it was investigating the “serious risk of T-cell malignancy” following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed or CD19-directed CAR T-cell immunotherapies, citing reports from clinical trials and/or postmarketing adverse event data sources. Subsequently, in January, the FDA called for the boxed warning on all approved BCMA- and CD19-targeted genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies, which include: Abecma (idecabtagene vicleucel); Breyanzi (lisocabtagene maraleucel); Carvykti (ciltacabtagene autoleucel); Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel); Tecartus (brexucabtagene autoleucel); and Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel).

“Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, the FDA continues to investigate the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death,” the FDA reported in discussing the safety warnings.

The cases were detailed in a report from FDA researchers published in the New England Journal of Medicine, noting that as of December 31, 2023, the FDA had become aware of 22 cases of T-cell cancers occurring following CAR T-cell treatment, including T-cell lymphoma, T-cell large granular lymphocytosis, peripheral T-cell lymphoma, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

Report coauthor Peter Marks, MD, PhD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research in Silver Spring, Maryland, said in an interview that since the publication of their report, six new cases have emerged.

“As reported in the NEJM Perspective, there were 22 cases of T-cell malignancy after treatment with CAR T-cell immunotherapies as of December 31, 2023, but we have received additional reports and, as of February 9, 2024, FDA has now received 28 reports,” he said. “Note that as new cases are being reported, there will be updates to the total number of cases under ongoing review by FDA.”

The initial 22 cases all occurred relatively soon after treatment. Of 14 cases with sufficient data, all developed within 2 years of the CAR-T therapy, ranging from 1 to 19 months, with about half occurring in the first year after administration.

The cases involved five of the six FDA-approved CAR-T products, with the numbers too low to suggest an association with any particular product.

In three of the cases, the lymphoma was found in genetic testing to contain the CAR construction, “indicating that the CAR-T product was most likely involved in the development of the T-cell cancer,” according to the FDA researchers.

With inadequate genetic sampling in most of the remaining 19 cases, the association is less clear, however “the timing of several of the cases makes association a possibility,” Dr. Marks said. In their report, Dr. Marks and colleagues added that “determination of whether the T-cell cancer is associated with the CAR construct ... most likely won’t be possible for every case reported to date.”

Even if all the reported cases are assumed to be related to CAR-T treatment, the numbers still represent a very small proportion of the more than 27,000 doses of the six CAR-T therapies approved in the United States, the authors noted, but they cautioned that the numbers could indeed be higher than reported.

“Relying on postmarketing reporting may lead to underestimates of such cases,” they said.
 

Life-Long Monitoring Recommended

In response to the reports, the FDA is urging that clinicians’ monitoring of patients treated with CAR-T therapy should be lifelong.

“Patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored lifelong for new malignancies,” Dr. Marks said.

“In the event that a new malignancy occurs following treatment with these products, contact the manufacturer to report the event and obtain instructions on collection of patient samples for testing for the presence of the CAR transgene.”

In addition, cases should be reported to the FDA, either by calling or through the FDA’s medical product safety reporting program.
 

T-Cell Malignancy Case Report

In describing the case at their medical center in the report in Nature Medicine, Dr. Ruella and colleagues said a T-cell lymphoma occurred in a patient with non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma 3 months after an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell treatment.

As a result, the team conducted a subsequent analysis of 449 patients treated with CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania center, and with a median follow-up of 10.3 months, 16 patients (3.6%) had developed a secondary primary malignancy, with a median onset time of 26.4 months for solid and 9.7 months for hematological malignancies.

The patient who had developed a T-cell lymphoma tested negative for CAR integration upon diagnosis, and regarding the other cancers, Dr. Ruella noted that “we have no indication that the secondary malignancies are directly caused by the CAR-T therapy.

“We have many patients with a very long follow-up beyond 5 and even 10 years,” he said. “In these patients, we don’t see an increased risk of T-cell lymphoma.”
 

‘Cautious Reassurance’ Urged in Discussion with Patients

With alarming headlines on the findings suggesting that CAR-T therapy may cause cancer, Rahul Banerjee, MD, and colleagues at the University of Washington, Seattle, recommend the use of “cautious reassurance” in discussing the issue with patients. In a paper published in January in Blood Advances, they suggest a three-part response: underscoring that the benefits of CAR T “far outweigh” the risks in relapsed/refractory malignancies, that the ‘one-and-done’ nature of CAR-T infusions provide meaningful improvements in quality of life, and that the active cancer at hand is “a much larger threat than a hypothetical cancer years later.”

In many cases, patients may only have months to live without CAR-T therapy and will have already had multiple prior lines of therapy, therefore the CAR-T treatment itself may provide time for the secondary primary cancers from any of the treatments to emerge, as experts have noted.

“One has to be alive to be diagnosed with a secondary primary malignancy, and it’s thus very possible that CAR-T may be creating a type of ‘immortal time bias’ wherein patients live long enough to experience the unfortunate sequelae of their previous therapies,” Dr. Banerjee explained in an interview.

Nevertheless, the potential for substantial improvements in quality of life with CAR-T therapy compared with traditional treatments addresses a top priority for patients, he added.

“For most patients with [for instance], myeloma, the ability of CAR-T to put them rapidly into a deep remission without the need for maintenance is an unheard-of potential for them,” Dr. Banerjee said.

“In multiple myeloma, no CAR-T therapy has (yet) demonstrated an overall survival benefit — but I think the substantial quality-of-life benefit stands by itself as a big reason why patients continue to prefer CAR-T.”
 

Keep Patients In Touch with CAR T Centers

In light of the concerns regarding the secondary malignancies, Dr. Banerjee underscored that CAR-T patients should be kept in close touch with centers that have CAR-T treatment expertise.

With most patients followed primarily at community practices where CAR-T therapy is not administered, “I’d strongly encourage my colleagues in community practices to refer all eligible patients to a CAR-T-capable center for evaluation regardless of what their risk of post-CAR-T secondary primary malignancies may be,” Dr. Banerjee urged.

“Based on the evidence we have currently, which includes the FDA’s updated information, there are many more unknowns about this potential secondary primary malignancy risk than knowns,” he said. “This is of course a much more nuanced issue than any one package insert can convey, and CAR-T experts at treating centers can have these conversations at length with eligible patients who are nervous about these recent updates.”

Dr. Ruella disclosed that he holds patents related to CD19 CAR T cells, as well as relationships with NanoString, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Scailyte, Bayer, AbClon, Oxford NanoImaging, CURIOX, and Beckman Coulter, and he was the scientific founder of viTToria Biotherapeutics. Dr. Banerjee reported ties with BMS, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, SparkCures, Novartis, and Pack Health.

Reports of a small number of patients developing secondary T-cell malignancies following treatment with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapy have raised concerns and prompted a class-wide boxed warning to the labeling of the therapies by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but for now experts underscore that the benefits of the groundbreaking therapies still appear to well outweigh the risks.

Importantly, most specialists agree, so far the risk appears no greater than the known risk of secondary primary malignancies that is well established with other cancer therapies.

“The data that we have so far suggest that the risk of secondary T-cell lymphoma in patients treated with CAR T-cells is similar to [that] of patients treated with other cancer therapies, [including] chemotherapy, radiation, transplantation,” Marco Ruella, MD, said in an interview. He reported on a case of a T-cell lymphoma occurring following CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania.

While his team is still investigating the development of such malignancies, “the FDA notice does not change our clinical practice and patients should be reassured that the benefit of CAR-T therapy significantly outweighs the potential risk of secondary malignancies including T-cell lymphoma,” said Dr. Ruella, scientific director of the Lymphoma Program, Division of Hematology and Oncology and Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
 

FDA: 28 Reports of Malignancies; 3 with Evidence of ‘Likely’ CAR T Involvement

Concerns were raised last November when the FDA announced in a safety communication that it was investigating the “serious risk of T-cell malignancy” following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed or CD19-directed CAR T-cell immunotherapies, citing reports from clinical trials and/or postmarketing adverse event data sources. Subsequently, in January, the FDA called for the boxed warning on all approved BCMA- and CD19-targeted genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapies, which include: Abecma (idecabtagene vicleucel); Breyanzi (lisocabtagene maraleucel); Carvykti (ciltacabtagene autoleucel); Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel); Tecartus (brexucabtagene autoleucel); and Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel).

“Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks for their approved uses, the FDA continues to investigate the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death,” the FDA reported in discussing the safety warnings.

The cases were detailed in a report from FDA researchers published in the New England Journal of Medicine, noting that as of December 31, 2023, the FDA had become aware of 22 cases of T-cell cancers occurring following CAR T-cell treatment, including T-cell lymphoma, T-cell large granular lymphocytosis, peripheral T-cell lymphoma, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma.

Report coauthor Peter Marks, MD, PhD, of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research in Silver Spring, Maryland, said in an interview that since the publication of their report, six new cases have emerged.

“As reported in the NEJM Perspective, there were 22 cases of T-cell malignancy after treatment with CAR T-cell immunotherapies as of December 31, 2023, but we have received additional reports and, as of February 9, 2024, FDA has now received 28 reports,” he said. “Note that as new cases are being reported, there will be updates to the total number of cases under ongoing review by FDA.”

The initial 22 cases all occurred relatively soon after treatment. Of 14 cases with sufficient data, all developed within 2 years of the CAR-T therapy, ranging from 1 to 19 months, with about half occurring in the first year after administration.

The cases involved five of the six FDA-approved CAR-T products, with the numbers too low to suggest an association with any particular product.

In three of the cases, the lymphoma was found in genetic testing to contain the CAR construction, “indicating that the CAR-T product was most likely involved in the development of the T-cell cancer,” according to the FDA researchers.

With inadequate genetic sampling in most of the remaining 19 cases, the association is less clear, however “the timing of several of the cases makes association a possibility,” Dr. Marks said. In their report, Dr. Marks and colleagues added that “determination of whether the T-cell cancer is associated with the CAR construct ... most likely won’t be possible for every case reported to date.”

Even if all the reported cases are assumed to be related to CAR-T treatment, the numbers still represent a very small proportion of the more than 27,000 doses of the six CAR-T therapies approved in the United States, the authors noted, but they cautioned that the numbers could indeed be higher than reported.

“Relying on postmarketing reporting may lead to underestimates of such cases,” they said.
 

Life-Long Monitoring Recommended

In response to the reports, the FDA is urging that clinicians’ monitoring of patients treated with CAR-T therapy should be lifelong.

“Patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored lifelong for new malignancies,” Dr. Marks said.

“In the event that a new malignancy occurs following treatment with these products, contact the manufacturer to report the event and obtain instructions on collection of patient samples for testing for the presence of the CAR transgene.”

In addition, cases should be reported to the FDA, either by calling or through the FDA’s medical product safety reporting program.
 

T-Cell Malignancy Case Report

In describing the case at their medical center in the report in Nature Medicine, Dr. Ruella and colleagues said a T-cell lymphoma occurred in a patient with non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma 3 months after an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell treatment.

As a result, the team conducted a subsequent analysis of 449 patients treated with CAR-T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania center, and with a median follow-up of 10.3 months, 16 patients (3.6%) had developed a secondary primary malignancy, with a median onset time of 26.4 months for solid and 9.7 months for hematological malignancies.

The patient who had developed a T-cell lymphoma tested negative for CAR integration upon diagnosis, and regarding the other cancers, Dr. Ruella noted that “we have no indication that the secondary malignancies are directly caused by the CAR-T therapy.

“We have many patients with a very long follow-up beyond 5 and even 10 years,” he said. “In these patients, we don’t see an increased risk of T-cell lymphoma.”
 

‘Cautious Reassurance’ Urged in Discussion with Patients

With alarming headlines on the findings suggesting that CAR-T therapy may cause cancer, Rahul Banerjee, MD, and colleagues at the University of Washington, Seattle, recommend the use of “cautious reassurance” in discussing the issue with patients. In a paper published in January in Blood Advances, they suggest a three-part response: underscoring that the benefits of CAR T “far outweigh” the risks in relapsed/refractory malignancies, that the ‘one-and-done’ nature of CAR-T infusions provide meaningful improvements in quality of life, and that the active cancer at hand is “a much larger threat than a hypothetical cancer years later.”

In many cases, patients may only have months to live without CAR-T therapy and will have already had multiple prior lines of therapy, therefore the CAR-T treatment itself may provide time for the secondary primary cancers from any of the treatments to emerge, as experts have noted.

“One has to be alive to be diagnosed with a secondary primary malignancy, and it’s thus very possible that CAR-T may be creating a type of ‘immortal time bias’ wherein patients live long enough to experience the unfortunate sequelae of their previous therapies,” Dr. Banerjee explained in an interview.

Nevertheless, the potential for substantial improvements in quality of life with CAR-T therapy compared with traditional treatments addresses a top priority for patients, he added.

“For most patients with [for instance], myeloma, the ability of CAR-T to put them rapidly into a deep remission without the need for maintenance is an unheard-of potential for them,” Dr. Banerjee said.

“In multiple myeloma, no CAR-T therapy has (yet) demonstrated an overall survival benefit — but I think the substantial quality-of-life benefit stands by itself as a big reason why patients continue to prefer CAR-T.”
 

Keep Patients In Touch with CAR T Centers

In light of the concerns regarding the secondary malignancies, Dr. Banerjee underscored that CAR-T patients should be kept in close touch with centers that have CAR-T treatment expertise.

With most patients followed primarily at community practices where CAR-T therapy is not administered, “I’d strongly encourage my colleagues in community practices to refer all eligible patients to a CAR-T-capable center for evaluation regardless of what their risk of post-CAR-T secondary primary malignancies may be,” Dr. Banerjee urged.

“Based on the evidence we have currently, which includes the FDA’s updated information, there are many more unknowns about this potential secondary primary malignancy risk than knowns,” he said. “This is of course a much more nuanced issue than any one package insert can convey, and CAR-T experts at treating centers can have these conversations at length with eligible patients who are nervous about these recent updates.”

Dr. Ruella disclosed that he holds patents related to CD19 CAR T cells, as well as relationships with NanoString, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Scailyte, Bayer, AbClon, Oxford NanoImaging, CURIOX, and Beckman Coulter, and he was the scientific founder of viTToria Biotherapeutics. Dr. Banerjee reported ties with BMS, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, Janssen, Karyopharm, Pfizer, Sanofi, SparkCures, Novartis, and Pack Health.

The presence of any aberration in the SMAD4 gene and decreased messenger RNA sequencing expression of SMAD4 were both associated with worse overall survival in patients with resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

These were the main findings of a new study of more than 300 individuals.

Previous studies have shown an association between widespread disease and loss of SMAD4 immunolabeling, according to the paper. Biomarkers to predict which pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients may benefit from more aggressive therapy are lacking, wrote Emily J. Anstadt, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues, in their paper published in Cancer.

The human transcription factor and tumor suppressor, mothers against decapentaplegic homolog 4 (SMAD4), “may be a promising biomarker for predicting the likelihood of experiencing distant failure in patients with pancreatic cancer,” the researchers wrote.

“For patients with pancreatic cancer, improving treatments and overall outcomes remains invaluable,” Dr. Anstadt said in an interview. However, the disparate clinical courses make studies of this patient population challenging.

“As with much of medicine and oncology at this time, we feel the key to better outcomes lies in personalizing treatment strategies and relying on tumor genetics to predict tumor behavior and guide us towards individualized optimal treatments,” she added.
 

Study Methods and Results

The researchers identified 322 patients with resected stage I–III pancreatic adenocarcinoma from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC). The study population included 165 patients from the TCGA who served as the training set and 157 patients from the ICGC who served as the validation set.

The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS).

A total of 50 patients in the TCGA group (30%) had at least one of the three identified SMAD4 genomic aberrations.

Using the TCGA group, the researchers conducted a regression analysis on the survival outcomes as a function of either the presence of an SMAD4 genomic aberration or the expression of messenger RNA sequencing (RNA-seq). They then used the ICGC to validate whether SMAD4 RNA-seq expression improved risk stratification for OS and DMFS in a separate group of patients.

In the TCGA group, 3-year OS for patients with any SMAD4 aberrations vs no SMAD4 aberrations was 18% vs 36% (hazard ratio, 1.55; P = .048). However, the 3-year DMFS for patients with and without SMAD4 aberrations was 14% vs 23%, a nonsignificant difference (HR, 1.33; P = .19).

In a multivariate analysis, SMAD4 aberrations also were associated with increased risk of stage III disease (HR, 1.89; P = .003). The researchers noted that adjuvant radiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy were significantly associated with a decreased risk of death in these patients (HR, 0.53 and HR, 0.28, respectively).

In addition, low SMAD4 RNA-seq expression was associated with worse OS and DMFS, (HR, 1.83 and HR, 1.70, respectively) in the TCGA group.

In the ICGC validation group, increased SMAD4 RNA‐seq expression correlated with improved OS (area under the curve .92) and DMFS (AUC, .84).

Dr. Anstadt said she and her colleagues were not surprised by any of their findings, given earlier research’s suggestions of SMAD4 loss having been associated with poor outcomes for pancreatic cancer.

“Prior studies determined SMAD4 status based on immunohistochemistry and different investigators used different scoring systems,” Dr. Anstadt noted, in an interview. “The results of those studies were conflicting, and consequently SMAD4 has not been adopted clinically as part of the work-up or to aid in treatment decisions.”

“It is essential to find robust, reliable, and cost-effective methods for implementing this in the clinic. As such, we were happy to find that expression of SMAD4 by mRNA sequencing may be that method,” she added.

Not Quite Clinic-Ready

“While we are hopeful that this tool will be a reliable method for use in the clinic, it has yet to be validated in a prospective manner,” Dr. Anstadt said in an interview. “In addition, this study showed that [genetic] expression levels are correlated with worse outcomes and can be of prognostic use; however, we have not directly studied whether expression levels can be predictive of treatment response,” she said.

“Practicing oncologists often have to make difficult decisions in situations where there are no clear answers,” Dr. Anstadt continued. “When considering gray-zone treatment recommendations, we often integrate multiple factors to form an opinion. The reality of cancer medicine is that not all those factors we consider have been validated in prospective studies, but together they produce a picture that is clinically useful. We would submit that SMAD4 status should be one of those factors taken into consideration in forming a comprehensive opinion about suitability for resection or radiotherapy.”

In practice, “if this test is prospectively validated in a future study and will impact clinical decision-making, then this cost will be similar to other genetic tests that have been adopted and have been practice-changing in other oncologic fields,” said Dr. Anstadt. “Being able to individualize treatment can also save overall cost; for instance, predicting which patients would not benefit from local radiation or surgery could decrease use and cost in that population,” she said.

Limitations of the current study included the inability to examine interactions between SMAD4 and radiotherapy because of the sample size and the potential for selection bias, the researchers wrote.
 

Potential Predictive Value

“A major challenge in the management of patients with pancreatic cancer is the difficulty in predicting which patients will develop metastasis early,” said Jatin Roper, MD, a gastroenterologist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, in an interview.

“SMAD4 has previously been evaluated as a prognostic marker in pancreatic cancer, but the association between SMAD4 gene expression, gene mutations, and cancer metastasis has not yet been systematically evaluated in patients, said Dr. Roper, who was not involved in the study.

The new study’s main findings that SMAD4 genomic alterations are associated with worse overall survival, but not distant metastasis-free survival, and that increased SMAD4 expression is associated with improved overall survival and distant metastasis-free survival, suggest that SMAD4 gene expression may be a useful marker in predicting clinical outcomes in pancreatic cancer, Dr. Roper said.

In the future the current study may prompt prospective research to determine a potential association between clinical assessment of SMAD4 gene expression at the time of surgical cancer resection and worse overall survival and distant metastasis-free survival, he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Anstadt and Dr. Roper had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The presence of any aberration in the SMAD4 gene and decreased messenger RNA sequencing expression of SMAD4 were both associated with worse overall survival in patients with resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

These were the main findings of a new study of more than 300 individuals.

Previous studies have shown an association between widespread disease and loss of SMAD4 immunolabeling, according to the paper. Biomarkers to predict which pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients may benefit from more aggressive therapy are lacking, wrote Emily J. Anstadt, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues, in their paper published in Cancer.

The human transcription factor and tumor suppressor, mothers against decapentaplegic homolog 4 (SMAD4), “may be a promising biomarker for predicting the likelihood of experiencing distant failure in patients with pancreatic cancer,” the researchers wrote.

“For patients with pancreatic cancer, improving treatments and overall outcomes remains invaluable,” Dr. Anstadt said in an interview. However, the disparate clinical courses make studies of this patient population challenging.

“As with much of medicine and oncology at this time, we feel the key to better outcomes lies in personalizing treatment strategies and relying on tumor genetics to predict tumor behavior and guide us towards individualized optimal treatments,” she added.
 

Study Methods and Results

The researchers identified 322 patients with resected stage I–III pancreatic adenocarcinoma from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC). The study population included 165 patients from the TCGA who served as the training set and 157 patients from the ICGC who served as the validation set.

The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS).

A total of 50 patients in the TCGA group (30%) had at least one of the three identified SMAD4 genomic aberrations.

Using the TCGA group, the researchers conducted a regression analysis on the survival outcomes as a function of either the presence of an SMAD4 genomic aberration or the expression of messenger RNA sequencing (RNA-seq). They then used the ICGC to validate whether SMAD4 RNA-seq expression improved risk stratification for OS and DMFS in a separate group of patients.

In the TCGA group, 3-year OS for patients with any SMAD4 aberrations vs no SMAD4 aberrations was 18% vs 36% (hazard ratio, 1.55; P = .048). However, the 3-year DMFS for patients with and without SMAD4 aberrations was 14% vs 23%, a nonsignificant difference (HR, 1.33; P = .19).

In a multivariate analysis, SMAD4 aberrations also were associated with increased risk of stage III disease (HR, 1.89; P = .003). The researchers noted that adjuvant radiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy were significantly associated with a decreased risk of death in these patients (HR, 0.53 and HR, 0.28, respectively).

In addition, low SMAD4 RNA-seq expression was associated with worse OS and DMFS, (HR, 1.83 and HR, 1.70, respectively) in the TCGA group.

In the ICGC validation group, increased SMAD4 RNA‐seq expression correlated with improved OS (area under the curve .92) and DMFS (AUC, .84).

Dr. Anstadt said she and her colleagues were not surprised by any of their findings, given earlier research’s suggestions of SMAD4 loss having been associated with poor outcomes for pancreatic cancer.

“Prior studies determined SMAD4 status based on immunohistochemistry and different investigators used different scoring systems,” Dr. Anstadt noted, in an interview. “The results of those studies were conflicting, and consequently SMAD4 has not been adopted clinically as part of the work-up or to aid in treatment decisions.”

“It is essential to find robust, reliable, and cost-effective methods for implementing this in the clinic. As such, we were happy to find that expression of SMAD4 by mRNA sequencing may be that method,” she added.

Not Quite Clinic-Ready

“While we are hopeful that this tool will be a reliable method for use in the clinic, it has yet to be validated in a prospective manner,” Dr. Anstadt said in an interview. “In addition, this study showed that [genetic] expression levels are correlated with worse outcomes and can be of prognostic use; however, we have not directly studied whether expression levels can be predictive of treatment response,” she said.

“Practicing oncologists often have to make difficult decisions in situations where there are no clear answers,” Dr. Anstadt continued. “When considering gray-zone treatment recommendations, we often integrate multiple factors to form an opinion. The reality of cancer medicine is that not all those factors we consider have been validated in prospective studies, but together they produce a picture that is clinically useful. We would submit that SMAD4 status should be one of those factors taken into consideration in forming a comprehensive opinion about suitability for resection or radiotherapy.”

In practice, “if this test is prospectively validated in a future study and will impact clinical decision-making, then this cost will be similar to other genetic tests that have been adopted and have been practice-changing in other oncologic fields,” said Dr. Anstadt. “Being able to individualize treatment can also save overall cost; for instance, predicting which patients would not benefit from local radiation or surgery could decrease use and cost in that population,” she said.

Limitations of the current study included the inability to examine interactions between SMAD4 and radiotherapy because of the sample size and the potential for selection bias, the researchers wrote.
 

Potential Predictive Value

“A major challenge in the management of patients with pancreatic cancer is the difficulty in predicting which patients will develop metastasis early,” said Jatin Roper, MD, a gastroenterologist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, in an interview.

“SMAD4 has previously been evaluated as a prognostic marker in pancreatic cancer, but the association between SMAD4 gene expression, gene mutations, and cancer metastasis has not yet been systematically evaluated in patients, said Dr. Roper, who was not involved in the study.

The new study’s main findings that SMAD4 genomic alterations are associated with worse overall survival, but not distant metastasis-free survival, and that increased SMAD4 expression is associated with improved overall survival and distant metastasis-free survival, suggest that SMAD4 gene expression may be a useful marker in predicting clinical outcomes in pancreatic cancer, Dr. Roper said.

In the future the current study may prompt prospective research to determine a potential association between clinical assessment of SMAD4 gene expression at the time of surgical cancer resection and worse overall survival and distant metastasis-free survival, he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Anstadt and Dr. Roper had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The presence of any aberration in the SMAD4 gene and decreased messenger RNA sequencing expression of SMAD4 were both associated with worse overall survival in patients with resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

These were the main findings of a new study of more than 300 individuals.

Previous studies have shown an association between widespread disease and loss of SMAD4 immunolabeling, according to the paper. Biomarkers to predict which pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients may benefit from more aggressive therapy are lacking, wrote Emily J. Anstadt, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues, in their paper published in Cancer.

The human transcription factor and tumor suppressor, mothers against decapentaplegic homolog 4 (SMAD4), “may be a promising biomarker for predicting the likelihood of experiencing distant failure in patients with pancreatic cancer,” the researchers wrote.

“For patients with pancreatic cancer, improving treatments and overall outcomes remains invaluable,” Dr. Anstadt said in an interview. However, the disparate clinical courses make studies of this patient population challenging.

“As with much of medicine and oncology at this time, we feel the key to better outcomes lies in personalizing treatment strategies and relying on tumor genetics to predict tumor behavior and guide us towards individualized optimal treatments,” she added.
 

Study Methods and Results

The researchers identified 322 patients with resected stage I–III pancreatic adenocarcinoma from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC). The study population included 165 patients from the TCGA who served as the training set and 157 patients from the ICGC who served as the validation set.

The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS).

A total of 50 patients in the TCGA group (30%) had at least one of the three identified SMAD4 genomic aberrations.

Using the TCGA group, the researchers conducted a regression analysis on the survival outcomes as a function of either the presence of an SMAD4 genomic aberration or the expression of messenger RNA sequencing (RNA-seq). They then used the ICGC to validate whether SMAD4 RNA-seq expression improved risk stratification for OS and DMFS in a separate group of patients.

In the TCGA group, 3-year OS for patients with any SMAD4 aberrations vs no SMAD4 aberrations was 18% vs 36% (hazard ratio, 1.55; P = .048). However, the 3-year DMFS for patients with and without SMAD4 aberrations was 14% vs 23%, a nonsignificant difference (HR, 1.33; P = .19).

In a multivariate analysis, SMAD4 aberrations also were associated with increased risk of stage III disease (HR, 1.89; P = .003). The researchers noted that adjuvant radiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy were significantly associated with a decreased risk of death in these patients (HR, 0.53 and HR, 0.28, respectively).

In addition, low SMAD4 RNA-seq expression was associated with worse OS and DMFS, (HR, 1.83 and HR, 1.70, respectively) in the TCGA group.

In the ICGC validation group, increased SMAD4 RNA‐seq expression correlated with improved OS (area under the curve .92) and DMFS (AUC, .84).

Dr. Anstadt said she and her colleagues were not surprised by any of their findings, given earlier research’s suggestions of SMAD4 loss having been associated with poor outcomes for pancreatic cancer.

“Prior studies determined SMAD4 status based on immunohistochemistry and different investigators used different scoring systems,” Dr. Anstadt noted, in an interview. “The results of those studies were conflicting, and consequently SMAD4 has not been adopted clinically as part of the work-up or to aid in treatment decisions.”

“It is essential to find robust, reliable, and cost-effective methods for implementing this in the clinic. As such, we were happy to find that expression of SMAD4 by mRNA sequencing may be that method,” she added.

Not Quite Clinic-Ready

“While we are hopeful that this tool will be a reliable method for use in the clinic, it has yet to be validated in a prospective manner,” Dr. Anstadt said in an interview. “In addition, this study showed that [genetic] expression levels are correlated with worse outcomes and can be of prognostic use; however, we have not directly studied whether expression levels can be predictive of treatment response,” she said.

“Practicing oncologists often have to make difficult decisions in situations where there are no clear answers,” Dr. Anstadt continued. “When considering gray-zone treatment recommendations, we often integrate multiple factors to form an opinion. The reality of cancer medicine is that not all those factors we consider have been validated in prospective studies, but together they produce a picture that is clinically useful. We would submit that SMAD4 status should be one of those factors taken into consideration in forming a comprehensive opinion about suitability for resection or radiotherapy.”

In practice, “if this test is prospectively validated in a future study and will impact clinical decision-making, then this cost will be similar to other genetic tests that have been adopted and have been practice-changing in other oncologic fields,” said Dr. Anstadt. “Being able to individualize treatment can also save overall cost; for instance, predicting which patients would not benefit from local radiation or surgery could decrease use and cost in that population,” she said.

Limitations of the current study included the inability to examine interactions between SMAD4 and radiotherapy because of the sample size and the potential for selection bias, the researchers wrote.
 

Potential Predictive Value

“A major challenge in the management of patients with pancreatic cancer is the difficulty in predicting which patients will develop metastasis early,” said Jatin Roper, MD, a gastroenterologist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, in an interview.

“SMAD4 has previously been evaluated as a prognostic marker in pancreatic cancer, but the association between SMAD4 gene expression, gene mutations, and cancer metastasis has not yet been systematically evaluated in patients, said Dr. Roper, who was not involved in the study.

The new study’s main findings that SMAD4 genomic alterations are associated with worse overall survival, but not distant metastasis-free survival, and that increased SMAD4 expression is associated with improved overall survival and distant metastasis-free survival, suggest that SMAD4 gene expression may be a useful marker in predicting clinical outcomes in pancreatic cancer, Dr. Roper said.

In the future the current study may prompt prospective research to determine a potential association between clinical assessment of SMAD4 gene expression at the time of surgical cancer resection and worse overall survival and distant metastasis-free survival, he said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Anstadt and Dr. Roper had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs), the cells shed from a solid tumor into the bloodstream, may help doctors avoid having to do repeat needle biopsies on patients with unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

Challenges to using CTCs clinically are that they are not abundant in the blood and have been difficult to isolate in patients with this type of cancer with commercially available assays.

New research published in Cell Reports may bring doctors closer to using CTCs as a biomarker for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in clinic. In their paper, the authors show that an experimental nanotechnology can effectively isolate and measure CTCs in patients with stage 3 NSCLC. They also found that a precipitous drop in CTCs during chemoradiation treatment predicted significantly longer progression-free survival in those patients.
 

Study Results and Methods

For their research, study coauthors Shruti Jolly, MD, and Sunitha Nagrath, PhD, used a novel graphene oxide technology called the GO chip, developed more than a decade ago by Dr. Nagrath and her colleagues, to isolate CTCs from patients with stage 3 NSCLC. While a different technology, which is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), uses a single antibody to pick up CTCs, the GO chip uses a cocktail of three antibodies to CTC proteins, making it more sensitive.

The 26 patients in the study (mean age 67, 27% female) all received radiation treatment for 6 weeks, plus weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy. Sixteen of the patients afterward went on to have immunotherapy with durvalumab. Blood was drawn at six fixed time points: before treatment, and at weeks 1, 4, 10, 18, and 30. CTCs were measured and analyzed with every draw.

Previous studies showed that absolute number of CTCs did not correlate with either tumor volume or progression-free survival in NSCLC.

Dr. Jolly and Dr. Nagrath sought to measure change in CTCs from baseline for each patient, having the patient serve as his or her own control. They found that patients whose individual CTC counts dropped by 75% or more between pretreatment and week 4 of chemoradiation saw a mean 21 months of progression-free survival compared with 7 months for patients whose CTCs dropped by less than 75% in the same period (P = .0076).

Dr. Jolly and Dr. Nagrath also aimed to determine, as an exploratory outcome of their study, whether other information collected from the CTCs could predict response to treatment with durvalumab immunotherapy. They found that having more than 50% of CTCs positive for the protein PD-L1 correlated to shorter progression-free survival among the 16 patients receiving durvalumab (P = .04).

“Every person’s tumor is unique in terms of its response to treatment,” said Dr. Jolly, a radiation oncologist and professor and associate chair of community practices in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“Two people with a three-centimeter lung tumor will not necessarily shed the same amount of tumor cells into circulation. CTCs are reflective of disease burden; however, this is not related to the absolute numbers. That’s why we decided to use individualized baselines and look at the percentage of decrease,” she said.

Dr. Nagrath, professor of chemical and biomedical engineering at the University of Michigan, noted, in the same interview, that the findings argue for CTCs as a biomarker in stage 3 NSCLC.

“A lot of researchers who do lung cancer studies struggle with isolating lung cancer CTCs,” Dr. Nagrath said. “We showed, with repeated blood draws during treatment, what is changing at a molecular level and that you can see it with a simple blood draw. It also gives the proof of concept that if these cells are present, this is a good way to monitor and see if a treatment is working, even early in the treatment.” Moreover, she added, “many studies in lung cancer are in stage 4.”

Our study is unique as it followed patients with locally advanced tumors from their being treatment naive to all the way through immunotherapy,” she continued.

The University of Michigan has a patent on the GO chip technology, but thus far no company has made efforts to license it and submit it for approval. While “liquid biopsy” is an important emerging concept in lung cancer, there is little consensus yet as to which blood biomarkers — whether CTCs, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), or extracellular vesicles (EVs) — are most clinically relevant, Dr. Nagrath said.

The study’s small size is one of its weaknesses, according to the authors.
 

Findings are ‘Particularly Intriguing’

Majid Ebrahimi Warkiani, PhD, who was not involved in the study, described the new findings as “particularly intriguing [and] highlighting the efficacy of liquid biopsy using CTCs for predicting treatment outcomes.”

A challenge within the realm of CTCs lies in the community’s ongoing struggle to define and classify these cells accurately, Dr. Warkiani said in an interview.

“While surface protein markers offer valuable insights, emerging layers of analysis, such as metabolomics, are increasingly entering the scene to bolster the identification of putative cancer cells, alongside molecular tests like fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH),” said Dr. Warkiani of the University of Technology Sydney in Australia. “The amalgamation of these approaches simultaneously presents a significant challenge, particularly in terms of standardization for patient care, unlike ctDNA, which faces fewer bottlenecks.

“The robustness of the research in this study is commendable. However, further clinical testing and randomized trials are imperative,” Dr. Warkiani continued. “Companies like Epic Sciences are actively engaged in advancing research and standardization in this field.”

The study by Dr. Jolly and Dr. Nagrath was funded by the National Institutes of Health. None of the study authors reported financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Warkiani reported no conflicts of interest related to his comment.

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs), the cells shed from a solid tumor into the bloodstream, may help doctors avoid having to do repeat needle biopsies on patients with unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

Challenges to using CTCs clinically are that they are not abundant in the blood and have been difficult to isolate in patients with this type of cancer with commercially available assays.

New research published in Cell Reports may bring doctors closer to using CTCs as a biomarker for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in clinic. In their paper, the authors show that an experimental nanotechnology can effectively isolate and measure CTCs in patients with stage 3 NSCLC. They also found that a precipitous drop in CTCs during chemoradiation treatment predicted significantly longer progression-free survival in those patients.
 

Study Results and Methods

For their research, study coauthors Shruti Jolly, MD, and Sunitha Nagrath, PhD, used a novel graphene oxide technology called the GO chip, developed more than a decade ago by Dr. Nagrath and her colleagues, to isolate CTCs from patients with stage 3 NSCLC. While a different technology, which is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), uses a single antibody to pick up CTCs, the GO chip uses a cocktail of three antibodies to CTC proteins, making it more sensitive.

The 26 patients in the study (mean age 67, 27% female) all received radiation treatment for 6 weeks, plus weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy. Sixteen of the patients afterward went on to have immunotherapy with durvalumab. Blood was drawn at six fixed time points: before treatment, and at weeks 1, 4, 10, 18, and 30. CTCs were measured and analyzed with every draw.

Previous studies showed that absolute number of CTCs did not correlate with either tumor volume or progression-free survival in NSCLC.

Dr. Jolly and Dr. Nagrath sought to measure change in CTCs from baseline for each patient, having the patient serve as his or her own control. They found that patients whose individual CTC counts dropped by 75% or more between pretreatment and week 4 of chemoradiation saw a mean 21 months of progression-free survival compared with 7 months for patients whose CTCs dropped by less than 75% in the same period (P = .0076).

Dr. Jolly and Dr. Nagrath also aimed to determine, as an exploratory outcome of their study, whether other information collected from the CTCs could predict response to treatment with durvalumab immunotherapy. They found that having more than 50% of CTCs positive for the protein PD-L1 correlated to shorter progression-free survival among the 16 patients receiving durvalumab (P = .04).

“Every person’s tumor is unique in terms of its response to treatment,” said Dr. Jolly, a radiation oncologist and professor and associate chair of community practices in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“Two people with a three-centimeter lung tumor will not necessarily shed the same amount of tumor cells into circulation. CTCs are reflective of disease burden; however, this is not related to the absolute numbers. That’s why we decided to use individualized baselines and look at the percentage of decrease,” she said.

Dr. Nagrath, professor of chemical and biomedical engineering at the University of Michigan, noted, in the same interview, that the findings argue for CTCs as a biomarker in stage 3 NSCLC.

“A lot of researchers who do lung cancer studies struggle with isolating lung cancer CTCs,” Dr. Nagrath said. “We showed, with repeated blood draws during treatment, what is changing at a molecular level and that you can see it with a simple blood draw. It also gives the proof of concept that if these cells are present, this is a good way to monitor and see if a treatment is working, even early in the treatment.” Moreover, she added, “many studies in lung cancer are in stage 4.”

Our study is unique as it followed patients with locally advanced tumors from their being treatment naive to all the way through immunotherapy,” she continued.

The University of Michigan has a patent on the GO chip technology, but thus far no company has made efforts to license it and submit it for approval. While “liquid biopsy” is an important emerging concept in lung cancer, there is little consensus yet as to which blood biomarkers — whether CTCs, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), or extracellular vesicles (EVs) — are most clinically relevant, Dr. Nagrath said.

The study’s small size is one of its weaknesses, according to the authors.
 

Findings are ‘Particularly Intriguing’

Majid Ebrahimi Warkiani, PhD, who was not involved in the study, described the new findings as “particularly intriguing [and] highlighting the efficacy of liquid biopsy using CTCs for predicting treatment outcomes.”

A challenge within the realm of CTCs lies in the community’s ongoing struggle to define and classify these cells accurately, Dr. Warkiani said in an interview.

“While surface protein markers offer valuable insights, emerging layers of analysis, such as metabolomics, are increasingly entering the scene to bolster the identification of putative cancer cells, alongside molecular tests like fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH),” said Dr. Warkiani of the University of Technology Sydney in Australia. “The amalgamation of these approaches simultaneously presents a significant challenge, particularly in terms of standardization for patient care, unlike ctDNA, which faces fewer bottlenecks.

“The robustness of the research in this study is commendable. However, further clinical testing and randomized trials are imperative,” Dr. Warkiani continued. “Companies like Epic Sciences are actively engaged in advancing research and standardization in this field.”

The study by Dr. Jolly and Dr. Nagrath was funded by the National Institutes of Health. None of the study authors reported financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Warkiani reported no conflicts of interest related to his comment.

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs), the cells shed from a solid tumor into the bloodstream, may help doctors avoid having to do repeat needle biopsies on patients with unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

Challenges to using CTCs clinically are that they are not abundant in the blood and have been difficult to isolate in patients with this type of cancer with commercially available assays.

New research published in Cell Reports may bring doctors closer to using CTCs as a biomarker for patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in clinic. In their paper, the authors show that an experimental nanotechnology can effectively isolate and measure CTCs in patients with stage 3 NSCLC. They also found that a precipitous drop in CTCs during chemoradiation treatment predicted significantly longer progression-free survival in those patients.
 

Study Results and Methods

For their research, study coauthors Shruti Jolly, MD, and Sunitha Nagrath, PhD, used a novel graphene oxide technology called the GO chip, developed more than a decade ago by Dr. Nagrath and her colleagues, to isolate CTCs from patients with stage 3 NSCLC. While a different technology, which is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), uses a single antibody to pick up CTCs, the GO chip uses a cocktail of three antibodies to CTC proteins, making it more sensitive.

The 26 patients in the study (mean age 67, 27% female) all received radiation treatment for 6 weeks, plus weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy. Sixteen of the patients afterward went on to have immunotherapy with durvalumab. Blood was drawn at six fixed time points: before treatment, and at weeks 1, 4, 10, 18, and 30. CTCs were measured and analyzed with every draw.

Previous studies showed that absolute number of CTCs did not correlate with either tumor volume or progression-free survival in NSCLC.

Dr. Jolly and Dr. Nagrath sought to measure change in CTCs from baseline for each patient, having the patient serve as his or her own control. They found that patients whose individual CTC counts dropped by 75% or more between pretreatment and week 4 of chemoradiation saw a mean 21 months of progression-free survival compared with 7 months for patients whose CTCs dropped by less than 75% in the same period (P = .0076).

Dr. Jolly and Dr. Nagrath also aimed to determine, as an exploratory outcome of their study, whether other information collected from the CTCs could predict response to treatment with durvalumab immunotherapy. They found that having more than 50% of CTCs positive for the protein PD-L1 correlated to shorter progression-free survival among the 16 patients receiving durvalumab (P = .04).

“Every person’s tumor is unique in terms of its response to treatment,” said Dr. Jolly, a radiation oncologist and professor and associate chair of community practices in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“Two people with a three-centimeter lung tumor will not necessarily shed the same amount of tumor cells into circulation. CTCs are reflective of disease burden; however, this is not related to the absolute numbers. That’s why we decided to use individualized baselines and look at the percentage of decrease,” she said.

Dr. Nagrath, professor of chemical and biomedical engineering at the University of Michigan, noted, in the same interview, that the findings argue for CTCs as a biomarker in stage 3 NSCLC.

“A lot of researchers who do lung cancer studies struggle with isolating lung cancer CTCs,” Dr. Nagrath said. “We showed, with repeated blood draws during treatment, what is changing at a molecular level and that you can see it with a simple blood draw. It also gives the proof of concept that if these cells are present, this is a good way to monitor and see if a treatment is working, even early in the treatment.” Moreover, she added, “many studies in lung cancer are in stage 4.”

Our study is unique as it followed patients with locally advanced tumors from their being treatment naive to all the way through immunotherapy,” she continued.

The University of Michigan has a patent on the GO chip technology, but thus far no company has made efforts to license it and submit it for approval. While “liquid biopsy” is an important emerging concept in lung cancer, there is little consensus yet as to which blood biomarkers — whether CTCs, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), or extracellular vesicles (EVs) — are most clinically relevant, Dr. Nagrath said.

The study’s small size is one of its weaknesses, according to the authors.
 

Findings are ‘Particularly Intriguing’

Majid Ebrahimi Warkiani, PhD, who was not involved in the study, described the new findings as “particularly intriguing [and] highlighting the efficacy of liquid biopsy using CTCs for predicting treatment outcomes.”

A challenge within the realm of CTCs lies in the community’s ongoing struggle to define and classify these cells accurately, Dr. Warkiani said in an interview.

“While surface protein markers offer valuable insights, emerging layers of analysis, such as metabolomics, are increasingly entering the scene to bolster the identification of putative cancer cells, alongside molecular tests like fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH),” said Dr. Warkiani of the University of Technology Sydney in Australia. “The amalgamation of these approaches simultaneously presents a significant challenge, particularly in terms of standardization for patient care, unlike ctDNA, which faces fewer bottlenecks.

“The robustness of the research in this study is commendable. However, further clinical testing and randomized trials are imperative,” Dr. Warkiani continued. “Companies like Epic Sciences are actively engaged in advancing research and standardization in this field.”

The study by Dr. Jolly and Dr. Nagrath was funded by the National Institutes of Health. None of the study authors reported financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Warkiani reported no conflicts of interest related to his comment.

A study from the University of Texas demonstrates the feasibility of using robotic single-port laparoscopy in nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), a type of conservative mastectomy preserving the skin and nipple-areola complex. The new findings potentially expand the application of robotic surgery to a larger patient population but doubts about the safety of this approach linger.

Robotic Mastectomy

The first surgeries involving the Da Vinci robotic surgeon for breast removal date to 2015. Multiport robotic surgery faces significant obstacles in this field, however. Feasibility studies have primarily focused on women with small breasts, corresponding to cup size C or smaller.

In the study that was published in JAMA Surgery, surgeons used the more cost-effective single-port platform for bilateral NSM procedures. Among the 20 patients included in the analysis (age, 29-63 years), 11 underwent prophylactic mastectomy (for a high risk for cancer) and 9 had mastectomy for breast tumors. Breast sizes ranged from A cup to D cup.

The duration of the procedure, from skin incision to suture for both breasts, ranged from 205 to 351 minutes (median, 277 minutes). No immediate operative complications (eg, hematoma) occurred, and there was no need for conversion to open surgery in any case. Over the 36-month follow-up, there were no recurrences. About 95% of patients retained skin sensitivity and 55% retained nipple sensitivity.
 

Unanswered Questions

In an accompanying article, Monica Morrow, MD, director of surgical breast oncology at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, acknowledged that the new evidence confirms the surgical approach’s feasibility but deems it insufficient to adopt it lightly. “At this point, the issue is not whether robotic mastectomy can be done but whether there is sufficient information about its oncologic safety that it should be done,” she wrote.

In a 2019 statement that was updated in 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration stated, “The safety and effectiveness of using robotically assisted surgical devices in mastectomy procedures or in the prevention or treatment of breast cancer have not been established.” The significance of this caution is underscored by the experience with laparoscopic and robotic radical hysterectomies. These procedures were widely adopted until a randomized prospective study demonstrated lower disease-free and overall survival for the minimally invasive approach compared with open surgery.

The University of Texas surgeons stated that acceptable safety and oncological outcomes for robotic NSM compared with conventional NSM had been demonstrated. They cited two trials with 238 cases and a median follow-up of less than 3 years. Dr. Morrow wrote, “While these reports provide reassurance that gross residual tumor is not being left behind, they do not address the issue of failure to remove all of the breast tissue due to thick skin flaps, with the potential for development of late recurrence or new cancers.” It is worth noting that even with the traditional surgical approach, the 5-year local recurrence rate after NSM is approximately double when observed with shorter follow-ups.

According to Dr. Morrow, the high rate of sensory preservation observed with robotic surgery, a desirable outcome for patients, is also a cause for concern. “While this may be due to incision placement or minimal skin flap retraction, as suggested by the authors, it is equally plausible that this could be due to thick skin flaps with preservation of the terminal branches of the fourth intercostal nerve.”

Therefore, more information on long-term oncological outcomes in a large number of patients will be necessary to confirm the safety of the procedure. In addition, measuring patient-reported outcomes will be useful in demonstrating that the benefits of the procedure outweigh increased operating times and costs. 

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study from the University of Texas demonstrates the feasibility of using robotic single-port laparoscopy in nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), a type of conservative mastectomy preserving the skin and nipple-areola complex. The new findings potentially expand the application of robotic surgery to a larger patient population but doubts about the safety of this approach linger.

Robotic Mastectomy

The first surgeries involving the Da Vinci robotic surgeon for breast removal date to 2015. Multiport robotic surgery faces significant obstacles in this field, however. Feasibility studies have primarily focused on women with small breasts, corresponding to cup size C or smaller.

In the study that was published in JAMA Surgery, surgeons used the more cost-effective single-port platform for bilateral NSM procedures. Among the 20 patients included in the analysis (age, 29-63 years), 11 underwent prophylactic mastectomy (for a high risk for cancer) and 9 had mastectomy for breast tumors. Breast sizes ranged from A cup to D cup.

The duration of the procedure, from skin incision to suture for both breasts, ranged from 205 to 351 minutes (median, 277 minutes). No immediate operative complications (eg, hematoma) occurred, and there was no need for conversion to open surgery in any case. Over the 36-month follow-up, there were no recurrences. About 95% of patients retained skin sensitivity and 55% retained nipple sensitivity.
 

Unanswered Questions

In an accompanying article, Monica Morrow, MD, director of surgical breast oncology at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, acknowledged that the new evidence confirms the surgical approach’s feasibility but deems it insufficient to adopt it lightly. “At this point, the issue is not whether robotic mastectomy can be done but whether there is sufficient information about its oncologic safety that it should be done,” she wrote.

In a 2019 statement that was updated in 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration stated, “The safety and effectiveness of using robotically assisted surgical devices in mastectomy procedures or in the prevention or treatment of breast cancer have not been established.” The significance of this caution is underscored by the experience with laparoscopic and robotic radical hysterectomies. These procedures were widely adopted until a randomized prospective study demonstrated lower disease-free and overall survival for the minimally invasive approach compared with open surgery.

The University of Texas surgeons stated that acceptable safety and oncological outcomes for robotic NSM compared with conventional NSM had been demonstrated. They cited two trials with 238 cases and a median follow-up of less than 3 years. Dr. Morrow wrote, “While these reports provide reassurance that gross residual tumor is not being left behind, they do not address the issue of failure to remove all of the breast tissue due to thick skin flaps, with the potential for development of late recurrence or new cancers.” It is worth noting that even with the traditional surgical approach, the 5-year local recurrence rate after NSM is approximately double when observed with shorter follow-ups.

According to Dr. Morrow, the high rate of sensory preservation observed with robotic surgery, a desirable outcome for patients, is also a cause for concern. “While this may be due to incision placement or minimal skin flap retraction, as suggested by the authors, it is equally plausible that this could be due to thick skin flaps with preservation of the terminal branches of the fourth intercostal nerve.”

Therefore, more information on long-term oncological outcomes in a large number of patients will be necessary to confirm the safety of the procedure. In addition, measuring patient-reported outcomes will be useful in demonstrating that the benefits of the procedure outweigh increased operating times and costs. 

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study from the University of Texas demonstrates the feasibility of using robotic single-port laparoscopy in nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), a type of conservative mastectomy preserving the skin and nipple-areola complex. The new findings potentially expand the application of robotic surgery to a larger patient population but doubts about the safety of this approach linger.

Robotic Mastectomy

The first surgeries involving the Da Vinci robotic surgeon for breast removal date to 2015. Multiport robotic surgery faces significant obstacles in this field, however. Feasibility studies have primarily focused on women with small breasts, corresponding to cup size C or smaller.

In the study that was published in JAMA Surgery, surgeons used the more cost-effective single-port platform for bilateral NSM procedures. Among the 20 patients included in the analysis (age, 29-63 years), 11 underwent prophylactic mastectomy (for a high risk for cancer) and 9 had mastectomy for breast tumors. Breast sizes ranged from A cup to D cup.

The duration of the procedure, from skin incision to suture for both breasts, ranged from 205 to 351 minutes (median, 277 minutes). No immediate operative complications (eg, hematoma) occurred, and there was no need for conversion to open surgery in any case. Over the 36-month follow-up, there were no recurrences. About 95% of patients retained skin sensitivity and 55% retained nipple sensitivity.
 

Unanswered Questions

In an accompanying article, Monica Morrow, MD, director of surgical breast oncology at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, acknowledged that the new evidence confirms the surgical approach’s feasibility but deems it insufficient to adopt it lightly. “At this point, the issue is not whether robotic mastectomy can be done but whether there is sufficient information about its oncologic safety that it should be done,” she wrote.

In a 2019 statement that was updated in 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration stated, “The safety and effectiveness of using robotically assisted surgical devices in mastectomy procedures or in the prevention or treatment of breast cancer have not been established.” The significance of this caution is underscored by the experience with laparoscopic and robotic radical hysterectomies. These procedures were widely adopted until a randomized prospective study demonstrated lower disease-free and overall survival for the minimally invasive approach compared with open surgery.

The University of Texas surgeons stated that acceptable safety and oncological outcomes for robotic NSM compared with conventional NSM had been demonstrated. They cited two trials with 238 cases and a median follow-up of less than 3 years. Dr. Morrow wrote, “While these reports provide reassurance that gross residual tumor is not being left behind, they do not address the issue of failure to remove all of the breast tissue due to thick skin flaps, with the potential for development of late recurrence or new cancers.” It is worth noting that even with the traditional surgical approach, the 5-year local recurrence rate after NSM is approximately double when observed with shorter follow-ups.

According to Dr. Morrow, the high rate of sensory preservation observed with robotic surgery, a desirable outcome for patients, is also a cause for concern. “While this may be due to incision placement or minimal skin flap retraction, as suggested by the authors, it is equally plausible that this could be due to thick skin flaps with preservation of the terminal branches of the fourth intercostal nerve.”

Therefore, more information on long-term oncological outcomes in a large number of patients will be necessary to confirm the safety of the procedure. In addition, measuring patient-reported outcomes will be useful in demonstrating that the benefits of the procedure outweigh increased operating times and costs. 

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The arrival of GLP-1 receptor agonists has revolutionized treatment options for people with obesity and medical practice.

This news organization recently hosted a panel of experts across specialties — including endocrinology, gastroenterology, and obesity medicine — to discuss these potentially life-changing medications and to answer questions from the audience.

Because of the flood of queries from our audience, we asked our panelists to address some of the questions that didn’t make the recording. Their answers are below.

Beverly Tchang, MD, endocrinologist, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City

Audience member: Can you initiate glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as a primary drug in a patient with obesity and newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes?

BT: We often prescribe GLP-1 RAs to individuals with type 2 diabetes as a first-line medication. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association are really emphasizing a patient-centered approach, and metformin may not be the best first-line medication anymore.

Audience member: What should clinicians know about dose titration of GLP-1 RAs in diabetic patients with renal disease, especially those in stages IV and V chronic kidney disease?

BT: GLP-1 RAs do not need to be renally dosed, but I still recommend conferring with the patient’s nephrologist because the glomerular filtration rate might decrease in the setting of dehydration. Because GLP1s suppress the thirst, not just appetite, patients can go all day without drinking water and not feel thirsty.

Michael Camilleri, MD, gastroenterologist, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

Audience member: Should GLP-1 RAs be held for 1 week or 4 weeks prior to surgery to reduce the patient’s risk for aspiration? And is tapering required?

MC: For a patient taking liraglutide, I would hold the drug for 1 week prior to surgery. For patients taking other GLP-1 RAs, including extended exenatide, I advise holding for between 2 and 3 weeks before the procedure. It’s also important to make sure the patient’s diabetes is well-controlled with other medications — not GLP-1 RAs — during this period.

After surgery, you can restart GLP-1 RA therapy once there is recovery of oral food intake and normal bowel function.

Audience member: Is treatment with GLP-1 RAs appropriate for a patient with a family history of colon cancer but an otherwise unremarkable medical and family history?

MC: I have not seen a contraindication to receiving GLP-1 RAs based on a family history of colorectal cancer or other malignancies. An analysis of the French national healthcare insurance system database has suggested 1-3 years use of GLP-1 RAs (exenatide, liraglutide, and dulaglutide) may be linked with increased occurrence of thyroid cancer. Data from 37 randomized controlled trials and 19 real-world studies having 16,839 patients in placebo control group, 16,550 patients in active control group, and 13,330 patients in real-world studies were analyzed in a 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared to placebo or active control treatments, occurrence of pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, and all neoplasms — benign, malignant, and otherwise unspecified — were similar in the semaglutide group.

Toshi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, FAAFP, family physician, Zucker School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York

Audience member: What do you do about elevated liver functions after starting treatment with GLP-1 RAs, and what do you do when a patient has reached their weight loss goal?

TI-M: I recommend monitoring the liver function tests, evaluating for underlying causes, such as viral hepatitis, alcohol-related damage, or problems with other medications, and consulting a gastroenterologist or liver specialist if necessary. It’s also important to discuss the risk-benefit of continuing on the GP-1 RA for that particular patient.

Audience member: What effects will GLP-1 RAs have on sleep-disordered breathing/obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)? Are you aware of any ongoing trials addressing this subject?

TI-M: GLP-1 RAs may have beneficial effects on sleep-disordered breathing and OSA through weight loss, which can lead to a reduction in excess adipose tissue, and improvements in metabolic parameters. In terms of studies, a 2023 paper addressed this question, but more research is needed.

Audience member: Is it within a psychiatric provider’s scope of practice to prescribe GLP-1 agents for the reduction of weight gain associated with psychiatric medications?

TI-M: Obesity medicine is an interdisciplinary process. Numerous medications prescribed for mental health can contribute to obesity, and psychiatrists can play a role in collaborating with a patient’s primary care provider and/or obesity medicine specialist to determine which medications can be adjusted or replaced. It is important to remember that obesity management is not just about medications. It requires managing nutrition and activity in addition to behavioral health issues and social determinants of health. If the clinician has had the training to manage these pillars and is comfortable managing this chronic illness — similar to diabetes, hypertension, and other conditions — then this is a possibility. Otherwise, team-based care is appropriate.

Holly Lofton, MD, obesity medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York City

Audience member: Can we safely use them on patients who have had bariatric surgery and regularly develop dumping syndrome?

HL: These medications can be used after bariatric surgery in patients who meet the criteria for pharmacologic treatment. If a patient is having postoperative symptoms of dumping syndrome or excessive gastrointestinal losses from vomiting or diarrhea, dietary adjustments and other methods of managing the dumping syndrome in gastric bypass patients should be initiated before considering GLP-1 RAs because these patients do not have a functioning pylorus in their alimentary tract and these drugs are not indicated to treat dumping syndrome. The first-line approach typically involves reducing the patient’s intake of simple carbohydrates but can also include medications or surgical intervention when appropriate.

Audience member: Would teaching a patient to fast intermittently while they’re on GLP-1 RAs help them preserve weight loss if they choose to wean off the medication?

HL: Personally, I feel it is best to use the titration period and the time in which the patient is actively losing weight when on GLP-1 RAs. These are the best periods to help develop an individualized treatment plan, one that includes nutrition, activity, behavior modification, and resistance training. The patient’s lifestyle plan will likely change based on their environment and other factors. Intermittent fasting can be a part of such a plan. There is no consensus as to exactly which eating pattern will help patients maintain weight once they lose the physiologic benefit of the weight loss medications. However, studies have been published that demonstrate an average weight regain of 66% or greater when patients go from taking the maximum dose of a GLP-1 RA to taking none at all. Thus, patients should still be followed closely for weight regain when they discontinue a GLP-1 RA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The arrival of GLP-1 receptor agonists has revolutionized treatment options for people with obesity and medical practice.

This news organization recently hosted a panel of experts across specialties — including endocrinology, gastroenterology, and obesity medicine — to discuss these potentially life-changing medications and to answer questions from the audience.

Because of the flood of queries from our audience, we asked our panelists to address some of the questions that didn’t make the recording. Their answers are below.

Beverly Tchang, MD, endocrinologist, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City

Audience member: Can you initiate glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as a primary drug in a patient with obesity and newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes?

BT: We often prescribe GLP-1 RAs to individuals with type 2 diabetes as a first-line medication. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association are really emphasizing a patient-centered approach, and metformin may not be the best first-line medication anymore.

Audience member: What should clinicians know about dose titration of GLP-1 RAs in diabetic patients with renal disease, especially those in stages IV and V chronic kidney disease?

BT: GLP-1 RAs do not need to be renally dosed, but I still recommend conferring with the patient’s nephrologist because the glomerular filtration rate might decrease in the setting of dehydration. Because GLP1s suppress the thirst, not just appetite, patients can go all day without drinking water and not feel thirsty.

Michael Camilleri, MD, gastroenterologist, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

Audience member: Should GLP-1 RAs be held for 1 week or 4 weeks prior to surgery to reduce the patient’s risk for aspiration? And is tapering required?

MC: For a patient taking liraglutide, I would hold the drug for 1 week prior to surgery. For patients taking other GLP-1 RAs, including extended exenatide, I advise holding for between 2 and 3 weeks before the procedure. It’s also important to make sure the patient’s diabetes is well-controlled with other medications — not GLP-1 RAs — during this period.

After surgery, you can restart GLP-1 RA therapy once there is recovery of oral food intake and normal bowel function.

Audience member: Is treatment with GLP-1 RAs appropriate for a patient with a family history of colon cancer but an otherwise unremarkable medical and family history?

MC: I have not seen a contraindication to receiving GLP-1 RAs based on a family history of colorectal cancer or other malignancies. An analysis of the French national healthcare insurance system database has suggested 1-3 years use of GLP-1 RAs (exenatide, liraglutide, and dulaglutide) may be linked with increased occurrence of thyroid cancer. Data from 37 randomized controlled trials and 19 real-world studies having 16,839 patients in placebo control group, 16,550 patients in active control group, and 13,330 patients in real-world studies were analyzed in a 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared to placebo or active control treatments, occurrence of pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, and all neoplasms — benign, malignant, and otherwise unspecified — were similar in the semaglutide group.

Toshi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, FAAFP, family physician, Zucker School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York

Audience member: What do you do about elevated liver functions after starting treatment with GLP-1 RAs, and what do you do when a patient has reached their weight loss goal?

TI-M: I recommend monitoring the liver function tests, evaluating for underlying causes, such as viral hepatitis, alcohol-related damage, or problems with other medications, and consulting a gastroenterologist or liver specialist if necessary. It’s also important to discuss the risk-benefit of continuing on the GP-1 RA for that particular patient.

Audience member: What effects will GLP-1 RAs have on sleep-disordered breathing/obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)? Are you aware of any ongoing trials addressing this subject?

TI-M: GLP-1 RAs may have beneficial effects on sleep-disordered breathing and OSA through weight loss, which can lead to a reduction in excess adipose tissue, and improvements in metabolic parameters. In terms of studies, a 2023 paper addressed this question, but more research is needed.

Audience member: Is it within a psychiatric provider’s scope of practice to prescribe GLP-1 agents for the reduction of weight gain associated with psychiatric medications?

TI-M: Obesity medicine is an interdisciplinary process. Numerous medications prescribed for mental health can contribute to obesity, and psychiatrists can play a role in collaborating with a patient’s primary care provider and/or obesity medicine specialist to determine which medications can be adjusted or replaced. It is important to remember that obesity management is not just about medications. It requires managing nutrition and activity in addition to behavioral health issues and social determinants of health. If the clinician has had the training to manage these pillars and is comfortable managing this chronic illness — similar to diabetes, hypertension, and other conditions — then this is a possibility. Otherwise, team-based care is appropriate.

Holly Lofton, MD, obesity medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York City

Audience member: Can we safely use them on patients who have had bariatric surgery and regularly develop dumping syndrome?

HL: These medications can be used after bariatric surgery in patients who meet the criteria for pharmacologic treatment. If a patient is having postoperative symptoms of dumping syndrome or excessive gastrointestinal losses from vomiting or diarrhea, dietary adjustments and other methods of managing the dumping syndrome in gastric bypass patients should be initiated before considering GLP-1 RAs because these patients do not have a functioning pylorus in their alimentary tract and these drugs are not indicated to treat dumping syndrome. The first-line approach typically involves reducing the patient’s intake of simple carbohydrates but can also include medications or surgical intervention when appropriate.

Audience member: Would teaching a patient to fast intermittently while they’re on GLP-1 RAs help them preserve weight loss if they choose to wean off the medication?

HL: Personally, I feel it is best to use the titration period and the time in which the patient is actively losing weight when on GLP-1 RAs. These are the best periods to help develop an individualized treatment plan, one that includes nutrition, activity, behavior modification, and resistance training. The patient’s lifestyle plan will likely change based on their environment and other factors. Intermittent fasting can be a part of such a plan. There is no consensus as to exactly which eating pattern will help patients maintain weight once they lose the physiologic benefit of the weight loss medications. However, studies have been published that demonstrate an average weight regain of 66% or greater when patients go from taking the maximum dose of a GLP-1 RA to taking none at all. Thus, patients should still be followed closely for weight regain when they discontinue a GLP-1 RA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The arrival of GLP-1 receptor agonists has revolutionized treatment options for people with obesity and medical practice.

This news organization recently hosted a panel of experts across specialties — including endocrinology, gastroenterology, and obesity medicine — to discuss these potentially life-changing medications and to answer questions from the audience.

Because of the flood of queries from our audience, we asked our panelists to address some of the questions that didn’t make the recording. Their answers are below.

Beverly Tchang, MD, endocrinologist, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City

Audience member: Can you initiate glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP-1 RAs) as a primary drug in a patient with obesity and newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes?

BT: We often prescribe GLP-1 RAs to individuals with type 2 diabetes as a first-line medication. Guidelines from the American Diabetes Association are really emphasizing a patient-centered approach, and metformin may not be the best first-line medication anymore.

Audience member: What should clinicians know about dose titration of GLP-1 RAs in diabetic patients with renal disease, especially those in stages IV and V chronic kidney disease?

BT: GLP-1 RAs do not need to be renally dosed, but I still recommend conferring with the patient’s nephrologist because the glomerular filtration rate might decrease in the setting of dehydration. Because GLP1s suppress the thirst, not just appetite, patients can go all day without drinking water and not feel thirsty.

Michael Camilleri, MD, gastroenterologist, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota

Audience member: Should GLP-1 RAs be held for 1 week or 4 weeks prior to surgery to reduce the patient’s risk for aspiration? And is tapering required?

MC: For a patient taking liraglutide, I would hold the drug for 1 week prior to surgery. For patients taking other GLP-1 RAs, including extended exenatide, I advise holding for between 2 and 3 weeks before the procedure. It’s also important to make sure the patient’s diabetes is well-controlled with other medications — not GLP-1 RAs — during this period.

After surgery, you can restart GLP-1 RA therapy once there is recovery of oral food intake and normal bowel function.

Audience member: Is treatment with GLP-1 RAs appropriate for a patient with a family history of colon cancer but an otherwise unremarkable medical and family history?

MC: I have not seen a contraindication to receiving GLP-1 RAs based on a family history of colorectal cancer or other malignancies. An analysis of the French national healthcare insurance system database has suggested 1-3 years use of GLP-1 RAs (exenatide, liraglutide, and dulaglutide) may be linked with increased occurrence of thyroid cancer. Data from 37 randomized controlled trials and 19 real-world studies having 16,839 patients in placebo control group, 16,550 patients in active control group, and 13,330 patients in real-world studies were analyzed in a 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared to placebo or active control treatments, occurrence of pancreatic cancer, thyroid cancer, and all neoplasms — benign, malignant, and otherwise unspecified — were similar in the semaglutide group.

Toshi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, MBA, FAAFP, family physician, Zucker School of Medicine, Hempstead, New York

Audience member: What do you do about elevated liver functions after starting treatment with GLP-1 RAs, and what do you do when a patient has reached their weight loss goal?

TI-M: I recommend monitoring the liver function tests, evaluating for underlying causes, such as viral hepatitis, alcohol-related damage, or problems with other medications, and consulting a gastroenterologist or liver specialist if necessary. It’s also important to discuss the risk-benefit of continuing on the GP-1 RA for that particular patient.

Audience member: What effects will GLP-1 RAs have on sleep-disordered breathing/obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)? Are you aware of any ongoing trials addressing this subject?

TI-M: GLP-1 RAs may have beneficial effects on sleep-disordered breathing and OSA through weight loss, which can lead to a reduction in excess adipose tissue, and improvements in metabolic parameters. In terms of studies, a 2023 paper addressed this question, but more research is needed.

Audience member: Is it within a psychiatric provider’s scope of practice to prescribe GLP-1 agents for the reduction of weight gain associated with psychiatric medications?

TI-M: Obesity medicine is an interdisciplinary process. Numerous medications prescribed for mental health can contribute to obesity, and psychiatrists can play a role in collaborating with a patient’s primary care provider and/or obesity medicine specialist to determine which medications can be adjusted or replaced. It is important to remember that obesity management is not just about medications. It requires managing nutrition and activity in addition to behavioral health issues and social determinants of health. If the clinician has had the training to manage these pillars and is comfortable managing this chronic illness — similar to diabetes, hypertension, and other conditions — then this is a possibility. Otherwise, team-based care is appropriate.

Holly Lofton, MD, obesity medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York City

Audience member: Can we safely use them on patients who have had bariatric surgery and regularly develop dumping syndrome?

HL: These medications can be used after bariatric surgery in patients who meet the criteria for pharmacologic treatment. If a patient is having postoperative symptoms of dumping syndrome or excessive gastrointestinal losses from vomiting or diarrhea, dietary adjustments and other methods of managing the dumping syndrome in gastric bypass patients should be initiated before considering GLP-1 RAs because these patients do not have a functioning pylorus in their alimentary tract and these drugs are not indicated to treat dumping syndrome. The first-line approach typically involves reducing the patient’s intake of simple carbohydrates but can also include medications or surgical intervention when appropriate.

Audience member: Would teaching a patient to fast intermittently while they’re on GLP-1 RAs help them preserve weight loss if they choose to wean off the medication?

HL: Personally, I feel it is best to use the titration period and the time in which the patient is actively losing weight when on GLP-1 RAs. These are the best periods to help develop an individualized treatment plan, one that includes nutrition, activity, behavior modification, and resistance training. The patient’s lifestyle plan will likely change based on their environment and other factors. Intermittent fasting can be a part of such a plan. There is no consensus as to exactly which eating pattern will help patients maintain weight once they lose the physiologic benefit of the weight loss medications. However, studies have been published that demonstrate an average weight regain of 66% or greater when patients go from taking the maximum dose of a GLP-1 RA to taking none at all. Thus, patients should still be followed closely for weight regain when they discontinue a GLP-1 RA.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The patient had an advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) on the face that seemed to be affecting the facial nerve, ruling out aggressive surgery. When Mohs surgery failed to clear the tumor, radiation was ordered. But the best option — an immune checkpoint inhibitor — could not be administered because the patient was a lung transplant recipient.

Although approved for metastatic cSCC, immune checkpoint inhibitors are associated with a higher potential for rejection of an organ transplant.

“The feeling is that the risk of rejection is just too great if we were to try to give an immune checkpoint inhibitor,” said Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery at Yale Dermatology–Branford, in Connecticut, who was treating the patient. Dr. Christensen consulted with the transplant team, and together they decided to switch the patient to sirolimus, an immunosuppressant that has been shown to have less risk of promoting skin cancer in those who take the medication. Sirolimus, however, is not as well tolerated as the usual first-line immunosuppressant, tacrolimus.

Dr. Christensen

Dr. Bottomley

Reducing Risk Factors

Dr. Bottomley said that there’s also been renewed effort to identify how to reduce cSCC risk in transplant recipients through recently developed consensus guidelines and a proposed decision framework developed by Dr. Bottomley and colleagues. The evidence will help clinicians have “greater confidence in making early interventions,” he said.

Currently, solid organ transplant patients are told to reduce sun exposure, in part because the majority of cSCCs occur in sun-exposed areas, such as the head and neck, and ultraviolet radiation leads to mutations. “Sun protection is critical,” Dr. Christensen said. That’s especially true in younger transplant recipients, who may have decades of sun exposure, he said.

The immunosuppressive medications also increase cancer risk, for a variety of reasons. One of the more-commonly used immunosuppressants in the past, azathioprine, is itself carcinogenic. Other antirejection medications, such as tacrolimus and mycophenolate, may also induce mutagenic changes that give rise to malignancies, according to the paper by Dr. Bibee, assistant professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.

Both Dr. Bibee, in her paper, and Dr. Arron, in an interview, noted that voriconazole, an antifungal used to prevent Aspergillus infection after lung transplant, has been associated with an increase in cSCC in lung transplant recipients.

Dr. Arron

In addition, immunosuppression essentially “blocks the body’s immune system from recognizing that there are abnormal cancerous cells present,” Dr. Arron, a dermatologist in private practice in Burlingame, California, told this news organization.

Previously, while at the High-Risk Skin Cancer Program at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Dr. Arron and others studied whether human papillomavirus (HPV) might play a role in spurring the development of cSCC formation in the immunocompromised. HPV is highly prevalent on the skin, but the virus found on the skin tends to be composed of lower-risk strains.

“In our research, we did not find any biologic mechanism by which this virus might be driving these cancers,” said Dr. Arron, although she said that some researchers “feel very strongly that HPV must be in some way a driver.”

Dr. Bottomley believes that HPV’s role has not been completely determined. The excess incidence of cSCC suggests a virus might be involved, as has been seen with excess risk of lymphoma in patients with Epstein-Barr virus, he said.

Some of his research is focusing on whether advanced immune aging is an independent risk factor for subsequent cSCC development in solid organ transplant recipients. The immune system undergoes changes as people age, and the speed of this process varies from patient to patient, which means immune age can be different from chronological age, said Dr. Bottomley. “We’re still exploring why immune aging should predispose you to cSCC,” he said.
 

When to Intervene?

Transplant patients are followed by dermatologists at regular intervals. But guidelines are not consistent on the recommended timing of those intervals.

Dr. Arron and colleagues in 2019 created a risk prediction module that recommended frequency of follow-up based on low, medium, high, or very high risk. The tool is available to clinicians in an app called SUNTRAC, or the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator.

A question that Dr. Arron said dermatologists and transplant specialists have wrangled with: How early can they intervene to prevent further lesions?

In the 2022 decision framework paper in Transplant International, Dr. Bottomley and dermatology colleagues from around the world attempted to better delineate when and how clinicians should intervene when a cSCC is first detected. That first cSCC “should be regarded as a ‘red flag’ heralding an increased risk of further skin cancers and possibly internal malignancies,” the authors wrote. That moment is “a key opportunity to proactively consider secondary preventive strategies,” they wrote, but noted that the best interventions and “their sequencing remain unclear,” indicating the need for further research.
 

Coordinating With the Transplant Team

A key strategy to help prevent cSCC development — suggested in Dr. Bottomley’s paper, and by Dr. Arron and Dr. Christensen — is to consult with the transplant team on potentially changing a patient’s immunosuppressive medication or reducing the dose.

Dr. Arron said that a decade ago, it was somewhat of a novel concept, requiring data-sharing and making personal connections with the transplant team to forge trusting relationships. By the time she left UCSF a few years ago, she said, “the transplant program was very much on board with preventing and treating skin cancer and oftentimes they were making changes even before I would suggest them.”

Suggesting a change or dose reduction is not undertaken lightly. “Our transplant physician colleagues are balancing multiple problems in very sick patients, of which skin cancer might be one, but not the most pressing one in the setting of other transplant complications,” said Dr. Arron.

Dr. Bottomley said that “as transplant physicians, we very much respect and value the input of our dermatology colleagues,” but agreed that many factors “outside malignancy risk” must be weighed when considering changing an immunosuppressive regimen.

In a Delphi Consensus Statement on prevention of cSCC in organ transplant recipients, published in 2021 in JAMA Dermatology, the authors recommended having discussions about immunosuppression with transplant specialists, but did not make a recommendation on what strategy to use. The consensus panel said it preferred “to defer this decision to transplant physicians.”

Acitretin a Go, Nicotinamide Not So Much

Outside of changing an immunosuppressive regimen, among the interventions for secondary prevention are acitretin, the systemic retinoid, and nicotinamide, a form of niacin.

Dr. Christensen conducted a small retrospective investigation evaluating the effectiveness of acitretin in reducing cSCC in both immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients who had received care at Yale, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Acitretin reduced invasive cSCC by about 75% in both patient groups — a surprising result for the immunocompetent group, but well-established in patients who have had a solid organ transplant. But acitretin had no effect on cSCC in situ or basal cell carcinoma. “The benefit of acitretin is primarily in preventing the invasive SCC,” said Dr. Christensen, which is why he tends to reserve it for patients who have already had several cSCCs.

“It’s not a completely benign medication,” he said, noting the need for monitoring for cholesterol and liver function.

Several years ago, a study in immunocompetent patients, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that nicotinamide (also known as niacinamide) reduced the rate of nonmelonoma skin cancer by 23%, giving clinicians hope that it might also be a low-risk, low-cost cancer preventive for solid organ transplant patients. But enthusiasm has dampened since a 2023 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the vitamin did not reduce cSCCs in transplant recipients.

Dr. Christensen said he believes the most-recent study wasn’t powered to detect a 25% reduction in cancers. “It’s certainly possible that it still works exactly the same way in transplant patients that it does in immunocompetent patients,” he said. “There’s very little risk of recommending it to patients for general prevention. But it probably has a very modest effect in many,” he said.

Dr. Arron agreed, saying, “it may be that we simply need bigger studies to achieve that statistical significance.” Even so, she said she would not use the therapy “until there is more evidence supporting the use of nicotinamide in transplant recipients.”

Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as cemiplimab and pembrolizumab have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for advanced cSCC; nivolumab is another drug in the same class that has not yet been approved for cSCC. But “there’s always been a fear — and a legitimate fear — that if you gave those to organ transplant recipients they would reject their organ,” said Dr. Christensen.

Patients who take the checkpoint inhibitors may first have to stop taking their antirejection drugs, leaving them at risk. It also appears that the checkpoint inhibitors themselves contribute to organ rejection. Recent studies suggest that “the rate of organ rejection is only about 30% to 40%,” with the checkpoint inhibitors, said Dr. Christensen. “Obviously that’s still not an ideal outcome,” he said, but noted that with patients who have inoperable metastatic cSCC, “immune therapy can be a good option.”

Dr. Christensen reported no disclosures. Dr. Bottomley has previously received speaker fees and an educational grant from Astellas. Dr. Arron disclosed ties with Regeneron, Castle Biosciences, and Enspectra Health, not specific to transplantation.

The patient had an advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) on the face that seemed to be affecting the facial nerve, ruling out aggressive surgery. When Mohs surgery failed to clear the tumor, radiation was ordered. But the best option — an immune checkpoint inhibitor — could not be administered because the patient was a lung transplant recipient.

Although approved for metastatic cSCC, immune checkpoint inhibitors are associated with a higher potential for rejection of an organ transplant.

“The feeling is that the risk of rejection is just too great if we were to try to give an immune checkpoint inhibitor,” said Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery at Yale Dermatology–Branford, in Connecticut, who was treating the patient. Dr. Christensen consulted with the transplant team, and together they decided to switch the patient to sirolimus, an immunosuppressant that has been shown to have less risk of promoting skin cancer in those who take the medication. Sirolimus, however, is not as well tolerated as the usual first-line immunosuppressant, tacrolimus.

Dr. Christensen

Dr. Bottomley

Reducing Risk Factors

Dr. Bottomley said that there’s also been renewed effort to identify how to reduce cSCC risk in transplant recipients through recently developed consensus guidelines and a proposed decision framework developed by Dr. Bottomley and colleagues. The evidence will help clinicians have “greater confidence in making early interventions,” he said.

Currently, solid organ transplant patients are told to reduce sun exposure, in part because the majority of cSCCs occur in sun-exposed areas, such as the head and neck, and ultraviolet radiation leads to mutations. “Sun protection is critical,” Dr. Christensen said. That’s especially true in younger transplant recipients, who may have decades of sun exposure, he said.

The immunosuppressive medications also increase cancer risk, for a variety of reasons. One of the more-commonly used immunosuppressants in the past, azathioprine, is itself carcinogenic. Other antirejection medications, such as tacrolimus and mycophenolate, may also induce mutagenic changes that give rise to malignancies, according to the paper by Dr. Bibee, assistant professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.

Both Dr. Bibee, in her paper, and Dr. Arron, in an interview, noted that voriconazole, an antifungal used to prevent Aspergillus infection after lung transplant, has been associated with an increase in cSCC in lung transplant recipients.

Dr. Arron

In addition, immunosuppression essentially “blocks the body’s immune system from recognizing that there are abnormal cancerous cells present,” Dr. Arron, a dermatologist in private practice in Burlingame, California, told this news organization.

Previously, while at the High-Risk Skin Cancer Program at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Dr. Arron and others studied whether human papillomavirus (HPV) might play a role in spurring the development of cSCC formation in the immunocompromised. HPV is highly prevalent on the skin, but the virus found on the skin tends to be composed of lower-risk strains.

“In our research, we did not find any biologic mechanism by which this virus might be driving these cancers,” said Dr. Arron, although she said that some researchers “feel very strongly that HPV must be in some way a driver.”

Dr. Bottomley believes that HPV’s role has not been completely determined. The excess incidence of cSCC suggests a virus might be involved, as has been seen with excess risk of lymphoma in patients with Epstein-Barr virus, he said.

Some of his research is focusing on whether advanced immune aging is an independent risk factor for subsequent cSCC development in solid organ transplant recipients. The immune system undergoes changes as people age, and the speed of this process varies from patient to patient, which means immune age can be different from chronological age, said Dr. Bottomley. “We’re still exploring why immune aging should predispose you to cSCC,” he said.
 

When to Intervene?

Transplant patients are followed by dermatologists at regular intervals. But guidelines are not consistent on the recommended timing of those intervals.

Dr. Arron and colleagues in 2019 created a risk prediction module that recommended frequency of follow-up based on low, medium, high, or very high risk. The tool is available to clinicians in an app called SUNTRAC, or the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator.

A question that Dr. Arron said dermatologists and transplant specialists have wrangled with: How early can they intervene to prevent further lesions?

In the 2022 decision framework paper in Transplant International, Dr. Bottomley and dermatology colleagues from around the world attempted to better delineate when and how clinicians should intervene when a cSCC is first detected. That first cSCC “should be regarded as a ‘red flag’ heralding an increased risk of further skin cancers and possibly internal malignancies,” the authors wrote. That moment is “a key opportunity to proactively consider secondary preventive strategies,” they wrote, but noted that the best interventions and “their sequencing remain unclear,” indicating the need for further research.
 

Coordinating With the Transplant Team

A key strategy to help prevent cSCC development — suggested in Dr. Bottomley’s paper, and by Dr. Arron and Dr. Christensen — is to consult with the transplant team on potentially changing a patient’s immunosuppressive medication or reducing the dose.

Dr. Arron said that a decade ago, it was somewhat of a novel concept, requiring data-sharing and making personal connections with the transplant team to forge trusting relationships. By the time she left UCSF a few years ago, she said, “the transplant program was very much on board with preventing and treating skin cancer and oftentimes they were making changes even before I would suggest them.”

Suggesting a change or dose reduction is not undertaken lightly. “Our transplant physician colleagues are balancing multiple problems in very sick patients, of which skin cancer might be one, but not the most pressing one in the setting of other transplant complications,” said Dr. Arron.

Dr. Bottomley said that “as transplant physicians, we very much respect and value the input of our dermatology colleagues,” but agreed that many factors “outside malignancy risk” must be weighed when considering changing an immunosuppressive regimen.

In a Delphi Consensus Statement on prevention of cSCC in organ transplant recipients, published in 2021 in JAMA Dermatology, the authors recommended having discussions about immunosuppression with transplant specialists, but did not make a recommendation on what strategy to use. The consensus panel said it preferred “to defer this decision to transplant physicians.”

Acitretin a Go, Nicotinamide Not So Much

Outside of changing an immunosuppressive regimen, among the interventions for secondary prevention are acitretin, the systemic retinoid, and nicotinamide, a form of niacin.

Dr. Christensen conducted a small retrospective investigation evaluating the effectiveness of acitretin in reducing cSCC in both immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients who had received care at Yale, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Acitretin reduced invasive cSCC by about 75% in both patient groups — a surprising result for the immunocompetent group, but well-established in patients who have had a solid organ transplant. But acitretin had no effect on cSCC in situ or basal cell carcinoma. “The benefit of acitretin is primarily in preventing the invasive SCC,” said Dr. Christensen, which is why he tends to reserve it for patients who have already had several cSCCs.

“It’s not a completely benign medication,” he said, noting the need for monitoring for cholesterol and liver function.

Several years ago, a study in immunocompetent patients, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that nicotinamide (also known as niacinamide) reduced the rate of nonmelonoma skin cancer by 23%, giving clinicians hope that it might also be a low-risk, low-cost cancer preventive for solid organ transplant patients. But enthusiasm has dampened since a 2023 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the vitamin did not reduce cSCCs in transplant recipients.

Dr. Christensen said he believes the most-recent study wasn’t powered to detect a 25% reduction in cancers. “It’s certainly possible that it still works exactly the same way in transplant patients that it does in immunocompetent patients,” he said. “There’s very little risk of recommending it to patients for general prevention. But it probably has a very modest effect in many,” he said.

Dr. Arron agreed, saying, “it may be that we simply need bigger studies to achieve that statistical significance.” Even so, she said she would not use the therapy “until there is more evidence supporting the use of nicotinamide in transplant recipients.”

Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as cemiplimab and pembrolizumab have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for advanced cSCC; nivolumab is another drug in the same class that has not yet been approved for cSCC. But “there’s always been a fear — and a legitimate fear — that if you gave those to organ transplant recipients they would reject their organ,” said Dr. Christensen.

Patients who take the checkpoint inhibitors may first have to stop taking their antirejection drugs, leaving them at risk. It also appears that the checkpoint inhibitors themselves contribute to organ rejection. Recent studies suggest that “the rate of organ rejection is only about 30% to 40%,” with the checkpoint inhibitors, said Dr. Christensen. “Obviously that’s still not an ideal outcome,” he said, but noted that with patients who have inoperable metastatic cSCC, “immune therapy can be a good option.”

Dr. Christensen reported no disclosures. Dr. Bottomley has previously received speaker fees and an educational grant from Astellas. Dr. Arron disclosed ties with Regeneron, Castle Biosciences, and Enspectra Health, not specific to transplantation.

The patient had an advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) on the face that seemed to be affecting the facial nerve, ruling out aggressive surgery. When Mohs surgery failed to clear the tumor, radiation was ordered. But the best option — an immune checkpoint inhibitor — could not be administered because the patient was a lung transplant recipient.

Although approved for metastatic cSCC, immune checkpoint inhibitors are associated with a higher potential for rejection of an organ transplant.

“The feeling is that the risk of rejection is just too great if we were to try to give an immune checkpoint inhibitor,” said Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery at Yale Dermatology–Branford, in Connecticut, who was treating the patient. Dr. Christensen consulted with the transplant team, and together they decided to switch the patient to sirolimus, an immunosuppressant that has been shown to have less risk of promoting skin cancer in those who take the medication. Sirolimus, however, is not as well tolerated as the usual first-line immunosuppressant, tacrolimus.

Dr. Christensen

Dr. Bottomley

Reducing Risk Factors

Dr. Bottomley said that there’s also been renewed effort to identify how to reduce cSCC risk in transplant recipients through recently developed consensus guidelines and a proposed decision framework developed by Dr. Bottomley and colleagues. The evidence will help clinicians have “greater confidence in making early interventions,” he said.

Currently, solid organ transplant patients are told to reduce sun exposure, in part because the majority of cSCCs occur in sun-exposed areas, such as the head and neck, and ultraviolet radiation leads to mutations. “Sun protection is critical,” Dr. Christensen said. That’s especially true in younger transplant recipients, who may have decades of sun exposure, he said.

The immunosuppressive medications also increase cancer risk, for a variety of reasons. One of the more-commonly used immunosuppressants in the past, azathioprine, is itself carcinogenic. Other antirejection medications, such as tacrolimus and mycophenolate, may also induce mutagenic changes that give rise to malignancies, according to the paper by Dr. Bibee, assistant professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.

Both Dr. Bibee, in her paper, and Dr. Arron, in an interview, noted that voriconazole, an antifungal used to prevent Aspergillus infection after lung transplant, has been associated with an increase in cSCC in lung transplant recipients.

Dr. Arron

In addition, immunosuppression essentially “blocks the body’s immune system from recognizing that there are abnormal cancerous cells present,” Dr. Arron, a dermatologist in private practice in Burlingame, California, told this news organization.

Previously, while at the High-Risk Skin Cancer Program at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Dr. Arron and others studied whether human papillomavirus (HPV) might play a role in spurring the development of cSCC formation in the immunocompromised. HPV is highly prevalent on the skin, but the virus found on the skin tends to be composed of lower-risk strains.

“In our research, we did not find any biologic mechanism by which this virus might be driving these cancers,” said Dr. Arron, although she said that some researchers “feel very strongly that HPV must be in some way a driver.”

Dr. Bottomley believes that HPV’s role has not been completely determined. The excess incidence of cSCC suggests a virus might be involved, as has been seen with excess risk of lymphoma in patients with Epstein-Barr virus, he said.

Some of his research is focusing on whether advanced immune aging is an independent risk factor for subsequent cSCC development in solid organ transplant recipients. The immune system undergoes changes as people age, and the speed of this process varies from patient to patient, which means immune age can be different from chronological age, said Dr. Bottomley. “We’re still exploring why immune aging should predispose you to cSCC,” he said.
 

When to Intervene?

Transplant patients are followed by dermatologists at regular intervals. But guidelines are not consistent on the recommended timing of those intervals.

Dr. Arron and colleagues in 2019 created a risk prediction module that recommended frequency of follow-up based on low, medium, high, or very high risk. The tool is available to clinicians in an app called SUNTRAC, or the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator.

A question that Dr. Arron said dermatologists and transplant specialists have wrangled with: How early can they intervene to prevent further lesions?

In the 2022 decision framework paper in Transplant International, Dr. Bottomley and dermatology colleagues from around the world attempted to better delineate when and how clinicians should intervene when a cSCC is first detected. That first cSCC “should be regarded as a ‘red flag’ heralding an increased risk of further skin cancers and possibly internal malignancies,” the authors wrote. That moment is “a key opportunity to proactively consider secondary preventive strategies,” they wrote, but noted that the best interventions and “their sequencing remain unclear,” indicating the need for further research.
 

Coordinating With the Transplant Team

A key strategy to help prevent cSCC development — suggested in Dr. Bottomley’s paper, and by Dr. Arron and Dr. Christensen — is to consult with the transplant team on potentially changing a patient’s immunosuppressive medication or reducing the dose.

Dr. Arron said that a decade ago, it was somewhat of a novel concept, requiring data-sharing and making personal connections with the transplant team to forge trusting relationships. By the time she left UCSF a few years ago, she said, “the transplant program was very much on board with preventing and treating skin cancer and oftentimes they were making changes even before I would suggest them.”

Suggesting a change or dose reduction is not undertaken lightly. “Our transplant physician colleagues are balancing multiple problems in very sick patients, of which skin cancer might be one, but not the most pressing one in the setting of other transplant complications,” said Dr. Arron.

Dr. Bottomley said that “as transplant physicians, we very much respect and value the input of our dermatology colleagues,” but agreed that many factors “outside malignancy risk” must be weighed when considering changing an immunosuppressive regimen.

In a Delphi Consensus Statement on prevention of cSCC in organ transplant recipients, published in 2021 in JAMA Dermatology, the authors recommended having discussions about immunosuppression with transplant specialists, but did not make a recommendation on what strategy to use. The consensus panel said it preferred “to defer this decision to transplant physicians.”

Acitretin a Go, Nicotinamide Not So Much

Outside of changing an immunosuppressive regimen, among the interventions for secondary prevention are acitretin, the systemic retinoid, and nicotinamide, a form of niacin.

Dr. Christensen conducted a small retrospective investigation evaluating the effectiveness of acitretin in reducing cSCC in both immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients who had received care at Yale, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Acitretin reduced invasive cSCC by about 75% in both patient groups — a surprising result for the immunocompetent group, but well-established in patients who have had a solid organ transplant. But acitretin had no effect on cSCC in situ or basal cell carcinoma. “The benefit of acitretin is primarily in preventing the invasive SCC,” said Dr. Christensen, which is why he tends to reserve it for patients who have already had several cSCCs.

“It’s not a completely benign medication,” he said, noting the need for monitoring for cholesterol and liver function.

Several years ago, a study in immunocompetent patients, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that nicotinamide (also known as niacinamide) reduced the rate of nonmelonoma skin cancer by 23%, giving clinicians hope that it might also be a low-risk, low-cost cancer preventive for solid organ transplant patients. But enthusiasm has dampened since a 2023 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the vitamin did not reduce cSCCs in transplant recipients.

Dr. Christensen said he believes the most-recent study wasn’t powered to detect a 25% reduction in cancers. “It’s certainly possible that it still works exactly the same way in transplant patients that it does in immunocompetent patients,” he said. “There’s very little risk of recommending it to patients for general prevention. But it probably has a very modest effect in many,” he said.

Dr. Arron agreed, saying, “it may be that we simply need bigger studies to achieve that statistical significance.” Even so, she said she would not use the therapy “until there is more evidence supporting the use of nicotinamide in transplant recipients.”

Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as cemiplimab and pembrolizumab have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for advanced cSCC; nivolumab is another drug in the same class that has not yet been approved for cSCC. But “there’s always been a fear — and a legitimate fear — that if you gave those to organ transplant recipients they would reject their organ,” said Dr. Christensen.

Patients who take the checkpoint inhibitors may first have to stop taking their antirejection drugs, leaving them at risk. It also appears that the checkpoint inhibitors themselves contribute to organ rejection. Recent studies suggest that “the rate of organ rejection is only about 30% to 40%,” with the checkpoint inhibitors, said Dr. Christensen. “Obviously that’s still not an ideal outcome,” he said, but noted that with patients who have inoperable metastatic cSCC, “immune therapy can be a good option.”

Dr. Christensen reported no disclosures. Dr. Bottomley has previously received speaker fees and an educational grant from Astellas. Dr. Arron disclosed ties with Regeneron, Castle Biosciences, and Enspectra Health, not specific to transplantation.