User login
Widespread carboplatin, cisplatin shortages: NCCN survey
The survey, which included responses from 27 NCCN member institutions, revealed that 93% are experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and that 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin.
“This is an unacceptable situation,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, NCCN’s chief executive offer, said in the statement released by the network.
“We are hearing from oncologists and pharmacists across the country who have to scramble to find appropriate alternatives for treating their patients with cancer right now,” Dr. Carlson said. And while the survey results show patients are still able to get lifesaving care, “it comes at a burden to our overtaxed medical facilities.”
The NCCN called on the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers to take steps to “help mitigate any impacts” from this cancer drug shortage.
“We need to work together to improve the current situation and prevent it from happening again in the future,” Dr. Carlson stressed.
Carboplatin and cisplatin, which are frequently used together for systemic treatment, are highly effective therapies prescribed to treat many cancer types, including lung, breast, and prostate cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas. An estimated 500,000 new patients with cancer receive these agents each year.
The current survey, conducted over the last week of May, found that 100% of responding centers are able to continue to treat patients who need cisplatin without delays.
The same cannot be said for carboplatin: only 64% of centers said they are still able to continue treating all current patients receiving the platinum-based therapy. Among 19 responding centers, 20% reported that they were continuing carboplatin regimens for some but not all patients. And 16% reported treatment delays from having to obtain prior authorization for modified treatment plans, though none reported denials.
“Carboplatin has been in short supply for months but in the last 4 weeks has reached a critical stage,” according to one survey comment. “Without additional inventory many of our sites will be out of drug by early next week.”
In response to the survey question, “Is your center experiencing a shortage of carboplatin,” others made similar comments:
- “Current shipments from established manufacturers have been paused.”
- “The supply of carboplatin available is not meeting our demands.”
- “Without additional supply in early June, we will have to implement several shortage mitigation strategies.”
Survey respondents also addressed whether manufacturers or suppliers have provided any indication of when these drugs will become readily available again. For both drugs, about 60% of respondents said no. And for those who do receive updates, many noted that the “information is tentative and variable.”
Respondents indicated that other cancer agents, including methotrexate (67%) and 5FU (26%), are also in short supply at their centers.
The shortage and the uncertainty as to when it will end are forcing some centers to develop conservation and mitigation strategies.
The NCCN has broadly outlined how the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers can help with prevention and mitigation. The NCCN has called on the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry to work to secure a steady supply of core anticancer drugs and has asked payers to “put patients first and provide flexible and efficient systems of providing coverage for alternative therapies replacing anti-cancer drugs that are unavailable or in shortage.”
Overall, the survey results “demonstrate the widespread impact of the chemotherapy shortage,” said Alyssa Schatz, MSW, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN. “We hope that by sharing this survey and calling for united action across the oncology community, we can come together to prevent future drug shortages and ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care for all.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The survey, which included responses from 27 NCCN member institutions, revealed that 93% are experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and that 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin.
“This is an unacceptable situation,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, NCCN’s chief executive offer, said in the statement released by the network.
“We are hearing from oncologists and pharmacists across the country who have to scramble to find appropriate alternatives for treating their patients with cancer right now,” Dr. Carlson said. And while the survey results show patients are still able to get lifesaving care, “it comes at a burden to our overtaxed medical facilities.”
The NCCN called on the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers to take steps to “help mitigate any impacts” from this cancer drug shortage.
“We need to work together to improve the current situation and prevent it from happening again in the future,” Dr. Carlson stressed.
Carboplatin and cisplatin, which are frequently used together for systemic treatment, are highly effective therapies prescribed to treat many cancer types, including lung, breast, and prostate cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas. An estimated 500,000 new patients with cancer receive these agents each year.
The current survey, conducted over the last week of May, found that 100% of responding centers are able to continue to treat patients who need cisplatin without delays.
The same cannot be said for carboplatin: only 64% of centers said they are still able to continue treating all current patients receiving the platinum-based therapy. Among 19 responding centers, 20% reported that they were continuing carboplatin regimens for some but not all patients. And 16% reported treatment delays from having to obtain prior authorization for modified treatment plans, though none reported denials.
“Carboplatin has been in short supply for months but in the last 4 weeks has reached a critical stage,” according to one survey comment. “Without additional inventory many of our sites will be out of drug by early next week.”
In response to the survey question, “Is your center experiencing a shortage of carboplatin,” others made similar comments:
- “Current shipments from established manufacturers have been paused.”
- “The supply of carboplatin available is not meeting our demands.”
- “Without additional supply in early June, we will have to implement several shortage mitigation strategies.”
Survey respondents also addressed whether manufacturers or suppliers have provided any indication of when these drugs will become readily available again. For both drugs, about 60% of respondents said no. And for those who do receive updates, many noted that the “information is tentative and variable.”
Respondents indicated that other cancer agents, including methotrexate (67%) and 5FU (26%), are also in short supply at their centers.
The shortage and the uncertainty as to when it will end are forcing some centers to develop conservation and mitigation strategies.
The NCCN has broadly outlined how the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers can help with prevention and mitigation. The NCCN has called on the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry to work to secure a steady supply of core anticancer drugs and has asked payers to “put patients first and provide flexible and efficient systems of providing coverage for alternative therapies replacing anti-cancer drugs that are unavailable or in shortage.”
Overall, the survey results “demonstrate the widespread impact of the chemotherapy shortage,” said Alyssa Schatz, MSW, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN. “We hope that by sharing this survey and calling for united action across the oncology community, we can come together to prevent future drug shortages and ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care for all.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The survey, which included responses from 27 NCCN member institutions, revealed that 93% are experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and that 70% have reported a shortage of cisplatin.
“This is an unacceptable situation,” Robert W. Carlson, MD, NCCN’s chief executive offer, said in the statement released by the network.
“We are hearing from oncologists and pharmacists across the country who have to scramble to find appropriate alternatives for treating their patients with cancer right now,” Dr. Carlson said. And while the survey results show patients are still able to get lifesaving care, “it comes at a burden to our overtaxed medical facilities.”
The NCCN called on the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers to take steps to “help mitigate any impacts” from this cancer drug shortage.
“We need to work together to improve the current situation and prevent it from happening again in the future,” Dr. Carlson stressed.
Carboplatin and cisplatin, which are frequently used together for systemic treatment, are highly effective therapies prescribed to treat many cancer types, including lung, breast, and prostate cancers, as well as leukemias and lymphomas. An estimated 500,000 new patients with cancer receive these agents each year.
The current survey, conducted over the last week of May, found that 100% of responding centers are able to continue to treat patients who need cisplatin without delays.
The same cannot be said for carboplatin: only 64% of centers said they are still able to continue treating all current patients receiving the platinum-based therapy. Among 19 responding centers, 20% reported that they were continuing carboplatin regimens for some but not all patients. And 16% reported treatment delays from having to obtain prior authorization for modified treatment plans, though none reported denials.
“Carboplatin has been in short supply for months but in the last 4 weeks has reached a critical stage,” according to one survey comment. “Without additional inventory many of our sites will be out of drug by early next week.”
In response to the survey question, “Is your center experiencing a shortage of carboplatin,” others made similar comments:
- “Current shipments from established manufacturers have been paused.”
- “The supply of carboplatin available is not meeting our demands.”
- “Without additional supply in early June, we will have to implement several shortage mitigation strategies.”
Survey respondents also addressed whether manufacturers or suppliers have provided any indication of when these drugs will become readily available again. For both drugs, about 60% of respondents said no. And for those who do receive updates, many noted that the “information is tentative and variable.”
Respondents indicated that other cancer agents, including methotrexate (67%) and 5FU (26%), are also in short supply at their centers.
The shortage and the uncertainty as to when it will end are forcing some centers to develop conservation and mitigation strategies.
The NCCN has broadly outlined how the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, providers, and payers can help with prevention and mitigation. The NCCN has called on the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry to work to secure a steady supply of core anticancer drugs and has asked payers to “put patients first and provide flexible and efficient systems of providing coverage for alternative therapies replacing anti-cancer drugs that are unavailable or in shortage.”
Overall, the survey results “demonstrate the widespread impact of the chemotherapy shortage,” said Alyssa Schatz, MSW, senior director of policy and advocacy for NCCN. “We hope that by sharing this survey and calling for united action across the oncology community, we can come together to prevent future drug shortages and ensure quality, effective, equitable, and accessible cancer care for all.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Oral drug for brain tumor could change treatment landscape
say researchers reporting new results that could potentially change the treatment landscape.
The investigational drug vorasidenib (Servier) is awaiting approval for use in gliomas bearing mutations in IDH1 and IDH2.
Results from the pivotal phase 3 INDIGO trial show that the drug was associated with a significant delay in time to disease progression when compared with placebo.
The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 27.7 months for patients on vorasidenib, compared with 11.1 months for patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio for progression or death with vorasidenib of 0.39 (P < .0001).
Vorasidenib was also associated with significantly longer time to the next treatment, and patients generally tolerated the drug well, reported first author Ingo K. Mellinghoff, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
The results show that “treatment with an oral precision medicine therapy can produce a reduction in the risk of tumor progression by 61%, so that is, we think, a significant sign of efficacy that has potential to change the landscape in this disease,” he commented.
Dr. Mellinghoff spoke at a media briefing prior to presenting the data at a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.
“What you just heard is a trial that was well done and well thought out: to use an oral, targeted, well-tolerated therapy to see if we could delay the use of our standard chemotherapy and radiation,” commented ASCO expert Glenn Lesser, MD, from Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, N.C., the invited discussant at the briefing.
“The results are quite striking and they’re statistically highly significant, and more importantly, they’re clinically very, very significant,” he continued.
“The results of this study really suggest that, in selected patients with IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas, we can potentially delay the use of these toxic chemotherapies and radiation, maybe for years if not many years, and as a result delay the long-term toxicities of those therapies in a group of patients who typically are experiencing long-term survival,” Dr. Lesser added.
Brain-penetrating oral drug
Vorasidenib is an oral inhibitor of the IDH1 and IDH2 enzymes, with the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Mutations in IDH1 are found in about 80% of grade 2 gliomas, and IDH2 mutations occur in about 4%.
Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy has become the standard of care for patients with IDH-mutant grade 3 gliomas and patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 tumors who are thought to be a high risk for early progression.
Many patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 gliomas are initially followed with serial MRI scans, with toxic therapies reserved for use after disease progression, Dr. Mellinghoff noted.
Vorasidenib offers the potential for delaying the use of more toxic therapies and the potential to alter the natural history of diffuse glioma while helping patients to maintain a good quality of life, he said.
Study details
The INDIGO trial involved 331 patients with grade 2 gliomas with IDH mutations, who were enrolled across 77 centers in 10 countries in North America, Europe, and the Middle East.
Patients were aged 12-80 years and had residual or recurrent grade 2 IDH1- or IDH2-mutated oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma, with measurable nonenhancing disease and no prior treatment for glioma (with the most recent surgery 1-5 years before randomization). They were eligible for the study if they were not in immediate need of chemotherapy and/or radiation.
After stratification by 1p/19q status and baseline tumor size, they were randomly assigned to receive either vorasidenib 40 mg daily or placebo in 28-day cycles.
At the second planned interim analysis data cutoff in September 2022, at a median follow-up of 14.2 months, 226 (68.3%) of the 331 patients remained on treatment.
The primary endpoint was median PFS by blinded independent central review, which as noted above was 16.6 months longer in those on the drug, compared with placebo.
The time to next therapy was also significantly longer with vorasidenib, with a median not yet reached, compared with 17.4 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.26, P < .001).
Adverse events of any grade occurring in more than 20% of those receiving vorasidenib were elevated liver enzymes, fatigue, headache, diarrhea, and nausea. Grade 3 or 4 ALT elevations occurred in 9.6% of patients assigned to vorasidenib, but not in the placebo group.
Vorasidenib received fast-track status from the Food and Drug Administration in March. It is currently being studied in a phase 1 trial in combination with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with grade 2/3 gliomas, and further exploration of the drug in combination with other agents is being considered.
The study was funded by Servier Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of vorasidenib. Dr. Mellinghoff disclosed honoraria from Roche, a consulting or advisory role with Agios, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Debiopharm Group, Puma Biotechnology, Voyager Therapeutics, research funding from Amgen, General Electric, Lilly, and travel expenses from Agios, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, and Voyager Therapeutics. Dr. Lesser disclosed honoraria from SDP Oncology, consulting/advising for Cancer Expert Now, Agio, IN8bio, and Ono Pharmaceutical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
say researchers reporting new results that could potentially change the treatment landscape.
The investigational drug vorasidenib (Servier) is awaiting approval for use in gliomas bearing mutations in IDH1 and IDH2.
Results from the pivotal phase 3 INDIGO trial show that the drug was associated with a significant delay in time to disease progression when compared with placebo.
The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 27.7 months for patients on vorasidenib, compared with 11.1 months for patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio for progression or death with vorasidenib of 0.39 (P < .0001).
Vorasidenib was also associated with significantly longer time to the next treatment, and patients generally tolerated the drug well, reported first author Ingo K. Mellinghoff, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
The results show that “treatment with an oral precision medicine therapy can produce a reduction in the risk of tumor progression by 61%, so that is, we think, a significant sign of efficacy that has potential to change the landscape in this disease,” he commented.
Dr. Mellinghoff spoke at a media briefing prior to presenting the data at a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.
“What you just heard is a trial that was well done and well thought out: to use an oral, targeted, well-tolerated therapy to see if we could delay the use of our standard chemotherapy and radiation,” commented ASCO expert Glenn Lesser, MD, from Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, N.C., the invited discussant at the briefing.
“The results are quite striking and they’re statistically highly significant, and more importantly, they’re clinically very, very significant,” he continued.
“The results of this study really suggest that, in selected patients with IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas, we can potentially delay the use of these toxic chemotherapies and radiation, maybe for years if not many years, and as a result delay the long-term toxicities of those therapies in a group of patients who typically are experiencing long-term survival,” Dr. Lesser added.
Brain-penetrating oral drug
Vorasidenib is an oral inhibitor of the IDH1 and IDH2 enzymes, with the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Mutations in IDH1 are found in about 80% of grade 2 gliomas, and IDH2 mutations occur in about 4%.
Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy has become the standard of care for patients with IDH-mutant grade 3 gliomas and patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 tumors who are thought to be a high risk for early progression.
Many patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 gliomas are initially followed with serial MRI scans, with toxic therapies reserved for use after disease progression, Dr. Mellinghoff noted.
Vorasidenib offers the potential for delaying the use of more toxic therapies and the potential to alter the natural history of diffuse glioma while helping patients to maintain a good quality of life, he said.
Study details
The INDIGO trial involved 331 patients with grade 2 gliomas with IDH mutations, who were enrolled across 77 centers in 10 countries in North America, Europe, and the Middle East.
Patients were aged 12-80 years and had residual or recurrent grade 2 IDH1- or IDH2-mutated oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma, with measurable nonenhancing disease and no prior treatment for glioma (with the most recent surgery 1-5 years before randomization). They were eligible for the study if they were not in immediate need of chemotherapy and/or radiation.
After stratification by 1p/19q status and baseline tumor size, they were randomly assigned to receive either vorasidenib 40 mg daily or placebo in 28-day cycles.
At the second planned interim analysis data cutoff in September 2022, at a median follow-up of 14.2 months, 226 (68.3%) of the 331 patients remained on treatment.
The primary endpoint was median PFS by blinded independent central review, which as noted above was 16.6 months longer in those on the drug, compared with placebo.
The time to next therapy was also significantly longer with vorasidenib, with a median not yet reached, compared with 17.4 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.26, P < .001).
Adverse events of any grade occurring in more than 20% of those receiving vorasidenib were elevated liver enzymes, fatigue, headache, diarrhea, and nausea. Grade 3 or 4 ALT elevations occurred in 9.6% of patients assigned to vorasidenib, but not in the placebo group.
Vorasidenib received fast-track status from the Food and Drug Administration in March. It is currently being studied in a phase 1 trial in combination with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with grade 2/3 gliomas, and further exploration of the drug in combination with other agents is being considered.
The study was funded by Servier Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of vorasidenib. Dr. Mellinghoff disclosed honoraria from Roche, a consulting or advisory role with Agios, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Debiopharm Group, Puma Biotechnology, Voyager Therapeutics, research funding from Amgen, General Electric, Lilly, and travel expenses from Agios, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, and Voyager Therapeutics. Dr. Lesser disclosed honoraria from SDP Oncology, consulting/advising for Cancer Expert Now, Agio, IN8bio, and Ono Pharmaceutical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
say researchers reporting new results that could potentially change the treatment landscape.
The investigational drug vorasidenib (Servier) is awaiting approval for use in gliomas bearing mutations in IDH1 and IDH2.
Results from the pivotal phase 3 INDIGO trial show that the drug was associated with a significant delay in time to disease progression when compared with placebo.
The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 27.7 months for patients on vorasidenib, compared with 11.1 months for patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio for progression or death with vorasidenib of 0.39 (P < .0001).
Vorasidenib was also associated with significantly longer time to the next treatment, and patients generally tolerated the drug well, reported first author Ingo K. Mellinghoff, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.
The results show that “treatment with an oral precision medicine therapy can produce a reduction in the risk of tumor progression by 61%, so that is, we think, a significant sign of efficacy that has potential to change the landscape in this disease,” he commented.
Dr. Mellinghoff spoke at a media briefing prior to presenting the data at a plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.
The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation.
“What you just heard is a trial that was well done and well thought out: to use an oral, targeted, well-tolerated therapy to see if we could delay the use of our standard chemotherapy and radiation,” commented ASCO expert Glenn Lesser, MD, from Wake Forest Baptist Health in Winston-Salem, N.C., the invited discussant at the briefing.
“The results are quite striking and they’re statistically highly significant, and more importantly, they’re clinically very, very significant,” he continued.
“The results of this study really suggest that, in selected patients with IDH-mutant low-grade gliomas, we can potentially delay the use of these toxic chemotherapies and radiation, maybe for years if not many years, and as a result delay the long-term toxicities of those therapies in a group of patients who typically are experiencing long-term survival,” Dr. Lesser added.
Brain-penetrating oral drug
Vorasidenib is an oral inhibitor of the IDH1 and IDH2 enzymes, with the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. Mutations in IDH1 are found in about 80% of grade 2 gliomas, and IDH2 mutations occur in about 4%.
Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy has become the standard of care for patients with IDH-mutant grade 3 gliomas and patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 tumors who are thought to be a high risk for early progression.
Many patients with IDH-mutant grade 2 gliomas are initially followed with serial MRI scans, with toxic therapies reserved for use after disease progression, Dr. Mellinghoff noted.
Vorasidenib offers the potential for delaying the use of more toxic therapies and the potential to alter the natural history of diffuse glioma while helping patients to maintain a good quality of life, he said.
Study details
The INDIGO trial involved 331 patients with grade 2 gliomas with IDH mutations, who were enrolled across 77 centers in 10 countries in North America, Europe, and the Middle East.
Patients were aged 12-80 years and had residual or recurrent grade 2 IDH1- or IDH2-mutated oligodendroglioma or astrocytoma, with measurable nonenhancing disease and no prior treatment for glioma (with the most recent surgery 1-5 years before randomization). They were eligible for the study if they were not in immediate need of chemotherapy and/or radiation.
After stratification by 1p/19q status and baseline tumor size, they were randomly assigned to receive either vorasidenib 40 mg daily or placebo in 28-day cycles.
At the second planned interim analysis data cutoff in September 2022, at a median follow-up of 14.2 months, 226 (68.3%) of the 331 patients remained on treatment.
The primary endpoint was median PFS by blinded independent central review, which as noted above was 16.6 months longer in those on the drug, compared with placebo.
The time to next therapy was also significantly longer with vorasidenib, with a median not yet reached, compared with 17.4 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.26, P < .001).
Adverse events of any grade occurring in more than 20% of those receiving vorasidenib were elevated liver enzymes, fatigue, headache, diarrhea, and nausea. Grade 3 or 4 ALT elevations occurred in 9.6% of patients assigned to vorasidenib, but not in the placebo group.
Vorasidenib received fast-track status from the Food and Drug Administration in March. It is currently being studied in a phase 1 trial in combination with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with grade 2/3 gliomas, and further exploration of the drug in combination with other agents is being considered.
The study was funded by Servier Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of vorasidenib. Dr. Mellinghoff disclosed honoraria from Roche, a consulting or advisory role with Agios, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Debiopharm Group, Puma Biotechnology, Voyager Therapeutics, research funding from Amgen, General Electric, Lilly, and travel expenses from Agios, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, and Voyager Therapeutics. Dr. Lesser disclosed honoraria from SDP Oncology, consulting/advising for Cancer Expert Now, Agio, IN8bio, and Ono Pharmaceutical.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ASCO 2023
Number of cancer survivors with functional limitations doubled in 20 years
Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.
Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.
The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.
For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
Patients surveyed on function
Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.
Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
Not just a result of living longer
Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.
“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.
Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.
Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.
“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
Quality of life beyond survivorship
Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.
“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.
The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.
There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”
Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.
“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.
A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.
Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.
The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.
For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
Patients surveyed on function
Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.
Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
Not just a result of living longer
Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.
“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.
Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.
Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.
“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
Quality of life beyond survivorship
Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.
“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.
The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.
There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”
Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.
“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.
A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
Vishal Patel, BS, a student at the Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin, and colleagues identified 51,258 cancer survivors from the National Health Interview Survey, representing a weighted population of approximately 178.8 million from 1999 to 2018.
Most survivors were women (60.2%) and were at least 65 years old (55.4%). In 1999, 3.6 million weighted survivors reported functional limitation. In 2018, the number increased to 8.2 million, a 2.25-fold increase.
The number of survivors who reported no limitations also increased, but not by as much. That group grew 1.34-fold during the study period.
For context, “the 70% prevalence of functional limitation among survivors in 2018 is nearly twice that of the general population,” the authors wrote.
Patients surveyed on function
Functional limitation was defined as “self-reported difficulty performing any of 12 routine physical or social activities without assistance.” Examples of the activities included difficulty sitting for more than 2 hours, difficulty participating in social activities or difficulty pushing or pulling an object the size of a living room chair.
Over the 2 decades analyzed, the adjusted prevalence of functional limitation was highest among survivors of pancreatic cancer (80.3%) and lung cancer (76.5%). Prevalence was lowest for survivors of melanoma (62.2%), breast (61.8%) and prostate (59.5%) cancers.
Not just a result of living longer
Mr. Patel told this publication that one assumption people might make when they read these results is that people are just living longer with cancer and losing functional ability accordingly.
“But, in fact, we found that the youngest [– those less than 65 years–] actually contributed to this trend more than the oldest people, which means it’s not just [happening], because people are getting older,” he said.
Hispanic and Black individuals had disproportionately higher increases in functional limitation; percentage point increases over the 2 decades were 19.5 for Black people, 25.1 for Hispanic people and 12.5 for White people. There may be a couple of reasons for that, Mr. Patel noted.
Those who are Black or Hispanic tend to have less access to cancer survivorship care for reasons including insurance status and historic health care inequities, he noted.
“The other potential reason is that they have had less access to cancer care historically. And if, 20 years ago Black and Hispanic individuals didn’t have access to some chemotherapies, and now they do, maybe it’s the increased access to care that’s causing these functional limitations. Because chemotherapy can sometimes be very toxic. It may be sort of a catch-up toxicity,” he said.
Quality of life beyond survivorship
Mr. Patel said the results seem to call for building on improved survival rates by tracking and improving function.
“It’s good to celebrate that there are more survivors. But now that we can keep people alive longer, maybe we can shift gears to improving their quality of life,” he said.
The more-than-doubling of functional limitations over 2 decades “is a very sobering trend,” he noted, while pointing out that the functional limitations applied to 8 million people in the United States – people whose needs are not being met.
There’s no sign of the trend stopping, he continued. “We saw no downward trend, only an upward trend.”
Increasingly, including functionality as an endpoint in cancer trials, in addition to improvements in mortality, is one place to start, he added.
“Our findings suggest an urgent need for care teams to understand and address function, for researchers to evaluate function as a core outcome in trials, and for health systems and policy makers to reimagine survivorship care, recognizing the burden of cancer and its treatment on physical, psychosocial, and cognitive function,” the authors wrote in their paper. Limitations of the study include the potential for recall bias, lack of cancer staging or treatment information, and the subjective perception of function.
A coauthor reported personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, AAA, Blue Earth, Janssen, Lantheus, Myovant, Myriad Genetics, Novartis, Telix, and Sanofi, as well as grants from Pfizer and Bayer during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Study shows higher obesity-related cancer mortality in areas with more fast food
based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.
Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.
In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.
“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.
In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.
Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.
The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).
Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.
A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).
Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.
The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
Community-level investments can benefit individual health
Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.
“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said.
“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.
Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions
The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.
The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.
“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.
based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.
Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.
In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.
“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.
In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.
Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.
The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).
Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.
A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).
Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.
The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
Community-level investments can benefit individual health
Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.
“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said.
“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.
Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions
The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.
The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.
“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.
based on data from a new cross-sectional study of more than 3,000 communities.
Although increased healthy eating has been associated with reduced risk of obesity and with reduced cancer incidence and mortality, access to healthier eating remains a challenge in communities with less access to grocery stores and healthy food options (food deserts) and/or easy access to convenience stores and fast food (food swamps), Malcolm Seth Bevel, PhD, of the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, and colleagues, wrote in their paper, published in JAMA Oncology.
In addition, data on the association between food deserts and swamps and obesity-related cancer mortality are limited, they said.
“We felt that the study was important given the fact that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and multiple factors contribute to obesity, especially adverse food environments,” Dr. Bevel said in an interview. “Also, I lived in these areas my whole life, and saw how it affected underserved populations. There was a story that needed to be told, so we’re telling it,” he said in an interview.
In a study, the researchers analyzed food access and cancer mortality data from 3,038 counties across the United States. The food access data came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Environment Atlas (FEA) for the years 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, and 2020. Data on obesity-related cancer mortality came from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the years from 2010 to 2020.
Food desert scores were calculated through data from the FEA, and food swamp scores were based on the ratio of fast-food restaurants and convenience stores to grocery stores and farmers markets in a modification of the Retail Food Environment Index score.
The researchers used an age-adjusted, multiple regression model to determine the association between food desert and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality rates. Higher food swamp and food desert scores (defined as 20.0 to 58.0 or higher) were used to classify counties as having fewer healthy food resources. The primary outcome was obesity-related cancer mortality, defined as high or low (71.8 or higher per 100,000 individuals and less than 71.8 per 100,000 individuals, respectively).
Overall, high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality were 77% more likely in the counties that met the criteria for high food swamp scores (adjusted odds ratio 1.77). In addition, researchers found a positive dose-response relationship among three levels of both food desert scores and food swamp scores and obesity-related cancer mortality.
A total of 758 counties had obesity-related cancer mortality rates in the highest quartile. Compared to counties with low rates of obesity-related cancer mortality, counties with high rates of obesity-related cancer mortality also had a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Black residents (3.26% vs. 1.77%), higher percentage of adults older than 65 years (15.71% vs. 15.40%), higher rates of adult obesity (33.0% vs. 32.10%), and higher rates of adult diabetes (12.50% vs. 10.70%).
Possible explanations for the results include the lack of interest in grocery stores in neighborhoods with a population with a lower socioeconomic status, which can create a food desert, the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Coupled with the increasing growth rate of fast-food restaurants in recent years and the intentional advertisement of unhealthy foods in urban neighborhoods with [people of lower income], the food desert may transform into a food swamp,” they said.
The findings were limited by several factors including the study design, which did not allow for showing a causal association of food deserts and food swamps with obesity-related cancer mortality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the use of groups rather than individuals, the potential misclassification of food stores, and the use of county-level data on race, ethnicity, and income, they wrote.
The results indicate that “food swamps appear to be a growing epidemic across the U.S., likely because of systemic issues, and should draw concern and conversation from local and state officials,” the researchers concluded.
Community-level investments can benefit individual health
Dr. Bevel said he was not surprised by the findings, as he has seen firsthand the lack of healthy food options and growth of unhealthy food options, especially for certain populations in certain communities. “Typically, these are people who have lower socioeconomic status, primarily non-Hispanic Black or African American or Hispanic American,” he said “I have watched people have to choose between getting fruits/vegetables versus their medications or running to fast food places to feed their families. What is truly surprising is that we’re not talking about people’s lived environment enough for my taste,” he said.
“I hope that our data and results can inform local and state policymakers to truly invest in all communities, such as funding for community gardens, and realize that adverse food environments, including the barriers in navigating these environments, have significant consequences on real people,” said Dr. Bevel. “Also, I hope that the results can help clinicians realize that a patient’s lived environment can truly affect their obesity and/or obesity-related cancer status; being cognizant of that is the first step in holistic, comprehensive care,” he said.
“One role that oncologists might be able to play in improving patients’ access to healthier food is to create and/or implement healthy lifestyle programs with gardening components to combat the poorest food environments that their patients likely reside in,” said Dr. Bevel. Clinicians also could consider the innovative approach of “food prescriptions” to help reduce the effects of deprived, built environments, he noted.
Looking ahead, next steps for research include determining the severity of association between food swamps and obesity-related cancer by varying factors such as cancer type, and examining any potential racial disparities between people living in these environments and obesity-related cancer, Dr. Bevel added.
Data provide foundation for multilevel interventions
The current study findings “raise a clarion call to elevate the discussion on food availability and access to ensure an equitable emphasis on both the importance of lifestyle factors and the upstream structural, economic, and environmental contexts that shape these behaviors at the individual level,” Karriem S. Watson, DHSc, MS, MPH, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and Angela Odoms-Young, PhD, of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The findings provide a foundation for studies of obesity-related cancer outcomes that take the community environment into consideration, they added.
The causes of both obesity and cancer are complex, and the study findings suggest that the links between unhealthy food environments and obesity-related cancer may go beyond dietary consumption alone and extend to social and psychological factors, the editorialists noted.
“Whether dealing with the lack of access to healthy foods or an overabundance of unhealthy food, there is a critical need to develop additional research that explores the associations between obesity-related cancer mortality and food inequities,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers and the editorialists had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Expert discusses which diets are best, based on the evidence
according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
Predominantly plant‐based diets
Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).
The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.
“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.
A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.
“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.
For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
Time‐restricted feeding
There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.
Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.
These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets
Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.
The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options
Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.
In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications
When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”
In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.
“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.
When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.
Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.
according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
Predominantly plant‐based diets
Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).
The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.
“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.
A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.
“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.
For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
Time‐restricted feeding
There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.
Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.
These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets
Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.
The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options
Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.
In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications
When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”
In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.
“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.
When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.
Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.
according to a speaker at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.
“Evidence from studies can help clinicians and their patients develop a successful dietary management plan and achieve optimal health,” said internist Michelle Hauser, MD, clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University. She also discussed evidence-based techniques to support patients in maintaining dietary modifications.
Predominantly plant‐based diets
Popular predominantly plant‐based diets include a Mediterranean diet, healthy vegetarian diet, predominantly whole-food plant‐based (WFPB) diet, and a dietary approach to stop hypertension (DASH).
The DASH diet was originally designed to help patients manage their blood pressure, but evidence suggests that it also can help adults with obesity lose weight. In contrast to the DASH diet, the Mediterranean diet is not low-fat and not very restrictive. Yet the evidence suggests that the Mediterranean diet is not only helpful for losing weight but also can reduce the risk of various chronic diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and cancer, Dr. Hauser said. In addition, data suggest that the Mediterranean diet may reduce the risk of all-cause mortality and lower the levels of cholesterol.
“I like to highlight all these protective effects to my patients, because even if their goal is to lose weight, knowing that hard work pays off in additional ways can keep them motivated,” Dr. Hauser stated.
A healthy vegetarian diet and a WFPB diet are similar, and both are helpful in weight loss and management of total cholesterol and LDL‐C levels. Furthermore, healthy vegetarian and WFPB diets may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, CVD, and some cancers. Cohort study data suggest that progressively more vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMIs.
“My interpretation of these data is that predominantly plant-based diets rich in whole foods are healthful and can be done in a way that is sustainable for most,” said Dr. Hauser. However, this generally requires a lot of support at the outset to address gaps in knowledge, skills, and other potential barriers.
For example, she referred one obese patient at risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease to a registered dietitian to develop a dietary plan. The patient also attended a behavioral medicine weight management program to learn strategies such as using smaller plates, and his family attended a healthy cooking class together to improve meal planning and cooking skills.
Time‐restricted feeding
There are numerous variations of time-restricted feeding, commonly referred to as intermittent fasting, but the principles are similar – limiting food intake to a specific window of time each day or week.
Although some studies have shown that time-restricted feeding may help patients reduce adiposity and improve lipid markers, most studies comparing time-restricted feeding to a calorie-restricted diet have shown little to no difference in weight-related outcomes, Dr. Hauser said.
These data suggest that time-restricted feeding may help patients with weight loss only if time restriction helps them reduce calorie intake. She also warned that time-restrictive feeding might cause late-night cravings and might not be helpful in individuals prone to food cravings.
Low‐carbohydrate and ketogenic diets
Losing muscle mass can prevent some people from dieting, but evidence suggests that a high-fat, very low-carbohydrate diet – also called a ketogenic diet – may help patients reduce weight and fat mass while preserving fat‐free mass, Dr. Hauser said.
The evidence regarding the usefulness of a low-carbohydrate (non-keto) diet is less clear because most studies compared it to a low-fat diet, and these two diets might lead to a similar extent of weight loss.
Rating the level of scientific evidence behind different diet options
Nutrition studies do no provide the same level of evidence as drug studies, said Dr. Hauser, because it is easier to conduct a randomized controlled trial of a drug versus placebo. Diets have many more variables, and it also takes much longer to observe most outcomes of a dietary change.
In addition, clinical trials of dietary interventions are typically short and focus on disease markers such as serum lipids and hemoglobin A1c levels. To obtain reliable information on the usefulness of a diet, researchers need to collect detailed health and lifestyle information from hundreds of thousands of people over several decades, which is not always feasible. “This is why meta-analyses of pooled dietary study data are more likely to yield dependable findings,” she noted.
Getting to know patients is essential to help them maintain diet modifications
When developing a diet plan for a patient, it is important to consider the sustainability of a dietary pattern. “The benefits of any healthy dietary change will only last as long as they can be maintained,” said Dr. Hauser. “Counseling someone on choosing an appropriate long-term dietary pattern requires getting to know them – taste preferences, food traditions, barriers, facilitators, food access, and time and cost restrictions.”
In an interview after the session, David Bittleman, MD, an internist at Veterans Affairs San Diego Health Care System, agreed that getting to know patients is essential for successfully advising them on diet.
“I always start developing a diet plan by trying to find out what [a patient’s] diet is like and what their goals are. I need to know what they are already doing in order to make suggestions about what they can do to make their diet healthier,” he said.
When asked about her approach to supporting patients in the long term, Dr. Hauser said that she recommends sequential, gradual changes. Dr. Hauser added that she suggests her patients prioritize implementing dietary changes that they are confident they can maintain.
Dr. Hauser and Dr. Bittleman report no relevant financial relationships.
AT INTERNAL MEDICINE 2023
Plasma monitoring supports earlier osimertinib treatment in lung cancer patients
Previous studies have suggested that molecular progression of disease in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC, as measured by sequential plasma EGFR T790M, may precede radiological progression, as measured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).
However, the impact of these measures on timing of treatment changes and patient outcomes has not been examined, wrote Jordi Remon, MD, of Paris (France)–Saclay University and colleagues, in Annals of Oncology.
The European Organization for Research Treatment and Cancer Lung Cancer Group designed a phase 2 clinical trial known as APPLE to evaluate the use of sequential plasma EGFR T790M and determine the optimal sequencing for gefitinib and osimertinib in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC.
The researchers reported results from two randomized arms of the APPLE trial. In arm B, 52 patients received gefitinib until emergence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) EGFR T790M mutation, based on the cobas EGFR test v2 (a real-time PCR test), or progression of disease based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). In arm C, 51 patients received gefitinib until disease progression based on RECIST. Both arms then switched to osimertinib. Patients randomized to a third arm (arm A) received osimertinib upfront until progression of disease based on RECIST, and they were not included in the current study.
The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) while receiving osimertinib at 18 months in patients who were originally randomized to gefitinib, then switched to osimertinib at the emergence of circulating tumor DNA. Secondary endpoints included PFS, overall response rate, overall survival, and brain PFS.
Patients entered the study between November 2017 and February 2020. A total of 75% and 65% of those in arms B and C, respectively, were female, approximately 65% had the mutation EGFR Del19, and approximately one-third had baseline brain metastases. In arm B, 17% of patients switched to osimertinib based on the emergence of ctDNA T790M mutation before progressive disease based on RECIST. The median time to molecular disease progression was 266 days.
More patients in arm B met the primary endpoint of PFS while receiving osimertinib at 18 months (67.2%) than in arm C (53.5%), after a median follow-up of 30 months.
As for secondary endpoints, the median PFS in the two arms was 22.0 months and 20.2 months, respectively. Median overall survival was 42.8 months in arm C and was not reached in arm B. The median brain PFS was 24.4 months for arm B and 21.4 months for arm C.
The benefits seen in the osimertinib patients may be due in part to the timing of the switch to correspond with molecular or radiological disease progression, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
In the future, more research is needed to determine whether molecular monitoring may impact patients’ outcomes, compared with monitoring based on radiological progression, they said.
The findings were limited by several factors, mainly the rapid evolution in the treatment landscape of EGFR-mutant NSCLC, the researchers noted.
Osimertinib is currently considered the preferred first-line treatment by most physicians, they said. “The APPLE trial is the first prospective study supporting the role of dynamic adaptive strategies based on ctDNA monitoring in patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC.”
The study was supported by AstraZeneca. Lead author Dr. Remon had no financial conflicts to disclose. Corresponding author Dr. Dziadziuszko disclosed honoraria for consultancy or lectures from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Previous studies have suggested that molecular progression of disease in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC, as measured by sequential plasma EGFR T790M, may precede radiological progression, as measured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).
However, the impact of these measures on timing of treatment changes and patient outcomes has not been examined, wrote Jordi Remon, MD, of Paris (France)–Saclay University and colleagues, in Annals of Oncology.
The European Organization for Research Treatment and Cancer Lung Cancer Group designed a phase 2 clinical trial known as APPLE to evaluate the use of sequential plasma EGFR T790M and determine the optimal sequencing for gefitinib and osimertinib in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC.
The researchers reported results from two randomized arms of the APPLE trial. In arm B, 52 patients received gefitinib until emergence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) EGFR T790M mutation, based on the cobas EGFR test v2 (a real-time PCR test), or progression of disease based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). In arm C, 51 patients received gefitinib until disease progression based on RECIST. Both arms then switched to osimertinib. Patients randomized to a third arm (arm A) received osimertinib upfront until progression of disease based on RECIST, and they were not included in the current study.
The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) while receiving osimertinib at 18 months in patients who were originally randomized to gefitinib, then switched to osimertinib at the emergence of circulating tumor DNA. Secondary endpoints included PFS, overall response rate, overall survival, and brain PFS.
Patients entered the study between November 2017 and February 2020. A total of 75% and 65% of those in arms B and C, respectively, were female, approximately 65% had the mutation EGFR Del19, and approximately one-third had baseline brain metastases. In arm B, 17% of patients switched to osimertinib based on the emergence of ctDNA T790M mutation before progressive disease based on RECIST. The median time to molecular disease progression was 266 days.
More patients in arm B met the primary endpoint of PFS while receiving osimertinib at 18 months (67.2%) than in arm C (53.5%), after a median follow-up of 30 months.
As for secondary endpoints, the median PFS in the two arms was 22.0 months and 20.2 months, respectively. Median overall survival was 42.8 months in arm C and was not reached in arm B. The median brain PFS was 24.4 months for arm B and 21.4 months for arm C.
The benefits seen in the osimertinib patients may be due in part to the timing of the switch to correspond with molecular or radiological disease progression, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
In the future, more research is needed to determine whether molecular monitoring may impact patients’ outcomes, compared with monitoring based on radiological progression, they said.
The findings were limited by several factors, mainly the rapid evolution in the treatment landscape of EGFR-mutant NSCLC, the researchers noted.
Osimertinib is currently considered the preferred first-line treatment by most physicians, they said. “The APPLE trial is the first prospective study supporting the role of dynamic adaptive strategies based on ctDNA monitoring in patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC.”
The study was supported by AstraZeneca. Lead author Dr. Remon had no financial conflicts to disclose. Corresponding author Dr. Dziadziuszko disclosed honoraria for consultancy or lectures from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Previous studies have suggested that molecular progression of disease in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC, as measured by sequential plasma EGFR T790M, may precede radiological progression, as measured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).
However, the impact of these measures on timing of treatment changes and patient outcomes has not been examined, wrote Jordi Remon, MD, of Paris (France)–Saclay University and colleagues, in Annals of Oncology.
The European Organization for Research Treatment and Cancer Lung Cancer Group designed a phase 2 clinical trial known as APPLE to evaluate the use of sequential plasma EGFR T790M and determine the optimal sequencing for gefitinib and osimertinib in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC.
The researchers reported results from two randomized arms of the APPLE trial. In arm B, 52 patients received gefitinib until emergence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) EGFR T790M mutation, based on the cobas EGFR test v2 (a real-time PCR test), or progression of disease based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). In arm C, 51 patients received gefitinib until disease progression based on RECIST. Both arms then switched to osimertinib. Patients randomized to a third arm (arm A) received osimertinib upfront until progression of disease based on RECIST, and they were not included in the current study.
The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) while receiving osimertinib at 18 months in patients who were originally randomized to gefitinib, then switched to osimertinib at the emergence of circulating tumor DNA. Secondary endpoints included PFS, overall response rate, overall survival, and brain PFS.
Patients entered the study between November 2017 and February 2020. A total of 75% and 65% of those in arms B and C, respectively, were female, approximately 65% had the mutation EGFR Del19, and approximately one-third had baseline brain metastases. In arm B, 17% of patients switched to osimertinib based on the emergence of ctDNA T790M mutation before progressive disease based on RECIST. The median time to molecular disease progression was 266 days.
More patients in arm B met the primary endpoint of PFS while receiving osimertinib at 18 months (67.2%) than in arm C (53.5%), after a median follow-up of 30 months.
As for secondary endpoints, the median PFS in the two arms was 22.0 months and 20.2 months, respectively. Median overall survival was 42.8 months in arm C and was not reached in arm B. The median brain PFS was 24.4 months for arm B and 21.4 months for arm C.
The benefits seen in the osimertinib patients may be due in part to the timing of the switch to correspond with molecular or radiological disease progression, the researchers wrote in their discussion.
In the future, more research is needed to determine whether molecular monitoring may impact patients’ outcomes, compared with monitoring based on radiological progression, they said.
The findings were limited by several factors, mainly the rapid evolution in the treatment landscape of EGFR-mutant NSCLC, the researchers noted.
Osimertinib is currently considered the preferred first-line treatment by most physicians, they said. “The APPLE trial is the first prospective study supporting the role of dynamic adaptive strategies based on ctDNA monitoring in patients with EGFR-mutant advanced NSCLC.”
The study was supported by AstraZeneca. Lead author Dr. Remon had no financial conflicts to disclose. Corresponding author Dr. Dziadziuszko disclosed honoraria for consultancy or lectures from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, MSD, Takeda, Pfizer, Amgen, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.
FROM ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Cancer pain declines with cannabis use
in a study.
Physician-prescribed cannabis, particularly cannabinoids, has been shown to ease cancer-related pain in adult cancer patients, who often find inadequate pain relief from medications including opioids, Saro Aprikian, MSc, a medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
However, real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of cannabis in the cancer population and the impact on use of other medications are lacking, the researchers said.
In the study, published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, the researchers reviewed data from 358 adults with cancer who were part of a multicenter cannabis registry in Canada between May 2015 and October 2018.
The average age of the patients was 57.6 years, and 48% were men. The top three cancer diagnoses in the study population were genitorurinary, breast, and colorectal.
Pain was the most common reason for obtaining a medical cannabis prescription, cited by 72.4% of patients.
Data were collected at follow-up visits conducted every 3 months over 1 year. Pain was assessed via the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) questionnaires and compared to baseline values. Patients rated their pain intensity on a sliding scale of 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible). Pain relief was rated on a scale of 0% (none) to 100% (complete).
Compared to baseline scores, patients showed significant decreases at 3, 6 and 9 months for BPI worst pain (5.5 at baseline, 3.6 for 3, 6, and 9 months) average pain (4.1 at baseline, 2.4, 2.3, and 2.7 for 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), overall pain severity (2.7 at baseline, 2.3, 2.3, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), and pain interference with daily life (4.3 at baseline, 2.4, 2.2, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively; P less than .01 for all four pain measures).
“Pain severity as reported in the ESAS-r decreased significantly at 3-month, 6-month and 9-month follow-ups,” the researchers noted.
In addition, total medication burden based on the medication quantification scale (MQS) and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) were recorded at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. MQS scores decreased compared to baseline at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in 10%, 23.5%, 26.2%, and 31.6% of patients, respectively. Also compared with baseline, 11.1%, 31.3%, and 14.3% of patients reported decreases in MEDD scores at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively.
Overall, products with equal amounts of active ingredients tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) were more effective than were those with a predominance of either THC or CBD, the researchers wrote.
Medical cannabis was well-tolerated; a total of 15 moderate to severe side effects were reported by 11 patients, 13 of which were minor. The most common side effects were sleepiness and fatigue, and five patients discontinued their medical cannabis because of side effects. The two serious side effects reported during the study period – pneumonia and a cardiovascular event – were deemed unlikely related to the patients’ medicinal cannabis use.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design, which prevented conclusions about causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the loss of many patients to follow-up and incomplete data on other prescription medications in many cases.
The results support the use of medical cannabis by cancer patients as an adjunct pain relief strategy and a way to potentially reduce the use of other medications such as opioids, the authors concluded.
The study was supported by the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids, Collège des Médecins du Québec, and the Canopy Growth Corporation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
in a study.
Physician-prescribed cannabis, particularly cannabinoids, has been shown to ease cancer-related pain in adult cancer patients, who often find inadequate pain relief from medications including opioids, Saro Aprikian, MSc, a medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
However, real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of cannabis in the cancer population and the impact on use of other medications are lacking, the researchers said.
In the study, published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, the researchers reviewed data from 358 adults with cancer who were part of a multicenter cannabis registry in Canada between May 2015 and October 2018.
The average age of the patients was 57.6 years, and 48% were men. The top three cancer diagnoses in the study population were genitorurinary, breast, and colorectal.
Pain was the most common reason for obtaining a medical cannabis prescription, cited by 72.4% of patients.
Data were collected at follow-up visits conducted every 3 months over 1 year. Pain was assessed via the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) questionnaires and compared to baseline values. Patients rated their pain intensity on a sliding scale of 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible). Pain relief was rated on a scale of 0% (none) to 100% (complete).
Compared to baseline scores, patients showed significant decreases at 3, 6 and 9 months for BPI worst pain (5.5 at baseline, 3.6 for 3, 6, and 9 months) average pain (4.1 at baseline, 2.4, 2.3, and 2.7 for 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), overall pain severity (2.7 at baseline, 2.3, 2.3, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), and pain interference with daily life (4.3 at baseline, 2.4, 2.2, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively; P less than .01 for all four pain measures).
“Pain severity as reported in the ESAS-r decreased significantly at 3-month, 6-month and 9-month follow-ups,” the researchers noted.
In addition, total medication burden based on the medication quantification scale (MQS) and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) were recorded at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. MQS scores decreased compared to baseline at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in 10%, 23.5%, 26.2%, and 31.6% of patients, respectively. Also compared with baseline, 11.1%, 31.3%, and 14.3% of patients reported decreases in MEDD scores at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively.
Overall, products with equal amounts of active ingredients tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) were more effective than were those with a predominance of either THC or CBD, the researchers wrote.
Medical cannabis was well-tolerated; a total of 15 moderate to severe side effects were reported by 11 patients, 13 of which were minor. The most common side effects were sleepiness and fatigue, and five patients discontinued their medical cannabis because of side effects. The two serious side effects reported during the study period – pneumonia and a cardiovascular event – were deemed unlikely related to the patients’ medicinal cannabis use.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design, which prevented conclusions about causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the loss of many patients to follow-up and incomplete data on other prescription medications in many cases.
The results support the use of medical cannabis by cancer patients as an adjunct pain relief strategy and a way to potentially reduce the use of other medications such as opioids, the authors concluded.
The study was supported by the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids, Collège des Médecins du Québec, and the Canopy Growth Corporation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
in a study.
Physician-prescribed cannabis, particularly cannabinoids, has been shown to ease cancer-related pain in adult cancer patients, who often find inadequate pain relief from medications including opioids, Saro Aprikian, MSc, a medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
However, real-world data on the safety and effectiveness of cannabis in the cancer population and the impact on use of other medications are lacking, the researchers said.
In the study, published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care, the researchers reviewed data from 358 adults with cancer who were part of a multicenter cannabis registry in Canada between May 2015 and October 2018.
The average age of the patients was 57.6 years, and 48% were men. The top three cancer diagnoses in the study population were genitorurinary, breast, and colorectal.
Pain was the most common reason for obtaining a medical cannabis prescription, cited by 72.4% of patients.
Data were collected at follow-up visits conducted every 3 months over 1 year. Pain was assessed via the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) questionnaires and compared to baseline values. Patients rated their pain intensity on a sliding scale of 0 (none) to 10 (worst possible). Pain relief was rated on a scale of 0% (none) to 100% (complete).
Compared to baseline scores, patients showed significant decreases at 3, 6 and 9 months for BPI worst pain (5.5 at baseline, 3.6 for 3, 6, and 9 months) average pain (4.1 at baseline, 2.4, 2.3, and 2.7 for 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), overall pain severity (2.7 at baseline, 2.3, 2.3, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively), and pain interference with daily life (4.3 at baseline, 2.4, 2.2, and 2.4 at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively; P less than .01 for all four pain measures).
“Pain severity as reported in the ESAS-r decreased significantly at 3-month, 6-month and 9-month follow-ups,” the researchers noted.
In addition, total medication burden based on the medication quantification scale (MQS) and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD) were recorded at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. MQS scores decreased compared to baseline at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months in 10%, 23.5%, 26.2%, and 31.6% of patients, respectively. Also compared with baseline, 11.1%, 31.3%, and 14.3% of patients reported decreases in MEDD scores at 3, 6, and 9 months, respectively.
Overall, products with equal amounts of active ingredients tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) were more effective than were those with a predominance of either THC or CBD, the researchers wrote.
Medical cannabis was well-tolerated; a total of 15 moderate to severe side effects were reported by 11 patients, 13 of which were minor. The most common side effects were sleepiness and fatigue, and five patients discontinued their medical cannabis because of side effects. The two serious side effects reported during the study period – pneumonia and a cardiovascular event – were deemed unlikely related to the patients’ medicinal cannabis use.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the observational design, which prevented conclusions about causality, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the loss of many patients to follow-up and incomplete data on other prescription medications in many cases.
The results support the use of medical cannabis by cancer patients as an adjunct pain relief strategy and a way to potentially reduce the use of other medications such as opioids, the authors concluded.
The study was supported by the Canadian Consortium for the Investigation of Cannabinoids, Collège des Médecins du Québec, and the Canopy Growth Corporation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM BMJ SUPPORTIVE & PALLIATIVE CARE
Study gives new insight into timing of combo treatment in metastatic NSCLC
However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.
While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.
The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”
Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.
Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”
But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”
For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.
The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.
Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).
Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).
However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).
There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.
The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.
As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.
It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.
In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.
Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.
No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.
However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.
While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.
The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”
Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.
Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”
But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”
For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.
The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.
Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).
Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).
However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).
There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.
The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.
As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.
It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.
In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.
Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.
No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.
However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.
While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.
The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”
Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.
Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”
But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”
For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.
The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.
Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).
Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).
However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).
There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.
The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.
As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.
It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.
In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.
Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.
No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.
FROM ELCC 2023
First target doesn’t affect survival in NSCLC with brain metastases
“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.
The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.
According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.
“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”
However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”
For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.
There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)
“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.
He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”
Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”
He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”
No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.
“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.
The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.
According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.
“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”
However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”
For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.
There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)
“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.
He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”
Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”
He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”
No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.
“The findings of our study highlight the importance of adopting a personalized, case-based approach when treating each patient” instead of always treating the brain or lung first, lead author Arvind Kumar, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.
The study was released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023.
According to the author, current guidelines recommend treating the brain first in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and a tumor that has spread to the brain.
“Determining whether the brain or body gets treated first depends on where the symptoms are coming from, how severe the symptoms are, how bulky the disease is, and how long the treatment to each is expected to take,” radiation oncologist Henry S. Park, MD, MPH, chief of the thoracic radiotherapy program at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. “Often the brain is treated first since surgery is used for both diagnosis of metastatic disease as well as removal of the brain metastasis, especially if it is causing symptoms. The radiosurgery that follows tends to occur within a day or a few days.”
However, he said, “if the brain disease is small and not causing symptoms, and the lung disease is more problematic, then we will often treat the body first and fit in the brain treatment later.”
For the new study, researchers identified 1,044 patients in the National Cancer Database with non–small cell lung cancer and brain metastases who received systemic therapy plus surgery, brain stereotactic radiosurgery, or lung radiation. All were treated from 2010 to 2019; 79.0% received brain treatment first, and the other 21.0% received lung treatment first.
There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between those whose brains were treated first and those whose lungs were treated first (hazard ratio, 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.70, P = .17). A propensity score–matched analysis turned up no difference in 5-year survival (38.2% of those whose brains were treated first, 95% CI, 27.5-34.4, vs. 38.0% of those whose lungs were treated first, 95% CI, 29.9-44.7, P = .32.)
“These results were consistent regardless of which combination of treatment modalities the patient received – neurosurgery versus brain stereotactic radiosurgery, thoracic surgery versus thoracic radiation,” the author said.
He cautioned that “our study only included patients who were considered candidates for either surgery or radiation to both the brain and lung. The results of our study should therefore be cautiously interpreted for patients who may have contraindications to such treatment.”
Dr. Park, who didn’t take part in the study, said “the results are consistent with what I would generally expect.”
He added: “The take-home message for clinicians should be that there is no one correct answer in how to manage non–small cell lung cancer with synchronous limited metastatic disease in only the brain. If the brain disease is bulky and/or causes symptoms while the body disease isn’t – or if a biopsy or surgery is required to prove that the patient in fact has metastatic disease – then the brain disease should be treated first. On the other hand, if the body disease is bulky and/or causing symptoms while the brain disease isn’t – and there is no need for surgery but rather only a biopsy of the brain – then the body disease can be treated first.”
No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Park reported no financial conflicts or other disclosures.
FROM ELCC 2023
People with cancer should be wary of taking dietary supplements
Cancer dietitian Lisa Cianciotta often finds herself sitting across from a patient who suddenly fishes a bottle of antioxidant supplements from their bag and says, “My friend told me this works really well,” or “I read on the Internet that this is supposed to be really good for cancer.”
Although taking an antioxidant pill sounds harmless, Ms. Cianciotta, a clinical dietitian who works with cancer patients at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, knows well that this popular dietary supplement can interfere with a patient’s radiation or chemotherapy.
But many patients with cancer believe these over-the-counter vitamins, minerals, or herbal remedies will help them, and most use at least one dietary supplement alongside their cancer treatment.
And that leaves Ms. Cianciotta with a delicate conversation ahead of her.
. Popular dietary supplements may, for instance, cancel the effects of a cancer treatment, making it less effective, or increase serious side effects, such as liver toxicity. But in other cases, supplementation, such as vitamin D for patients who lack the vitamin, may be beneficial, Ms. Cianciotta said.
These drug-supplement interactions can be hard to pinpoint, given that more than two-thirds of doctors don’t know their patients are using supplements.
Here’s what patients need to know about the potential risks of supplement use during treatment, and how oncologists can address this thorny, often poorly understood topic with patients.
The complex drug-supplement landscape
The list of dietary supplements and how they can interact with different treatments and cancer types is long and nuanced.
But certain supplements appear to affect cancer treatments regardless of other things and should be avoided. Any supplement that strongly alters the body’s levels of the protein cytochromes P450 is one example. This group of enzymes plays a key role in metabolizing drugs, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy agents.
Certain supplements – most notably St. John’s wort extract – may decrease or increase the activity of cytochrome P450, which can then affect the concentrations of anticancer drugs in the blood, said William Figg, PharmD, an associate director of the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Studies show, for instance, that this common herbal supplement can increase the activity of cytochrome P450, resulting in lower levels of cancer drugs.
Outside of drug metabolism, patients with hormone-related cancers, such as breast and prostate cancers, should steer clear of dietary supplements that can alter levels of testosterone or estrogen, Dr. Figg said. The evergreen shrub ashwagandha, for example, is marketed to reduce stress and fatigue, but can also increase testosterone levels – a potential problem for those with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy, which lowers testosterone levels.
Many oncologists counsel patients against using antioxidant-based dietary supplements – particularly turmeric and green tea extract – while they have radiation therapy and certain chemotherapies. These therapies work by creating an abundance of highly reactive molecules called free radicals in tumor cells, which increase stress within these cells, ultimately killing them off. Antioxidants, in theory, can neutralize this effect, said Skyler Johnson, MD, a radiation oncologist at Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Some studies suggest that antioxidant supplements may lessen the effects of radiation and chemotherapy, although the evidence is mixed.
Some dietary supplements, including high-dose green tea extract and vitamin A, can cause kidney or liver toxicity, and “many cancer patients already have compromised kidney or liver function,” said Jun J. Mao, MD, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Even herbs that don’t interfere with how well a cancer drug works, such as stevia, can increase treatment-related side effects, such as nausea and vomiting.
Another potential problem with dietary supplements: It’s nearly impossible to know exactly what’s in them. For instance, just last year, the Food and Drug Administration sent nearly 50 warning letters to companies marketing dietary supplements. The issue is that federal regulations governing production are less strict for supplements than for medications. As a result, some supplements contain ingredients not listed on the label.
One historical example was the supplement PC-SPES, a mix of eight herbs, marketed to men with prostate cancer. The supplement was recalled in 2002 after certain batches were found to contain traces of prescription drugs, including diethylstilbestrol, ethinyl estradiol, warfarin, and alprazolam.
To further complicate matters, some dietary supplements can be helpful. Most patients with cancer “are malnourished and missing out on nutrients they could be getting from food,” said Ms. Cianciotta.
Patients are tested routinely for vitamin deficiencies and receive supplements as needed, she said. Vitamin D and folic acid are two of the most common deficiencies in this patient population. Vitamin D supplementation can improve outcomes in patients who have received a stem cell transplant by aiding engraftment and rebuilding the immune system, while folic acid supplementation can help to raise low red blood cell counts and hemoglobin levels.
Although she rarely sees vitamin toxicity, Ms. Cianciotta stressed that more is not always better and supplement use, even when it seems safe or warranted due to a deficiency, should be taken under supervision, and monitored carefully by the patient’s care team.
Bringing supplement use into the light
Too often, providers are unaware of a patient’s supplement use.
A core reason: Dietary supplements are often touted as natural, which many patients equate with safety, said Samantha Heller, a senior clinical nutritionist at New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health.
That means patients may not know a supplement can act like a drug and interfere with their cancer treatment, and thus may not see the importance of telling their doctors.
Still, the promise of herbs, vitamins, and minerals can be alluring, and there are many reasons patients decide to partake. One major appeal: Dietary supplements can help some patients feel empowered.
“Cancer is a disease that takes away a lot of control from the individual. Taking supplements or herbs is a way to regain some sense of control,” said Dr. Mao.
The phenomenon can also be cultural, he said. Some people grow up taking herbs and supplements to stay healthy or combat health woes.
Pressure or advice from family or friends who may think they are helping a loved one with their dietary recommendations may play a role as well. Friends and family “cannot prescribe chemo, but they can buy herbs and supplements,” Dr. Mao said.
Patients seeking greater control over their health or who feel high levels of anxiety may be more likely to take suggestions from friends and family or more likely to believe false or misleading claims about the efficacy or safety of supplements, explained medical oncologist William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society.
Plus, social media often amplifies and normalizes this misinformation, noted Dr. Johnson. In a 2021 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, he and colleagues found that one-third of the most popular articles on cancer treatment posted to social media in 2018 and 2019 contained false, inaccurate, or misleading information that was often harmful.
Some of the false claims centered on unproven, potentially unsafe herbal remedies, according to Dr. Johnson. These included “lung cancer can be cured with cannabis oil” and “golden berries cure and prevent cancer.”
Given exaggerated claims of “cures,” some patients may keep their supplement use under the radar out of fear they will be judged or criticized.
“Clinicians should avoid making patients feel judged or telling people not to go online to do their own research,” Dr. Johnson said.
Guiding patients, instead, to accurate sources of online information may be one way to help patients feel empowered, he said. Cancer.gov and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s About Herbs database provide accessible and accurate information on dietary supplements and cancer treatment for both health care professionals and patients, he noted.
If a particular supplement is not safe during treatment, providers should be able to explain why, said Ms. Cianciotta. In a recent study, 80% of health care providers surveyed believed that interactions between herbals and medications could be problematic, but only 15% could explain why.
“Being able to explain why we are discouraging a particular supplement right now tends to be much better received than just telling a patient not to take something, because it is bad,” she said.
Another key is listening closely to patients to understand why they may be taking a particular supplement. Does the patient feel out of control? Is nausea a problem?
“Allowing patients to tell you why they are using a particular supplement will often reveal unmet needs or psychosocial challenges,” Dr. Mao said. This information can allow providers to suggest an evidence-based alternative, such as mindfulness meditation or acupuncture, to manage stress.
And if a patient has received a dietary supplement from well-meaning family and friends?
“Simply telling a patient that a given supplement is useless or harmful could create family tension,” said Dr. Mao.
Instead, he recommends reframing the issue.
“We want to have a better understanding of how patients are tolerating chemo or immunotherapy before throwing other things on top of it. Let them know that now may just not be the right time to add a supplement to the mix,” Dr. Mao said.
The bottom line: “Patients want to play an active role in their own care, and we want to help them do that in a safe way,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Cancer dietitian Lisa Cianciotta often finds herself sitting across from a patient who suddenly fishes a bottle of antioxidant supplements from their bag and says, “My friend told me this works really well,” or “I read on the Internet that this is supposed to be really good for cancer.”
Although taking an antioxidant pill sounds harmless, Ms. Cianciotta, a clinical dietitian who works with cancer patients at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, knows well that this popular dietary supplement can interfere with a patient’s radiation or chemotherapy.
But many patients with cancer believe these over-the-counter vitamins, minerals, or herbal remedies will help them, and most use at least one dietary supplement alongside their cancer treatment.
And that leaves Ms. Cianciotta with a delicate conversation ahead of her.
. Popular dietary supplements may, for instance, cancel the effects of a cancer treatment, making it less effective, or increase serious side effects, such as liver toxicity. But in other cases, supplementation, such as vitamin D for patients who lack the vitamin, may be beneficial, Ms. Cianciotta said.
These drug-supplement interactions can be hard to pinpoint, given that more than two-thirds of doctors don’t know their patients are using supplements.
Here’s what patients need to know about the potential risks of supplement use during treatment, and how oncologists can address this thorny, often poorly understood topic with patients.
The complex drug-supplement landscape
The list of dietary supplements and how they can interact with different treatments and cancer types is long and nuanced.
But certain supplements appear to affect cancer treatments regardless of other things and should be avoided. Any supplement that strongly alters the body’s levels of the protein cytochromes P450 is one example. This group of enzymes plays a key role in metabolizing drugs, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy agents.
Certain supplements – most notably St. John’s wort extract – may decrease or increase the activity of cytochrome P450, which can then affect the concentrations of anticancer drugs in the blood, said William Figg, PharmD, an associate director of the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Studies show, for instance, that this common herbal supplement can increase the activity of cytochrome P450, resulting in lower levels of cancer drugs.
Outside of drug metabolism, patients with hormone-related cancers, such as breast and prostate cancers, should steer clear of dietary supplements that can alter levels of testosterone or estrogen, Dr. Figg said. The evergreen shrub ashwagandha, for example, is marketed to reduce stress and fatigue, but can also increase testosterone levels – a potential problem for those with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy, which lowers testosterone levels.
Many oncologists counsel patients against using antioxidant-based dietary supplements – particularly turmeric and green tea extract – while they have radiation therapy and certain chemotherapies. These therapies work by creating an abundance of highly reactive molecules called free radicals in tumor cells, which increase stress within these cells, ultimately killing them off. Antioxidants, in theory, can neutralize this effect, said Skyler Johnson, MD, a radiation oncologist at Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Some studies suggest that antioxidant supplements may lessen the effects of radiation and chemotherapy, although the evidence is mixed.
Some dietary supplements, including high-dose green tea extract and vitamin A, can cause kidney or liver toxicity, and “many cancer patients already have compromised kidney or liver function,” said Jun J. Mao, MD, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Even herbs that don’t interfere with how well a cancer drug works, such as stevia, can increase treatment-related side effects, such as nausea and vomiting.
Another potential problem with dietary supplements: It’s nearly impossible to know exactly what’s in them. For instance, just last year, the Food and Drug Administration sent nearly 50 warning letters to companies marketing dietary supplements. The issue is that federal regulations governing production are less strict for supplements than for medications. As a result, some supplements contain ingredients not listed on the label.
One historical example was the supplement PC-SPES, a mix of eight herbs, marketed to men with prostate cancer. The supplement was recalled in 2002 after certain batches were found to contain traces of prescription drugs, including diethylstilbestrol, ethinyl estradiol, warfarin, and alprazolam.
To further complicate matters, some dietary supplements can be helpful. Most patients with cancer “are malnourished and missing out on nutrients they could be getting from food,” said Ms. Cianciotta.
Patients are tested routinely for vitamin deficiencies and receive supplements as needed, she said. Vitamin D and folic acid are two of the most common deficiencies in this patient population. Vitamin D supplementation can improve outcomes in patients who have received a stem cell transplant by aiding engraftment and rebuilding the immune system, while folic acid supplementation can help to raise low red blood cell counts and hemoglobin levels.
Although she rarely sees vitamin toxicity, Ms. Cianciotta stressed that more is not always better and supplement use, even when it seems safe or warranted due to a deficiency, should be taken under supervision, and monitored carefully by the patient’s care team.
Bringing supplement use into the light
Too often, providers are unaware of a patient’s supplement use.
A core reason: Dietary supplements are often touted as natural, which many patients equate with safety, said Samantha Heller, a senior clinical nutritionist at New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health.
That means patients may not know a supplement can act like a drug and interfere with their cancer treatment, and thus may not see the importance of telling their doctors.
Still, the promise of herbs, vitamins, and minerals can be alluring, and there are many reasons patients decide to partake. One major appeal: Dietary supplements can help some patients feel empowered.
“Cancer is a disease that takes away a lot of control from the individual. Taking supplements or herbs is a way to regain some sense of control,” said Dr. Mao.
The phenomenon can also be cultural, he said. Some people grow up taking herbs and supplements to stay healthy or combat health woes.
Pressure or advice from family or friends who may think they are helping a loved one with their dietary recommendations may play a role as well. Friends and family “cannot prescribe chemo, but they can buy herbs and supplements,” Dr. Mao said.
Patients seeking greater control over their health or who feel high levels of anxiety may be more likely to take suggestions from friends and family or more likely to believe false or misleading claims about the efficacy or safety of supplements, explained medical oncologist William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society.
Plus, social media often amplifies and normalizes this misinformation, noted Dr. Johnson. In a 2021 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, he and colleagues found that one-third of the most popular articles on cancer treatment posted to social media in 2018 and 2019 contained false, inaccurate, or misleading information that was often harmful.
Some of the false claims centered on unproven, potentially unsafe herbal remedies, according to Dr. Johnson. These included “lung cancer can be cured with cannabis oil” and “golden berries cure and prevent cancer.”
Given exaggerated claims of “cures,” some patients may keep their supplement use under the radar out of fear they will be judged or criticized.
“Clinicians should avoid making patients feel judged or telling people not to go online to do their own research,” Dr. Johnson said.
Guiding patients, instead, to accurate sources of online information may be one way to help patients feel empowered, he said. Cancer.gov and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s About Herbs database provide accessible and accurate information on dietary supplements and cancer treatment for both health care professionals and patients, he noted.
If a particular supplement is not safe during treatment, providers should be able to explain why, said Ms. Cianciotta. In a recent study, 80% of health care providers surveyed believed that interactions between herbals and medications could be problematic, but only 15% could explain why.
“Being able to explain why we are discouraging a particular supplement right now tends to be much better received than just telling a patient not to take something, because it is bad,” she said.
Another key is listening closely to patients to understand why they may be taking a particular supplement. Does the patient feel out of control? Is nausea a problem?
“Allowing patients to tell you why they are using a particular supplement will often reveal unmet needs or psychosocial challenges,” Dr. Mao said. This information can allow providers to suggest an evidence-based alternative, such as mindfulness meditation or acupuncture, to manage stress.
And if a patient has received a dietary supplement from well-meaning family and friends?
“Simply telling a patient that a given supplement is useless or harmful could create family tension,” said Dr. Mao.
Instead, he recommends reframing the issue.
“We want to have a better understanding of how patients are tolerating chemo or immunotherapy before throwing other things on top of it. Let them know that now may just not be the right time to add a supplement to the mix,” Dr. Mao said.
The bottom line: “Patients want to play an active role in their own care, and we want to help them do that in a safe way,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Cancer dietitian Lisa Cianciotta often finds herself sitting across from a patient who suddenly fishes a bottle of antioxidant supplements from their bag and says, “My friend told me this works really well,” or “I read on the Internet that this is supposed to be really good for cancer.”
Although taking an antioxidant pill sounds harmless, Ms. Cianciotta, a clinical dietitian who works with cancer patients at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, knows well that this popular dietary supplement can interfere with a patient’s radiation or chemotherapy.
But many patients with cancer believe these over-the-counter vitamins, minerals, or herbal remedies will help them, and most use at least one dietary supplement alongside their cancer treatment.
And that leaves Ms. Cianciotta with a delicate conversation ahead of her.
. Popular dietary supplements may, for instance, cancel the effects of a cancer treatment, making it less effective, or increase serious side effects, such as liver toxicity. But in other cases, supplementation, such as vitamin D for patients who lack the vitamin, may be beneficial, Ms. Cianciotta said.
These drug-supplement interactions can be hard to pinpoint, given that more than two-thirds of doctors don’t know their patients are using supplements.
Here’s what patients need to know about the potential risks of supplement use during treatment, and how oncologists can address this thorny, often poorly understood topic with patients.
The complex drug-supplement landscape
The list of dietary supplements and how they can interact with different treatments and cancer types is long and nuanced.
But certain supplements appear to affect cancer treatments regardless of other things and should be avoided. Any supplement that strongly alters the body’s levels of the protein cytochromes P450 is one example. This group of enzymes plays a key role in metabolizing drugs, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy agents.
Certain supplements – most notably St. John’s wort extract – may decrease or increase the activity of cytochrome P450, which can then affect the concentrations of anticancer drugs in the blood, said William Figg, PharmD, an associate director of the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. Studies show, for instance, that this common herbal supplement can increase the activity of cytochrome P450, resulting in lower levels of cancer drugs.
Outside of drug metabolism, patients with hormone-related cancers, such as breast and prostate cancers, should steer clear of dietary supplements that can alter levels of testosterone or estrogen, Dr. Figg said. The evergreen shrub ashwagandha, for example, is marketed to reduce stress and fatigue, but can also increase testosterone levels – a potential problem for those with prostate cancer receiving androgen deprivation therapy, which lowers testosterone levels.
Many oncologists counsel patients against using antioxidant-based dietary supplements – particularly turmeric and green tea extract – while they have radiation therapy and certain chemotherapies. These therapies work by creating an abundance of highly reactive molecules called free radicals in tumor cells, which increase stress within these cells, ultimately killing them off. Antioxidants, in theory, can neutralize this effect, said Skyler Johnson, MD, a radiation oncologist at Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Some studies suggest that antioxidant supplements may lessen the effects of radiation and chemotherapy, although the evidence is mixed.
Some dietary supplements, including high-dose green tea extract and vitamin A, can cause kidney or liver toxicity, and “many cancer patients already have compromised kidney or liver function,” said Jun J. Mao, MD, chief of integrative medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Even herbs that don’t interfere with how well a cancer drug works, such as stevia, can increase treatment-related side effects, such as nausea and vomiting.
Another potential problem with dietary supplements: It’s nearly impossible to know exactly what’s in them. For instance, just last year, the Food and Drug Administration sent nearly 50 warning letters to companies marketing dietary supplements. The issue is that federal regulations governing production are less strict for supplements than for medications. As a result, some supplements contain ingredients not listed on the label.
One historical example was the supplement PC-SPES, a mix of eight herbs, marketed to men with prostate cancer. The supplement was recalled in 2002 after certain batches were found to contain traces of prescription drugs, including diethylstilbestrol, ethinyl estradiol, warfarin, and alprazolam.
To further complicate matters, some dietary supplements can be helpful. Most patients with cancer “are malnourished and missing out on nutrients they could be getting from food,” said Ms. Cianciotta.
Patients are tested routinely for vitamin deficiencies and receive supplements as needed, she said. Vitamin D and folic acid are two of the most common deficiencies in this patient population. Vitamin D supplementation can improve outcomes in patients who have received a stem cell transplant by aiding engraftment and rebuilding the immune system, while folic acid supplementation can help to raise low red blood cell counts and hemoglobin levels.
Although she rarely sees vitamin toxicity, Ms. Cianciotta stressed that more is not always better and supplement use, even when it seems safe or warranted due to a deficiency, should be taken under supervision, and monitored carefully by the patient’s care team.
Bringing supplement use into the light
Too often, providers are unaware of a patient’s supplement use.
A core reason: Dietary supplements are often touted as natural, which many patients equate with safety, said Samantha Heller, a senior clinical nutritionist at New York (N.Y.) University Langone Health.
That means patients may not know a supplement can act like a drug and interfere with their cancer treatment, and thus may not see the importance of telling their doctors.
Still, the promise of herbs, vitamins, and minerals can be alluring, and there are many reasons patients decide to partake. One major appeal: Dietary supplements can help some patients feel empowered.
“Cancer is a disease that takes away a lot of control from the individual. Taking supplements or herbs is a way to regain some sense of control,” said Dr. Mao.
The phenomenon can also be cultural, he said. Some people grow up taking herbs and supplements to stay healthy or combat health woes.
Pressure or advice from family or friends who may think they are helping a loved one with their dietary recommendations may play a role as well. Friends and family “cannot prescribe chemo, but they can buy herbs and supplements,” Dr. Mao said.
Patients seeking greater control over their health or who feel high levels of anxiety may be more likely to take suggestions from friends and family or more likely to believe false or misleading claims about the efficacy or safety of supplements, explained medical oncologist William Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer for the American Cancer Society.
Plus, social media often amplifies and normalizes this misinformation, noted Dr. Johnson. In a 2021 study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, he and colleagues found that one-third of the most popular articles on cancer treatment posted to social media in 2018 and 2019 contained false, inaccurate, or misleading information that was often harmful.
Some of the false claims centered on unproven, potentially unsafe herbal remedies, according to Dr. Johnson. These included “lung cancer can be cured with cannabis oil” and “golden berries cure and prevent cancer.”
Given exaggerated claims of “cures,” some patients may keep their supplement use under the radar out of fear they will be judged or criticized.
“Clinicians should avoid making patients feel judged or telling people not to go online to do their own research,” Dr. Johnson said.
Guiding patients, instead, to accurate sources of online information may be one way to help patients feel empowered, he said. Cancer.gov and the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center’s About Herbs database provide accessible and accurate information on dietary supplements and cancer treatment for both health care professionals and patients, he noted.
If a particular supplement is not safe during treatment, providers should be able to explain why, said Ms. Cianciotta. In a recent study, 80% of health care providers surveyed believed that interactions between herbals and medications could be problematic, but only 15% could explain why.
“Being able to explain why we are discouraging a particular supplement right now tends to be much better received than just telling a patient not to take something, because it is bad,” she said.
Another key is listening closely to patients to understand why they may be taking a particular supplement. Does the patient feel out of control? Is nausea a problem?
“Allowing patients to tell you why they are using a particular supplement will often reveal unmet needs or psychosocial challenges,” Dr. Mao said. This information can allow providers to suggest an evidence-based alternative, such as mindfulness meditation or acupuncture, to manage stress.
And if a patient has received a dietary supplement from well-meaning family and friends?
“Simply telling a patient that a given supplement is useless or harmful could create family tension,” said Dr. Mao.
Instead, he recommends reframing the issue.
“We want to have a better understanding of how patients are tolerating chemo or immunotherapy before throwing other things on top of it. Let them know that now may just not be the right time to add a supplement to the mix,” Dr. Mao said.
The bottom line: “Patients want to play an active role in their own care, and we want to help them do that in a safe way,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.