Genitourinary Cancer

TOPLINE: 

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–PET detected metastatic disease in 46% of patients with high-risk prostate cancer previously classified as nonmetastatic by conventional imaging. Results were positive in 84% of patients, with polymetastatic disease found in 24% of cases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Recurrent nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is characterized by increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels while naive or responsive to androgen deprivation therapy, without evidence of metastasis on conventional imaging.
• A post hoc, retrospective, cross-sectional analysis included 182 patients from four prospective studies conducted from September 2016 to September 2021, with participants having recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, definitive radiotherapy, or salvage radiotherapy.
• Inclusion criteria encompassed PSA levels > 1.0 ng/mL after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy or > 2.0 ng/mL above nadir after definitive radiotherapy, PSA doubling time ≤ 9 months, and serum testosterone ≥ 150 ng/dL.
• Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, performed Gallium-68-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging with a median injection of 5.0 mCi and uptake time of 61 minutes, with 98% of patients receiving CT contrast.

TAKEAWAY:

• PSMA-PET findings were positive in 80% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 92% after definitive radiotherapy, 85% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 84% overall (153 of 182 patients).
• Distant metastatic disease was detected in 34% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 56% after definitive radiotherapy, 60% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 46% overall.
• Polymetastatic disease (≥ 5 lesions) was identified in 19% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 36% after definitive radiotherapy, 23% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 24% overall.
• According to the authors, these findings suggest that patients’ high-risk nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancers are understaged by conventional imaging.

IN PRACTICE:

“In a cohort of patients with high-risk hormone-sensitive prostate cancer without evidence of metastatic disease by conventional imaging, PSMA-PET results were positive in 84% of patients, detected M1 disease stage in 46% of patients, and found polymetastatic disease in 24% of patients. ... The results challenge the interpretation of previous studies, such as the EMBARK trial, and support the evolving role of PSMA-PET for patient selection in clinical and trial interventions in prostate cancer,” the authors of the new paper wrote. “Further studies are needed to assess its independent prognostic value and use for treatment guidance.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Adrien Holzgreve, MD, and Wesley R. Armstrong, BS, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online on January 3 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis included significantly fewer patients treated with combined radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy than the original EMBARK trial (29% vs 49%). Patients in this study had a lower median PSA doubling time and serum PSA level at enrollment than those in the EMBARK study. The retrospective nature of this study precluded systematic baseline imaging that would be standard for clinical trial enrollment. Additionally, while PSMA-PET offers the best diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer staging, it can produce false-positive findings, particularly in bone metastases, with a positive predictive value of 0.84% in biochemical recurrence.

DISCLOSURES:

Holzgreve reported receiving personal fees from ABX advanced biochemical compounds outside the submitted work. This study was supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–PET detected metastatic disease in 46% of patients with high-risk prostate cancer previously classified as nonmetastatic by conventional imaging. Results were positive in 84% of patients, with polymetastatic disease found in 24% of cases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Recurrent nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is characterized by increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels while naive or responsive to androgen deprivation therapy, without evidence of metastasis on conventional imaging.
• A post hoc, retrospective, cross-sectional analysis included 182 patients from four prospective studies conducted from September 2016 to September 2021, with participants having recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, definitive radiotherapy, or salvage radiotherapy.
• Inclusion criteria encompassed PSA levels > 1.0 ng/mL after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy or > 2.0 ng/mL above nadir after definitive radiotherapy, PSA doubling time ≤ 9 months, and serum testosterone ≥ 150 ng/dL.
• Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, performed Gallium-68-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging with a median injection of 5.0 mCi and uptake time of 61 minutes, with 98% of patients receiving CT contrast.

TAKEAWAY:

• PSMA-PET findings were positive in 80% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 92% after definitive radiotherapy, 85% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 84% overall (153 of 182 patients).
• Distant metastatic disease was detected in 34% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 56% after definitive radiotherapy, 60% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 46% overall.
• Polymetastatic disease (≥ 5 lesions) was identified in 19% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 36% after definitive radiotherapy, 23% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 24% overall.
• According to the authors, these findings suggest that patients’ high-risk nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancers are understaged by conventional imaging.

IN PRACTICE:

“In a cohort of patients with high-risk hormone-sensitive prostate cancer without evidence of metastatic disease by conventional imaging, PSMA-PET results were positive in 84% of patients, detected M1 disease stage in 46% of patients, and found polymetastatic disease in 24% of patients. ... The results challenge the interpretation of previous studies, such as the EMBARK trial, and support the evolving role of PSMA-PET for patient selection in clinical and trial interventions in prostate cancer,” the authors of the new paper wrote. “Further studies are needed to assess its independent prognostic value and use for treatment guidance.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Adrien Holzgreve, MD, and Wesley R. Armstrong, BS, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online on January 3 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis included significantly fewer patients treated with combined radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy than the original EMBARK trial (29% vs 49%). Patients in this study had a lower median PSA doubling time and serum PSA level at enrollment than those in the EMBARK study. The retrospective nature of this study precluded systematic baseline imaging that would be standard for clinical trial enrollment. Additionally, while PSMA-PET offers the best diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer staging, it can produce false-positive findings, particularly in bone metastases, with a positive predictive value of 0.84% in biochemical recurrence.

DISCLOSURES:

Holzgreve reported receiving personal fees from ABX advanced biochemical compounds outside the submitted work. This study was supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–PET detected metastatic disease in 46% of patients with high-risk prostate cancer previously classified as nonmetastatic by conventional imaging. Results were positive in 84% of patients, with polymetastatic disease found in 24% of cases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Recurrent nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is characterized by increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels while naive or responsive to androgen deprivation therapy, without evidence of metastasis on conventional imaging.
• A post hoc, retrospective, cross-sectional analysis included 182 patients from four prospective studies conducted from September 2016 to September 2021, with participants having recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, definitive radiotherapy, or salvage radiotherapy.
• Inclusion criteria encompassed PSA levels > 1.0 ng/mL after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy or > 2.0 ng/mL above nadir after definitive radiotherapy, PSA doubling time ≤ 9 months, and serum testosterone ≥ 150 ng/dL.
• Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, performed Gallium-68-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging with a median injection of 5.0 mCi and uptake time of 61 minutes, with 98% of patients receiving CT contrast.

TAKEAWAY:

• PSMA-PET findings were positive in 80% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 92% after definitive radiotherapy, 85% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 84% overall (153 of 182 patients).
• Distant metastatic disease was detected in 34% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 56% after definitive radiotherapy, 60% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 46% overall.
• Polymetastatic disease (≥ 5 lesions) was identified in 19% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 36% after definitive radiotherapy, 23% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 24% overall.
• According to the authors, these findings suggest that patients’ high-risk nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancers are understaged by conventional imaging.

IN PRACTICE:

“In a cohort of patients with high-risk hormone-sensitive prostate cancer without evidence of metastatic disease by conventional imaging, PSMA-PET results were positive in 84% of patients, detected M1 disease stage in 46% of patients, and found polymetastatic disease in 24% of patients. ... The results challenge the interpretation of previous studies, such as the EMBARK trial, and support the evolving role of PSMA-PET for patient selection in clinical and trial interventions in prostate cancer,” the authors of the new paper wrote. “Further studies are needed to assess its independent prognostic value and use for treatment guidance.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Adrien Holzgreve, MD, and Wesley R. Armstrong, BS, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online on January 3 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis included significantly fewer patients treated with combined radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy than the original EMBARK trial (29% vs 49%). Patients in this study had a lower median PSA doubling time and serum PSA level at enrollment than those in the EMBARK study. The retrospective nature of this study precluded systematic baseline imaging that would be standard for clinical trial enrollment. Additionally, while PSMA-PET offers the best diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer staging, it can produce false-positive findings, particularly in bone metastases, with a positive predictive value of 0.84% in biochemical recurrence.

DISCLOSURES:

Holzgreve reported receiving personal fees from ABX advanced biochemical compounds outside the submitted work. This study was supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Aggressive margin reduction with MRI-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) led to a significantly lower incidence of late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities at 2 years compared with CT-guided SBRT in men with localized prostate cancer, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• MRI-guided SBRT is known to reduce planning margins in prostate cancer and lead to less acute toxicity compared with standard CT-guided SBRT. However, the long-term benefits of the MRI-guided approach remain unclear.
• To find out, researchers conducted the phase 3 MIRAGE trial, in which 156 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive either MRI-guided SBRT with 2-mm margins or CT-guided SBRT with 4-mm margins.
• The MIRAGE trial initially reported the primary outcome of acute genitourinary grade ≥ 2 toxicity within 90 days of SBRT.
• In this secondary analysis, researchers evaluated physician-reported late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, along with changes in various patient-reported quality-of-life scores over a 2-year follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a period of 2 years, MRI-guided SBRT was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicities compared with CT-guided SBRT (27% vs 51%; P = .004). Similar outcomes were noted for grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal toxicities (1.4% with MRI vs 9.5% with CT; P = .025).
• Fewer patients who received MRI-guided SBRT reported deterioration in urinary irritation between 6 and 24 months after radiotherapy — 14 of 73 patients (19.2%) in the MRI group vs 24 of 68 patients (35.3%) in the CT group (P = .031).
• Patients receiving MRI-guided SBRT were also less likely to experience clinically relevant deterioration in bowel function (odds ratio [OR], 0.444; P = .035) and sexual health score (OR, 0.366; P = .03).
• Between 6 and 24 months after radiotherapy, 26.4% of patients (19 of 72) in the MRI group vs 42.3% (30 of 71) in the CT group reported clinically relevant deterioration in bowel function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our secondary analysis of a randomized trial revealed that aggressive planning for margin reduction with MRI guidance vs CT guidance for prostate SBRT led to lower physician-scored genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity and better bowel and sexual quality-of-life metrics over 2 years of follow-up,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Amar U. Kishan, University of California Los Angeles, was published online in European Urology.

LIMITATIONS:

The absence of blinding in this study may have influenced both physician-scored toxicity assessments and patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. The MIRAGE trial was not specifically designed with sufficient statistical power to evaluate the secondary analyses presented in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the US Department of Defense. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees among other ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Aggressive margin reduction with MRI-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) led to a significantly lower incidence of late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities at 2 years compared with CT-guided SBRT in men with localized prostate cancer, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• MRI-guided SBRT is known to reduce planning margins in prostate cancer and lead to less acute toxicity compared with standard CT-guided SBRT. However, the long-term benefits of the MRI-guided approach remain unclear.
• To find out, researchers conducted the phase 3 MIRAGE trial, in which 156 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive either MRI-guided SBRT with 2-mm margins or CT-guided SBRT with 4-mm margins.
• The MIRAGE trial initially reported the primary outcome of acute genitourinary grade ≥ 2 toxicity within 90 days of SBRT.
• In this secondary analysis, researchers evaluated physician-reported late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, along with changes in various patient-reported quality-of-life scores over a 2-year follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a period of 2 years, MRI-guided SBRT was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicities compared with CT-guided SBRT (27% vs 51%; P = .004). Similar outcomes were noted for grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal toxicities (1.4% with MRI vs 9.5% with CT; P = .025).
• Fewer patients who received MRI-guided SBRT reported deterioration in urinary irritation between 6 and 24 months after radiotherapy — 14 of 73 patients (19.2%) in the MRI group vs 24 of 68 patients (35.3%) in the CT group (P = .031).
• Patients receiving MRI-guided SBRT were also less likely to experience clinically relevant deterioration in bowel function (odds ratio [OR], 0.444; P = .035) and sexual health score (OR, 0.366; P = .03).
• Between 6 and 24 months after radiotherapy, 26.4% of patients (19 of 72) in the MRI group vs 42.3% (30 of 71) in the CT group reported clinically relevant deterioration in bowel function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our secondary analysis of a randomized trial revealed that aggressive planning for margin reduction with MRI guidance vs CT guidance for prostate SBRT led to lower physician-scored genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity and better bowel and sexual quality-of-life metrics over 2 years of follow-up,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Amar U. Kishan, University of California Los Angeles, was published online in European Urology.

LIMITATIONS:

The absence of blinding in this study may have influenced both physician-scored toxicity assessments and patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. The MIRAGE trial was not specifically designed with sufficient statistical power to evaluate the secondary analyses presented in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the US Department of Defense. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees among other ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Aggressive margin reduction with MRI-guided stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) led to a significantly lower incidence of late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities at 2 years compared with CT-guided SBRT in men with localized prostate cancer, new data showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• MRI-guided SBRT is known to reduce planning margins in prostate cancer and lead to less acute toxicity compared with standard CT-guided SBRT. However, the long-term benefits of the MRI-guided approach remain unclear.
• To find out, researchers conducted the phase 3 MIRAGE trial, in which 156 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive either MRI-guided SBRT with 2-mm margins or CT-guided SBRT with 4-mm margins.
• The MIRAGE trial initially reported the primary outcome of acute genitourinary grade ≥ 2 toxicity within 90 days of SBRT.
• In this secondary analysis, researchers evaluated physician-reported late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity, along with changes in various patient-reported quality-of-life scores over a 2-year follow-up period.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a period of 2 years, MRI-guided SBRT was associated with a significantly lower cumulative incidence of grade ≥ 2 genitourinary toxicities compared with CT-guided SBRT (27% vs 51%; P = .004). Similar outcomes were noted for grade ≥ 2 gastrointestinal toxicities (1.4% with MRI vs 9.5% with CT; P = .025).
• Fewer patients who received MRI-guided SBRT reported deterioration in urinary irritation between 6 and 24 months after radiotherapy — 14 of 73 patients (19.2%) in the MRI group vs 24 of 68 patients (35.3%) in the CT group (P = .031).
• Patients receiving MRI-guided SBRT were also less likely to experience clinically relevant deterioration in bowel function (odds ratio [OR], 0.444; P = .035) and sexual health score (OR, 0.366; P = .03).
• Between 6 and 24 months after radiotherapy, 26.4% of patients (19 of 72) in the MRI group vs 42.3% (30 of 71) in the CT group reported clinically relevant deterioration in bowel function.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our secondary analysis of a randomized trial revealed that aggressive planning for margin reduction with MRI guidance vs CT guidance for prostate SBRT led to lower physician-scored genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity and better bowel and sexual quality-of-life metrics over 2 years of follow-up,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Amar U. Kishan, University of California Los Angeles, was published online in European Urology.

LIMITATIONS:

The absence of blinding in this study may have influenced both physician-scored toxicity assessments and patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes. The MIRAGE trial was not specifically designed with sufficient statistical power to evaluate the secondary analyses presented in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the US Department of Defense. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees among other ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of active surveillance or watchful waiting increased by more than twofold overall between 2010 and 2020 among patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Current guidelines support active surveillance or watchful waiting for select patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. These observation strategies may help reduce the adverse effects associated with immediate radical treatment.
• To understand the trends over time in the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting, researchers looked at data of 147,205 individuals with intermediate-risk prostate cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results prostate cancer database between 2010 and 2020 in the United States.
• Criteria for intermediate-risk included Gleason grade group 2 or 3, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 10-20 ng/mL, or stage cT2b of the disease. Researchers also included trends for patients with Gleason grade group 1, as a reference group.
• Researchers assessed the temporal trends and factors associated with the selection of active surveillance and watchful waiting in this population.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the rate of active surveillance and watchful waiting more than doubled among intermediate-risk patients from 5% to 12.3% between 2010 and 2020.
• Between 2010 and 2020, the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting increased significantly among patients in Gleason grade group 1 (13.2% to 53.8%) and Gleason grade group 2 (4.0% to 11.6%) but remained stable for those in Gleason grade group 3 (2.5% to 2.8%; P = .85). For those with PSA levels < 10 ng/mL, adoption increased from 3.4% in 2010 to 9.2% in 2020 and more than doubled (9.3% to 20.7%) for those with PSA levels of 10-20 ng/mL.
• Higher Gleason grade groups had a significantly lower likelihood of adopting active surveillance or watchful waiting (Gleason grade group 2 vs 1: odds ratio [OR], 0.83; Gleason grade group 3 vs 1: OR, 0.79).
• Hispanic or Latino individuals (OR, 0.98) and non-Hispanic Black individuals (OR, 0.99) were slightly less likely to adopt these strategies than non-Hispanic White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study found a significant increase in initial active surveillance and watchful waiting for intermediate-risk prostate cancer between 2010 and 2020,” the authors wrote. “Research priorities should include reducing upfront overdiagnosis and better defining criteria for starting and stopping active surveillance and watchful waiting beyond conventional clinical measures such as GGs [Gleason grade groups] or PSA levels alone.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Ismail Ajjawi, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on observational data and therefore could not capture various factors influencing clinical decision-making processes. Additionally, the absence of information on patient outcomes restricted the ability to assess the long-term implications of different management strategies.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received financial support from the Urological Research Foundation. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of active surveillance or watchful waiting increased by more than twofold overall between 2010 and 2020 among patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Current guidelines support active surveillance or watchful waiting for select patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. These observation strategies may help reduce the adverse effects associated with immediate radical treatment.
• To understand the trends over time in the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting, researchers looked at data of 147,205 individuals with intermediate-risk prostate cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results prostate cancer database between 2010 and 2020 in the United States.
• Criteria for intermediate-risk included Gleason grade group 2 or 3, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 10-20 ng/mL, or stage cT2b of the disease. Researchers also included trends for patients with Gleason grade group 1, as a reference group.
• Researchers assessed the temporal trends and factors associated with the selection of active surveillance and watchful waiting in this population.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the rate of active surveillance and watchful waiting more than doubled among intermediate-risk patients from 5% to 12.3% between 2010 and 2020.
• Between 2010 and 2020, the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting increased significantly among patients in Gleason grade group 1 (13.2% to 53.8%) and Gleason grade group 2 (4.0% to 11.6%) but remained stable for those in Gleason grade group 3 (2.5% to 2.8%; P = .85). For those with PSA levels < 10 ng/mL, adoption increased from 3.4% in 2010 to 9.2% in 2020 and more than doubled (9.3% to 20.7%) for those with PSA levels of 10-20 ng/mL.
• Higher Gleason grade groups had a significantly lower likelihood of adopting active surveillance or watchful waiting (Gleason grade group 2 vs 1: odds ratio [OR], 0.83; Gleason grade group 3 vs 1: OR, 0.79).
• Hispanic or Latino individuals (OR, 0.98) and non-Hispanic Black individuals (OR, 0.99) were slightly less likely to adopt these strategies than non-Hispanic White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study found a significant increase in initial active surveillance and watchful waiting for intermediate-risk prostate cancer between 2010 and 2020,” the authors wrote. “Research priorities should include reducing upfront overdiagnosis and better defining criteria for starting and stopping active surveillance and watchful waiting beyond conventional clinical measures such as GGs [Gleason grade groups] or PSA levels alone.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Ismail Ajjawi, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on observational data and therefore could not capture various factors influencing clinical decision-making processes. Additionally, the absence of information on patient outcomes restricted the ability to assess the long-term implications of different management strategies.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received financial support from the Urological Research Foundation. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The use of active surveillance or watchful waiting increased by more than twofold overall between 2010 and 2020 among patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

METHODOLOGY:

• Current guidelines support active surveillance or watchful waiting for select patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. These observation strategies may help reduce the adverse effects associated with immediate radical treatment.
• To understand the trends over time in the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting, researchers looked at data of 147,205 individuals with intermediate-risk prostate cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results prostate cancer database between 2010 and 2020 in the United States.
• Criteria for intermediate-risk included Gleason grade group 2 or 3, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 10-20 ng/mL, or stage cT2b of the disease. Researchers also included trends for patients with Gleason grade group 1, as a reference group.
• Researchers assessed the temporal trends and factors associated with the selection of active surveillance and watchful waiting in this population.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the rate of active surveillance and watchful waiting more than doubled among intermediate-risk patients from 5% to 12.3% between 2010 and 2020.
• Between 2010 and 2020, the use of active surveillance and watchful waiting increased significantly among patients in Gleason grade group 1 (13.2% to 53.8%) and Gleason grade group 2 (4.0% to 11.6%) but remained stable for those in Gleason grade group 3 (2.5% to 2.8%; P = .85). For those with PSA levels < 10 ng/mL, adoption increased from 3.4% in 2010 to 9.2% in 2020 and more than doubled (9.3% to 20.7%) for those with PSA levels of 10-20 ng/mL.
• Higher Gleason grade groups had a significantly lower likelihood of adopting active surveillance or watchful waiting (Gleason grade group 2 vs 1: odds ratio [OR], 0.83; Gleason grade group 3 vs 1: OR, 0.79).
• Hispanic or Latino individuals (OR, 0.98) and non-Hispanic Black individuals (OR, 0.99) were slightly less likely to adopt these strategies than non-Hispanic White individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study found a significant increase in initial active surveillance and watchful waiting for intermediate-risk prostate cancer between 2010 and 2020,” the authors wrote. “Research priorities should include reducing upfront overdiagnosis and better defining criteria for starting and stopping active surveillance and watchful waiting beyond conventional clinical measures such as GGs [Gleason grade groups] or PSA levels alone.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Ismail Ajjawi, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, was published online in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

This study relied on observational data and therefore could not capture various factors influencing clinical decision-making processes. Additionally, the absence of information on patient outcomes restricted the ability to assess the long-term implications of different management strategies.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received financial support from the Urological Research Foundation. Several authors reported having various ties with various sources.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

Vaccines for treating and preventing cancer have long been considered a holy grail in oncology.

But aside from a few notable exceptions — including the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which has dramatically reduced the incidence of HPV-related cancers, and a Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccine, which helps prevent early-stage bladder cancer recurrence — most have failed to deliver.

Following a string of disappointments over the past decade, recent advances in the immunotherapy space are bringing renewed hope for progress.

In an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) series earlier in 2024, Catherine J. Wu, MD, predicted big strides for cancer vaccines, especially for personalized vaccines that target patient-specific neoantigens — the proteins that form on cancer cells — as well as vaccines that can treat diverse tumor types.

“A focus on neoantigens that arise from driver mutations in different tumor types could allow us to make progress in creating off-the-shelf vaccines,” said Wu, the Lavine Family Chair of Preventative Cancer Therapies at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts.

A prime example is a personalized, messenger RNA (mRNA)–based vaccine designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. The mRNA-4157 vaccine encodes up to 34 different patient-specific neoantigens.

“This is one of the most exciting developments in modern cancer therapy,” said Lawrence Young, a virologist and professor of molecular oncology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, who commented on the investigational vaccine via the UK-based Science Media Centre.

Other promising options are on the horizon as well. In August, BioNTech announced a phase 1 global trial to study BNT116 — a vaccine to treat non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). BNT116, like mRNA-4157, targets specific antigens in the lung cancer cells.

“This technology is the next big phase of cancer treatment,” Siow Ming Lee, MD, a consultant medical oncologist at University College London Hospitals in England, which is leading the UK trial for the lung cancer and melanoma vaccines, told The Guardian. “We are now entering this very exciting new era of mRNA-based immunotherapy clinical trials to investigate the treatment of lung cancer.”

Still, these predictions have a familiar ring. While the prospects are exciting, delivering on them is another story. There are simply no guarantees these strategies will work as hoped.

 

Then: Where We Were

Cancer vaccine research began to ramp up in the 2000s, and in 2006, the first-generation HPV vaccine, Gardasil, was approved. Gardasil prevents infection from four strains of HPV that cause about 80% of cervical cancer cases.

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration approved sipuleucel-T, the first therapeutic cancer vaccine, which improved overall survival in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

Researchers predicted this approval would “pave the way for developing innovative, next generation of vaccines with enhanced antitumor potency.”

In a 2015 AACR research forecast report, Drew Pardoll, MD, PhD, co-director of the Cancer Immunology and Hematopoiesis Program at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, said that “we can expect to see encouraging results from studies using cancer vaccines.”

Despite the excitement surrounding cancer vaccines alongside a few successes, the next decade brought a longer string of late-phase disappointments.

In 2016, the phase 3 ACT IV trial of a therapeutic vaccine to treat glioblastoma multiforme (CDX-110) was terminated after it failed to demonstrate improved survival.

In 2017, a phase 3 trial of the therapeutic pancreatic cancer vaccine, GVAX, was stopped early for lack of efficacy.

That year, an attenuated Listeria monocytogenes vaccine to treat pancreatic cancer and mesothelioma also failed to come to fruition. In late 2017, concerns over listeria infections prompted Aduro Biotech to cancel its listeria-based cancer treatment program.

In 2018, a phase 3 trial of belagenpumatucel-L, a therapeutic NSCLC vaccine, failed to demonstrate a significant improvement in survival and further study was discontinued.

And in 2019, a vaccine targeting MAGE-A3, a cancer-testis antigen present in multiple tumor types, failed to meet endpoints for improved survival in a phase 3 trial, leading to discontinuation of the vaccine program.

But these disappointments and failures are normal parts of medical research and drug development and have allowed for incremental advances that helped fuel renewed interest and hope for cancer vaccines, when the timing was right, explained vaccine pioneer Larry W. Kwak, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at City of Hope, Duarte, California.

When it comes to vaccine progress, timing makes a difference. In 2011, Kwak and colleagues published promising phase 3 trial results on a personalized vaccine. The vaccine was a patient-specific tumor-derived antigen for patients with follicular lymphoma in their first remission following chemotherapy. Patients who received the vaccine demonstrated significantly longer disease-free survival.

But, at the time, personalized vaccines faced strong headwinds due, largely, to high costs, and commercial interest failed to materialize. “That’s been the major hurdle for a long time,” said Kwak.

Now, however, interest has returned alongside advances in technology and research. The big shift has been the emergence of lower-cost rapid-production mRNA and DNA platforms and a better understanding of how vaccines and potent immune stimulants, like checkpoint inhibitors, can work together to improve outcomes, he explained.

“The timing wasn’t right” back then, Kwak noted. “Now, it’s a different environment and a different time.”

 

A Turning Point?

Indeed, a decade later, cancer vaccine development appears to be headed in a more promising direction.

Among key cancer vaccines to watch is the mRNA-4157 vaccine, developed by Merck and Moderna, designed to prevent melanoma recurrence. In a recent phase 2 study, patients receiving the mRNA-4157 vaccine alongside pembrolizumab had nearly half the risk for melanoma recurrence or death at 3 years compared with those receiving pembrolizumab alone. Investigators are now evaluating the vaccine in a global phase 3 study in patients with high-risk, stage IIB to IV melanoma following surgery.

Another one to watch is the BNT116 NSCLC vaccine from BioNTech. This vaccine presents the immune system with NSCLC tumor markers to encourage the body to fight cancer cells expressing those markers while ignoring healthy cells. BioNTech also launched a global clinical trial for its vaccine this year.

Other notables include a pancreatic cancer mRNA vaccine, which has shown promising early results in a small trial of 16 patients. Of 16 patients who received the vaccine alongside chemotherapy and after surgery and immunotherapy, 8 responded. Of these eight, six remained recurrence free at 3 years. Investigators noted that the vaccine appeared to stimulate a durable T-cell response in patients who responded.

Kwak has also continued his work on lymphoma vaccines. In August, his team published promising first-in-human data on the use of personalized neoantigen vaccines as an early intervention in untreated patients with lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma. Among nine asymptomatic patients who received the vaccine, all achieved stable disease or better, with no dose-limiting toxicities. One patient had a minor response, and the median time to progression was greater than 72 months.

“The current setting is more for advanced disease,” Kwak explained. “It’s a tougher task, but combined with checkpoint blockade, it may be potent enough to work.” 

Still, caution is important. Despite early promise, it’s too soon to tell which, if any, of these investigational vaccines will pan out in the long run. Like investigational drugs, cancer vaccines may show big promising initially but then fail in larger trials.

One key to success, according to Kwak, is to design trials so that even negative results will inform next steps.

But, he noted, failures in large clinical trials will “put a chilling effect on cancer vaccine research again.”

“That’s what keeps me up at night,” he said. “We know the science is fundamentally sound and we have seen glimpses over decades of research that cancer vaccines can work, so it’s really just a matter of tweaking things to optimize trial design.”

Companies tend to design trials to test if a vaccine works or not, without trying to understand why, he said.

“What we need to do is design those so that we can learn from negative results,” he said. That’s what he and his colleagues attempted to do in their recent trial. “We didn’t just look at clinical results; we’re interrogating the actual tumor environment to understand what worked and didn’t and how to tweak that for the next trial.”

Kwak and his colleagues found, for instance, that the vaccine had a greater effect on B cell–derived tumor cells than on cells of plasma origin, so “the most rational design for the next iteration is to combine the vaccine with agents that work directly against plasma cells,” he explained.

As for what’s next, Kwak said: “We’re just focused on trying to do good science and understand. We’ve seen glimpses of success. That’s where we are.”

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

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.

“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”

That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”

Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.

In that time, Gerber has had one constant: Her oncologist, Kandhasamy Jagathambal, MD, or Dr. Jaga, as she’s often called. 

“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.

Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.

The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.

Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.

Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.

“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.

 

Connecting Through Stress

Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.

Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.

The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.

“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.

The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.

According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.

The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.

With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”

What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.

“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.

In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.

“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”

 

A ‘Special Relationship’

Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.

The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.

“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”

Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.

Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.

Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.

Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.

“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”

Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.

Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.

Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.

More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.

“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.

 

The Dying Patient

Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.

After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.

Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.

Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.

The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.

“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”

From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.

For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.

“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.

Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.

Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.

“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”

Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.

When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”

But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”

Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Diet is increasingly seen as a modifiable risk factor in prostate cancer.

Recent studies have shown that ultralow-carbohydrate diets, weight loss diets, supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids, pro- and anti-inflammatory diets, fasting, and even tea drinking may affect prostate cancer risk or risk for progression.

In October, a cohort study involving about 900 men under active surveillance for early stage prostate cancers found that those who reported eating a diet that adhered closely to the US government’s recommendations as indicated by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) saw a lower risk for progression at a median 6.5 months follow-up.

These findings follow results from an observational study, published in May, that followed about 2000 men with locally advanced prostate tumors. Men consuming a primarily plant-based diet (one closely adhering to the plant-based diet index) had less likelihood of progression over a median 6.5 years than those consuming diets low in plant-based foods.

“There is an increasing body of literature that says your diet matters,” said urologist Stephen J. Freedland, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, and director of its Center for Integrated Research in Cancer and Lifestyle. “At the same time, there are a lot of things that could explain these associations. People who can afford lots of plant-based foods tend to have higher socioeconomic status, for example.”

What’s needed, Freedland said, are more randomized trials to test the hypotheses emerging from the longitudinal cohort studies. “That’s where I’m going with my own research,” he said. “I’d like to look at a study like [one of these] and design a trial. Let’s say we get half of patients to eat according to the healthy eating index, while half eat whatever they want. Can dietary modification change which genes are turned on and off in a tumor, as a start?”

 

Oncologist and Nutritionist Collaborate on Multiple Studies

Nutritionist Pao-Hwa Lin, PhD, of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, has been working for several years with Freedland on trials of nutrition interventions. A longtime researcher of chronic disease and diet, she first collaborated with Freedland on a study, published in 2019, that looked at whether insulin could be driven down with diet and exercise in men treated with androgen deprivation therapy.

Not only are high levels of insulin a known contributor to prostate cancer growth, Lin said, but “insulin resistance is a very common side effect of hormone therapy. And we saw that the low carb diet was very helpful for that.” The finding led Freedland and Lin to design further trials investigating carbohydrate restriction in people with prostate cancer.

Lin said randomized trials tend to be smaller and shorter in duration than the observational cohort studies because “interventions like these can be hard to maintain, and recruitment can be hard to sustain. A very well controlled and intensive nutrition intervention is not going to be super long.” Short trial durations also mean that prostate cancer progression can be difficult to capture. Risk for progression has to be measured using surrogate markers, such as the doubling time for prostate-specific antigen (PSA).

In 2020, Freedland and Lin published results from a pilot study of 57 men who had been treated with surgery or radiation for localized prostate cancer but had a PSA recurrence and were randomized to an ultralow-carbohydrate diet or no restrictions for 6 months. The investigators saw that PSA doubling times, an intermediate measure of tumor growth rate, were slower among those consuming the low-carb diet.

Currently they are wrapping up a trial that randomizes men who have been scheduled for radical prostatectomy to daily supplementation with walnuts, a natural source of polyphenols and omega-3 acids. This time, the aim is to determine whether gene expression in tumors changes in response to supplementation.

The researchers are also recruiting for a study in men being treated for metastatic prostate cancer. This study randomizes patients to a fasting-mimicking diet, which is a type of intermittent fasting, or no dietary restrictions for 6 months.

Developed by biologist Valter Longo, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, the fasting-mimicking diet has been shown to boost treatment effects in women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. In 2023, Longo and his colleagues published results from a small pilot study of the same diet in men with prostate cancer, reporting some positive metabolic findings.

Longo, who is consulting on Lin and Freedland’s trial, “has proven that the diet is helpful in treatment outcomes for breast cancer. So we connected and decided to test it and see if it’s helpful in prostate cancer as well.”

 

More Than One Approach Likely to Work

Though Lin and Freedland have focused most of their investigations on carbohydrate restriction, neither dismisses the potential for other dietary approaches to show benefit.

“There are two main schools of thought in terms of the relationship between diet and prostate cancer,” Lin said. “One is the insulin angle, and that’s what we hypothesized when we first tested the low-carb diet. The other is the inflammation angle.”

Studies have shown greater adherence to the HEI — a diet quality indicator that favors grains, fruits, dairy, vegetables, beans, and seafood — or the plant-based diet index to be associated with lower biomarkers of inflammation, she noted.

Insulin resistance, Lin explained, “is also highly related to inflammation.” (Several of the diets being investigated in prostate cancer were originally studied in diabetes.)

Moreover, weight loss caused by low-carb diets — or other healthy diets — can have a positive effect on insulin resistance independent of diet composition. “So it is a very complicated picture — and that doesn’t exclude other pathways that could also be contributing,” she said.

On the surface, a low-carb diet that is heavy in eggs, cheeses, and meats would seem to have little in common with the HEI or a plant-based diet. But Freedland noted that there are commonalities among the approaches being studied. “No one’s promoting eating a lot of simple sugars. No one’s saying eat a lot of processed foods. All of these diets emphasize whole, natural foods,” he said.

Lin hopes that she and Freedland will one day be able to test a diet that is both lower carb and anti-inflammatory in men with prostate cancer. “Why not combine the approaches, have all the good features together?” she asked.

But Freeland pointed out and explained why most clinicians don’t make dietary recommendations to their newly diagnosed patients.

“A new prostate cancer patient already gets easily an hour discussion of treatment options, of pros and cons. Patients often become overwhelmed. And then to extend it further to talk about diet, they’ll end up even more overwhelmed.” Moreover, he said, current evidence offers doctors few take-home messages to deliver besides avoiding sugar and processed foods.

Multiple dietary approaches are likely to prove helpful in prostate cancer, and when the evidence for them is better established, patients and their doctors will want to consider lifestyle factors in choosing one. The best diet will depend on a patient’s philosophy, tastes, and willingness to follow it, he concluded.

“At the end of the day I’m not rooting for one diet or another. I just want to get the answers.”

Lin disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Freedland disclosed serving as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Astellas, and Pfizer and as a consultant for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and Sumitomo.

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

Diet is increasingly seen as a modifiable risk factor in prostate cancer.

Recent studies have shown that ultralow-carbohydrate diets, weight loss diets, supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids, pro- and anti-inflammatory diets, fasting, and even tea drinking may affect prostate cancer risk or risk for progression.

In October, a cohort study involving about 900 men under active surveillance for early stage prostate cancers found that those who reported eating a diet that adhered closely to the US government’s recommendations as indicated by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) saw a lower risk for progression at a median 6.5 months follow-up.

These findings follow results from an observational study, published in May, that followed about 2000 men with locally advanced prostate tumors. Men consuming a primarily plant-based diet (one closely adhering to the plant-based diet index) had less likelihood of progression over a median 6.5 years than those consuming diets low in plant-based foods.

“There is an increasing body of literature that says your diet matters,” said urologist Stephen J. Freedland, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, and director of its Center for Integrated Research in Cancer and Lifestyle. “At the same time, there are a lot of things that could explain these associations. People who can afford lots of plant-based foods tend to have higher socioeconomic status, for example.”

What’s needed, Freedland said, are more randomized trials to test the hypotheses emerging from the longitudinal cohort studies. “That’s where I’m going with my own research,” he said. “I’d like to look at a study like [one of these] and design a trial. Let’s say we get half of patients to eat according to the healthy eating index, while half eat whatever they want. Can dietary modification change which genes are turned on and off in a tumor, as a start?”

 

Oncologist and Nutritionist Collaborate on Multiple Studies

Nutritionist Pao-Hwa Lin, PhD, of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, has been working for several years with Freedland on trials of nutrition interventions. A longtime researcher of chronic disease and diet, she first collaborated with Freedland on a study, published in 2019, that looked at whether insulin could be driven down with diet and exercise in men treated with androgen deprivation therapy.

Not only are high levels of insulin a known contributor to prostate cancer growth, Lin said, but “insulin resistance is a very common side effect of hormone therapy. And we saw that the low carb diet was very helpful for that.” The finding led Freedland and Lin to design further trials investigating carbohydrate restriction in people with prostate cancer.

Lin said randomized trials tend to be smaller and shorter in duration than the observational cohort studies because “interventions like these can be hard to maintain, and recruitment can be hard to sustain. A very well controlled and intensive nutrition intervention is not going to be super long.” Short trial durations also mean that prostate cancer progression can be difficult to capture. Risk for progression has to be measured using surrogate markers, such as the doubling time for prostate-specific antigen (PSA).

In 2020, Freedland and Lin published results from a pilot study of 57 men who had been treated with surgery or radiation for localized prostate cancer but had a PSA recurrence and were randomized to an ultralow-carbohydrate diet or no restrictions for 6 months. The investigators saw that PSA doubling times, an intermediate measure of tumor growth rate, were slower among those consuming the low-carb diet.

Currently they are wrapping up a trial that randomizes men who have been scheduled for radical prostatectomy to daily supplementation with walnuts, a natural source of polyphenols and omega-3 acids. This time, the aim is to determine whether gene expression in tumors changes in response to supplementation.

The researchers are also recruiting for a study in men being treated for metastatic prostate cancer. This study randomizes patients to a fasting-mimicking diet, which is a type of intermittent fasting, or no dietary restrictions for 6 months.

Developed by biologist Valter Longo, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, the fasting-mimicking diet has been shown to boost treatment effects in women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. In 2023, Longo and his colleagues published results from a small pilot study of the same diet in men with prostate cancer, reporting some positive metabolic findings.

Longo, who is consulting on Lin and Freedland’s trial, “has proven that the diet is helpful in treatment outcomes for breast cancer. So we connected and decided to test it and see if it’s helpful in prostate cancer as well.”

 

More Than One Approach Likely to Work

Though Lin and Freedland have focused most of their investigations on carbohydrate restriction, neither dismisses the potential for other dietary approaches to show benefit.

“There are two main schools of thought in terms of the relationship between diet and prostate cancer,” Lin said. “One is the insulin angle, and that’s what we hypothesized when we first tested the low-carb diet. The other is the inflammation angle.”

Studies have shown greater adherence to the HEI — a diet quality indicator that favors grains, fruits, dairy, vegetables, beans, and seafood — or the plant-based diet index to be associated with lower biomarkers of inflammation, she noted.

Insulin resistance, Lin explained, “is also highly related to inflammation.” (Several of the diets being investigated in prostate cancer were originally studied in diabetes.)

Moreover, weight loss caused by low-carb diets — or other healthy diets — can have a positive effect on insulin resistance independent of diet composition. “So it is a very complicated picture — and that doesn’t exclude other pathways that could also be contributing,” she said.

On the surface, a low-carb diet that is heavy in eggs, cheeses, and meats would seem to have little in common with the HEI or a plant-based diet. But Freedland noted that there are commonalities among the approaches being studied. “No one’s promoting eating a lot of simple sugars. No one’s saying eat a lot of processed foods. All of these diets emphasize whole, natural foods,” he said.

Lin hopes that she and Freedland will one day be able to test a diet that is both lower carb and anti-inflammatory in men with prostate cancer. “Why not combine the approaches, have all the good features together?” she asked.

But Freeland pointed out and explained why most clinicians don’t make dietary recommendations to their newly diagnosed patients.

“A new prostate cancer patient already gets easily an hour discussion of treatment options, of pros and cons. Patients often become overwhelmed. And then to extend it further to talk about diet, they’ll end up even more overwhelmed.” Moreover, he said, current evidence offers doctors few take-home messages to deliver besides avoiding sugar and processed foods.

Multiple dietary approaches are likely to prove helpful in prostate cancer, and when the evidence for them is better established, patients and their doctors will want to consider lifestyle factors in choosing one. The best diet will depend on a patient’s philosophy, tastes, and willingness to follow it, he concluded.

“At the end of the day I’m not rooting for one diet or another. I just want to get the answers.”

Lin disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Freedland disclosed serving as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Astellas, and Pfizer and as a consultant for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and Sumitomo.

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

Diet is increasingly seen as a modifiable risk factor in prostate cancer.

Recent studies have shown that ultralow-carbohydrate diets, weight loss diets, supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids, pro- and anti-inflammatory diets, fasting, and even tea drinking may affect prostate cancer risk or risk for progression.

In October, a cohort study involving about 900 men under active surveillance for early stage prostate cancers found that those who reported eating a diet that adhered closely to the US government’s recommendations as indicated by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) saw a lower risk for progression at a median 6.5 months follow-up.

These findings follow results from an observational study, published in May, that followed about 2000 men with locally advanced prostate tumors. Men consuming a primarily plant-based diet (one closely adhering to the plant-based diet index) had less likelihood of progression over a median 6.5 years than those consuming diets low in plant-based foods.

“There is an increasing body of literature that says your diet matters,” said urologist Stephen J. Freedland, MD, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, and director of its Center for Integrated Research in Cancer and Lifestyle. “At the same time, there are a lot of things that could explain these associations. People who can afford lots of plant-based foods tend to have higher socioeconomic status, for example.”

What’s needed, Freedland said, are more randomized trials to test the hypotheses emerging from the longitudinal cohort studies. “That’s where I’m going with my own research,” he said. “I’d like to look at a study like [one of these] and design a trial. Let’s say we get half of patients to eat according to the healthy eating index, while half eat whatever they want. Can dietary modification change which genes are turned on and off in a tumor, as a start?”

 

Oncologist and Nutritionist Collaborate on Multiple Studies

Nutritionist Pao-Hwa Lin, PhD, of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, has been working for several years with Freedland on trials of nutrition interventions. A longtime researcher of chronic disease and diet, she first collaborated with Freedland on a study, published in 2019, that looked at whether insulin could be driven down with diet and exercise in men treated with androgen deprivation therapy.

Not only are high levels of insulin a known contributor to prostate cancer growth, Lin said, but “insulin resistance is a very common side effect of hormone therapy. And we saw that the low carb diet was very helpful for that.” The finding led Freedland and Lin to design further trials investigating carbohydrate restriction in people with prostate cancer.

Lin said randomized trials tend to be smaller and shorter in duration than the observational cohort studies because “interventions like these can be hard to maintain, and recruitment can be hard to sustain. A very well controlled and intensive nutrition intervention is not going to be super long.” Short trial durations also mean that prostate cancer progression can be difficult to capture. Risk for progression has to be measured using surrogate markers, such as the doubling time for prostate-specific antigen (PSA).

In 2020, Freedland and Lin published results from a pilot study of 57 men who had been treated with surgery or radiation for localized prostate cancer but had a PSA recurrence and were randomized to an ultralow-carbohydrate diet or no restrictions for 6 months. The investigators saw that PSA doubling times, an intermediate measure of tumor growth rate, were slower among those consuming the low-carb diet.

Currently they are wrapping up a trial that randomizes men who have been scheduled for radical prostatectomy to daily supplementation with walnuts, a natural source of polyphenols and omega-3 acids. This time, the aim is to determine whether gene expression in tumors changes in response to supplementation.

The researchers are also recruiting for a study in men being treated for metastatic prostate cancer. This study randomizes patients to a fasting-mimicking diet, which is a type of intermittent fasting, or no dietary restrictions for 6 months.

Developed by biologist Valter Longo, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, the fasting-mimicking diet has been shown to boost treatment effects in women with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. In 2023, Longo and his colleagues published results from a small pilot study of the same diet in men with prostate cancer, reporting some positive metabolic findings.

Longo, who is consulting on Lin and Freedland’s trial, “has proven that the diet is helpful in treatment outcomes for breast cancer. So we connected and decided to test it and see if it’s helpful in prostate cancer as well.”

 

More Than One Approach Likely to Work

Though Lin and Freedland have focused most of their investigations on carbohydrate restriction, neither dismisses the potential for other dietary approaches to show benefit.

“There are two main schools of thought in terms of the relationship between diet and prostate cancer,” Lin said. “One is the insulin angle, and that’s what we hypothesized when we first tested the low-carb diet. The other is the inflammation angle.”

Studies have shown greater adherence to the HEI — a diet quality indicator that favors grains, fruits, dairy, vegetables, beans, and seafood — or the plant-based diet index to be associated with lower biomarkers of inflammation, she noted.

Insulin resistance, Lin explained, “is also highly related to inflammation.” (Several of the diets being investigated in prostate cancer were originally studied in diabetes.)

Moreover, weight loss caused by low-carb diets — or other healthy diets — can have a positive effect on insulin resistance independent of diet composition. “So it is a very complicated picture — and that doesn’t exclude other pathways that could also be contributing,” she said.

On the surface, a low-carb diet that is heavy in eggs, cheeses, and meats would seem to have little in common with the HEI or a plant-based diet. But Freedland noted that there are commonalities among the approaches being studied. “No one’s promoting eating a lot of simple sugars. No one’s saying eat a lot of processed foods. All of these diets emphasize whole, natural foods,” he said.

Lin hopes that she and Freedland will one day be able to test a diet that is both lower carb and anti-inflammatory in men with prostate cancer. “Why not combine the approaches, have all the good features together?” she asked.

But Freeland pointed out and explained why most clinicians don’t make dietary recommendations to their newly diagnosed patients.

“A new prostate cancer patient already gets easily an hour discussion of treatment options, of pros and cons. Patients often become overwhelmed. And then to extend it further to talk about diet, they’ll end up even more overwhelmed.” Moreover, he said, current evidence offers doctors few take-home messages to deliver besides avoiding sugar and processed foods.

Multiple dietary approaches are likely to prove helpful in prostate cancer, and when the evidence for them is better established, patients and their doctors will want to consider lifestyle factors in choosing one. The best diet will depend on a patient’s philosophy, tastes, and willingness to follow it, he concluded.

“At the end of the day I’m not rooting for one diet or another. I just want to get the answers.”

Lin disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Freedland disclosed serving as a speaker for AstraZeneca, Astellas, and Pfizer and as a consultant for Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and Sumitomo.

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

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has expanded two cancer genetic risk assessment guidelines to meet the growing understanding of hereditary cancer risk and use of genetic tests in cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. 

Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.

For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.

“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.

Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants. 

For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.” 

“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release. 

“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.

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

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has expanded two cancer genetic risk assessment guidelines to meet the growing understanding of hereditary cancer risk and use of genetic tests in cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. 

Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.

For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.

“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.

Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants. 

For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.” 

“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release. 

“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.

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

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has expanded two cancer genetic risk assessment guidelines to meet the growing understanding of hereditary cancer risk and use of genetic tests in cancer prevention, screening, and treatment. 

Additional cancer types were included in the title and content for both guidelines. Prostate cancer was added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast, Ovarian, Pancreatic, and Prostate, and endometrial and gastric cancer were added to Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Endometrial, and Gastric.

For these cancers, the expanded guidelines include information on when genetic testing is recommended and what type of testing may be best. These guidelines also detail the hereditary conditions and genetic mutations associated with elevated cancer risk and include appropriate “next steps” for individuals who have them, which may involve increased screening or prevention surgeries.

“These updates include the spectrum of genes associated with genetic syndromes, the range of risk associated with each pathogenic variant, the improvements in screening and prevention strategies, the role of genetic data to inform cancer treatment, and the expansion of the role of genetic counseling as this field moves forward,” Mary B. Daly, MD, PhD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a news release. Daly chaired the panel that updated the breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer guidelines.

Oncologists should, for instance, ask patients about their family and personal history of cancer and known germline variants at time of initial diagnosis. With prostate cancer, if patients meet criteria for germline testing, multigene testing should include a host of variants, including BRCA1, BRCA2, ATM, PALB2, CHEK2, HOXB13, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2.

The updated guidelines on genetic risk assessment of colorectal, endometrial, and gastric cancer include new recommendations to consider for hereditary cancer screening in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, for evaluating and managing CDH1-associated gastric cancer risk, and for managing gastric cancer risk in patients with APC pathogenic variants. 

For CDH1-associated gastric cancer, for instance, the guidelines recommend carriers be referred to institutions with expertise in managing risks for cancer associated with CDH1, “given the still limited understanding and rarity of this syndrome.” 

“These expanded guidelines reflect the recommendations from leading experts on genetic testing based on the latest scientific research across the cancer spectrum, consolidated into two convenient resources,” said NCCN CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, with Fox Chase Cancer Center, in a news release. 

“This information is critical for guiding shared decision-making between health care providers and their patients, enhancing screening practices as appropriate, and potentially choosing options for prevention and targeted treatment choices. Genetic testing guidelines enable us to better care for people with cancer and their family members,” Denlinger added.

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

Overtreatment of men with prostate cancer and limited life expectancy (LE) has persisted in the era of active surveillance and worsened in some instances, according to a new study.

“Overtreatment of men with limited longevity for intermediate- and high-risk tumors has not only failed to improve but has actually worsened over the last 20 years,” Timothy Daskivich, MD, MSHPM, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“Many doctors assume that the increase in uptake of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancers has solved the problem of overtreatment, but this trend has not affected overtreatment of men with low likelihood of living long enough to benefit from treatment who have higher-risk tumors,” Daskivich said.

The study was published online on November 11 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

‘Concerning’ Real-World Data

For men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer expected to live fewer than 10 years, prostate cancer screening and aggressive treatment are not recommended.

Daskivich and colleagues analyzed data on 243,928 men (mean age, 66 years) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2019.

About 21% had LE < 10 years, and about 4% had LE < 5 years, according to the validated age-adjusted Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index.

Overtreatment was defined as aggressive treatment (surgery or radiation) in those with LE < 10 years and low- to intermediate-risk disease and in those with LE < 5 years and high-risk disease, in line with current guidelines.

Among men with LE < 10 years, the proportion of men overtreated with surgery or radiotherapy for low-risk disease decreased 22% but increased 22% for intermediate-risk disease during the study period.

Among men with LE < 5 years, the proportion of men treated with definitive treatment for high-risk disease increased 29%.

“While lower-risk tumors are treated less aggressively across the board, including in men with limited longevity, it seems that we are more indiscriminately treating men with higher-risk disease without considering their expected longevity,” Daskivich said in an interview.

 

Is This Happening in the General US Population?

Daskivich noted that the sample included a large sample of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the VA Health System.

“Rates of overtreatment are likely to be lower in the VA [Health System], so the problem may be worse in the community setting. The VA [Health System] has been exemplary in its uptake of active surveillance for low-risk cancers, leading the effort to reduce overtreatment of men with low-risk cancers. However, the problem of overtreatment of men with limited longevity persists in the VA [Health System], underscoring the pervasiveness of this problem,” he explained.

“We don’t have a perfect head-to-head comparison of overtreatment in the VA setting vs in the community. [However, one study shows] that this is not a VA-specific phenomenon and that there is an increase in overtreatment of men with limited longevity in a Medicare population as well,” Daskivich noted.

 

Is Overtreatment All Bad?

Overtreatment of prostate cancer, especially in cases where the cancer is unlikely to progress or cause symptoms, can lead to significant physical, psychological, and financial harms, Christopher Anderson, MD, urologist with Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted in an interview.

In the study by Daskivich and colleagues, over three quarters of the overtreatment was radiation therapy, which carries the risk for urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.

“Overscreening, which can lead to overtreatment, is a core issue,” Anderson said. It’s easy to order a “simple” prostate-specific antigen blood test, but in an older man with limited LE, that can lead to a host of further testing, he said.

Stopping the pipeline of overscreening that then feeds into the cascade of overtreatment is the first step in addressing the problem of prostate cancer overtreatment, Nancy Li Schoenborn, MD, MHS, with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and Louise C. Walter, MD, with University of California San Francisco, wrote in an editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Considering LE during screening decision-making is “fundamental to reducing harms of prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment” because limited LE increases the likelihood of experiencing “harms all along the diagnostic and treatment cascade following screening,” the editorial writers said.

The time spent diagnosing, monitoring, and treating asymptomatic prostate cancer in men with limited LE distracts from monitoring and treating chronic symptomatic life-limiting illnesses, they noted.

 

Tough to Talk About?

Anderson noted that, in general, doctors are not great at estimating and counseling patients on LE. “It’s sometimes difficult to have that conversation,” he said.

Daskivich said physicians may fail to include average LE when advising patients on treatments because they believe that the patients do not want to discuss this topic. “Yet, in interviews with patients, we found that prostate cancer patients reported they wanted this information,” he continued, in an interview.

Solving the problem of overscreening and overtreatment will require a “multifaceted approach, including improving access to life expectancy data at the point of care for providers, educating providers on how to communicate this information, and improving data sources to predict longevity,” Daskivich said.

He said it’s equally important to note that some men with prostate cancer may choose treatment even if they have a limited longevity.

“Not all patients will choose conservative management, even if it is recommended by guidelines. However, they need to be given the opportunity to make a good decision for themselves with the best possible data,” Daskivich said.

This work was supported in part by a US Department of VA Merit Review. Daskivich reported receiving personal fees from the Medical Education Speakers Network, EDAP, and RAND; research support from Lantheus and Janssen; and a patent pending for a system for healthcare visit quality assessment outside the submitted work. Schoenborn, Walter, and Anderson had no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Overtreatment of men with prostate cancer and limited life expectancy (LE) has persisted in the era of active surveillance and worsened in some instances, according to a new study.

“Overtreatment of men with limited longevity for intermediate- and high-risk tumors has not only failed to improve but has actually worsened over the last 20 years,” Timothy Daskivich, MD, MSHPM, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“Many doctors assume that the increase in uptake of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancers has solved the problem of overtreatment, but this trend has not affected overtreatment of men with low likelihood of living long enough to benefit from treatment who have higher-risk tumors,” Daskivich said.

The study was published online on November 11 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

‘Concerning’ Real-World Data

For men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer expected to live fewer than 10 years, prostate cancer screening and aggressive treatment are not recommended.

Daskivich and colleagues analyzed data on 243,928 men (mean age, 66 years) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2019.

About 21% had LE < 10 years, and about 4% had LE < 5 years, according to the validated age-adjusted Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index.

Overtreatment was defined as aggressive treatment (surgery or radiation) in those with LE < 10 years and low- to intermediate-risk disease and in those with LE < 5 years and high-risk disease, in line with current guidelines.

Among men with LE < 10 years, the proportion of men overtreated with surgery or radiotherapy for low-risk disease decreased 22% but increased 22% for intermediate-risk disease during the study period.

Among men with LE < 5 years, the proportion of men treated with definitive treatment for high-risk disease increased 29%.

“While lower-risk tumors are treated less aggressively across the board, including in men with limited longevity, it seems that we are more indiscriminately treating men with higher-risk disease without considering their expected longevity,” Daskivich said in an interview.

 

Is This Happening in the General US Population?

Daskivich noted that the sample included a large sample of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the VA Health System.

“Rates of overtreatment are likely to be lower in the VA [Health System], so the problem may be worse in the community setting. The VA [Health System] has been exemplary in its uptake of active surveillance for low-risk cancers, leading the effort to reduce overtreatment of men with low-risk cancers. However, the problem of overtreatment of men with limited longevity persists in the VA [Health System], underscoring the pervasiveness of this problem,” he explained.

“We don’t have a perfect head-to-head comparison of overtreatment in the VA setting vs in the community. [However, one study shows] that this is not a VA-specific phenomenon and that there is an increase in overtreatment of men with limited longevity in a Medicare population as well,” Daskivich noted.

 

Is Overtreatment All Bad?

Overtreatment of prostate cancer, especially in cases where the cancer is unlikely to progress or cause symptoms, can lead to significant physical, psychological, and financial harms, Christopher Anderson, MD, urologist with Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted in an interview.

In the study by Daskivich and colleagues, over three quarters of the overtreatment was radiation therapy, which carries the risk for urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.

“Overscreening, which can lead to overtreatment, is a core issue,” Anderson said. It’s easy to order a “simple” prostate-specific antigen blood test, but in an older man with limited LE, that can lead to a host of further testing, he said.

Stopping the pipeline of overscreening that then feeds into the cascade of overtreatment is the first step in addressing the problem of prostate cancer overtreatment, Nancy Li Schoenborn, MD, MHS, with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and Louise C. Walter, MD, with University of California San Francisco, wrote in an editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Considering LE during screening decision-making is “fundamental to reducing harms of prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment” because limited LE increases the likelihood of experiencing “harms all along the diagnostic and treatment cascade following screening,” the editorial writers said.

The time spent diagnosing, monitoring, and treating asymptomatic prostate cancer in men with limited LE distracts from monitoring and treating chronic symptomatic life-limiting illnesses, they noted.

 

Tough to Talk About?

Anderson noted that, in general, doctors are not great at estimating and counseling patients on LE. “It’s sometimes difficult to have that conversation,” he said.

Daskivich said physicians may fail to include average LE when advising patients on treatments because they believe that the patients do not want to discuss this topic. “Yet, in interviews with patients, we found that prostate cancer patients reported they wanted this information,” he continued, in an interview.

Solving the problem of overscreening and overtreatment will require a “multifaceted approach, including improving access to life expectancy data at the point of care for providers, educating providers on how to communicate this information, and improving data sources to predict longevity,” Daskivich said.

He said it’s equally important to note that some men with prostate cancer may choose treatment even if they have a limited longevity.

“Not all patients will choose conservative management, even if it is recommended by guidelines. However, they need to be given the opportunity to make a good decision for themselves with the best possible data,” Daskivich said.

This work was supported in part by a US Department of VA Merit Review. Daskivich reported receiving personal fees from the Medical Education Speakers Network, EDAP, and RAND; research support from Lantheus and Janssen; and a patent pending for a system for healthcare visit quality assessment outside the submitted work. Schoenborn, Walter, and Anderson had no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Overtreatment of men with prostate cancer and limited life expectancy (LE) has persisted in the era of active surveillance and worsened in some instances, according to a new study.

“Overtreatment of men with limited longevity for intermediate- and high-risk tumors has not only failed to improve but has actually worsened over the last 20 years,” Timothy Daskivich, MD, MSHPM, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“Many doctors assume that the increase in uptake of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancers has solved the problem of overtreatment, but this trend has not affected overtreatment of men with low likelihood of living long enough to benefit from treatment who have higher-risk tumors,” Daskivich said.

The study was published online on November 11 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

‘Concerning’ Real-World Data

For men with low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer expected to live fewer than 10 years, prostate cancer screening and aggressive treatment are not recommended.

Daskivich and colleagues analyzed data on 243,928 men (mean age, 66 years) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2019.

About 21% had LE < 10 years, and about 4% had LE < 5 years, according to the validated age-adjusted Prostate Cancer Comorbidity Index.

Overtreatment was defined as aggressive treatment (surgery or radiation) in those with LE < 10 years and low- to intermediate-risk disease and in those with LE < 5 years and high-risk disease, in line with current guidelines.

Among men with LE < 10 years, the proportion of men overtreated with surgery or radiotherapy for low-risk disease decreased 22% but increased 22% for intermediate-risk disease during the study period.

Among men with LE < 5 years, the proportion of men treated with definitive treatment for high-risk disease increased 29%.

“While lower-risk tumors are treated less aggressively across the board, including in men with limited longevity, it seems that we are more indiscriminately treating men with higher-risk disease without considering their expected longevity,” Daskivich said in an interview.

 

Is This Happening in the General US Population?

Daskivich noted that the sample included a large sample of men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer in the VA Health System.

“Rates of overtreatment are likely to be lower in the VA [Health System], so the problem may be worse in the community setting. The VA [Health System] has been exemplary in its uptake of active surveillance for low-risk cancers, leading the effort to reduce overtreatment of men with low-risk cancers. However, the problem of overtreatment of men with limited longevity persists in the VA [Health System], underscoring the pervasiveness of this problem,” he explained.

“We don’t have a perfect head-to-head comparison of overtreatment in the VA setting vs in the community. [However, one study shows] that this is not a VA-specific phenomenon and that there is an increase in overtreatment of men with limited longevity in a Medicare population as well,” Daskivich noted.

 

Is Overtreatment All Bad?

Overtreatment of prostate cancer, especially in cases where the cancer is unlikely to progress or cause symptoms, can lead to significant physical, psychological, and financial harms, Christopher Anderson, MD, urologist with Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City, who wasn’t involved in the study, noted in an interview.

In the study by Daskivich and colleagues, over three quarters of the overtreatment was radiation therapy, which carries the risk for urinary, bowel, and sexual issues.

“Overscreening, which can lead to overtreatment, is a core issue,” Anderson said. It’s easy to order a “simple” prostate-specific antigen blood test, but in an older man with limited LE, that can lead to a host of further testing, he said.

Stopping the pipeline of overscreening that then feeds into the cascade of overtreatment is the first step in addressing the problem of prostate cancer overtreatment, Nancy Li Schoenborn, MD, MHS, with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and Louise C. Walter, MD, with University of California San Francisco, wrote in an editorial in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Considering LE during screening decision-making is “fundamental to reducing harms of prostate cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment” because limited LE increases the likelihood of experiencing “harms all along the diagnostic and treatment cascade following screening,” the editorial writers said.

The time spent diagnosing, monitoring, and treating asymptomatic prostate cancer in men with limited LE distracts from monitoring and treating chronic symptomatic life-limiting illnesses, they noted.

 

Tough to Talk About?

Anderson noted that, in general, doctors are not great at estimating and counseling patients on LE. “It’s sometimes difficult to have that conversation,” he said.

Daskivich said physicians may fail to include average LE when advising patients on treatments because they believe that the patients do not want to discuss this topic. “Yet, in interviews with patients, we found that prostate cancer patients reported they wanted this information,” he continued, in an interview.

Solving the problem of overscreening and overtreatment will require a “multifaceted approach, including improving access to life expectancy data at the point of care for providers, educating providers on how to communicate this information, and improving data sources to predict longevity,” Daskivich said.

He said it’s equally important to note that some men with prostate cancer may choose treatment even if they have a limited longevity.

“Not all patients will choose conservative management, even if it is recommended by guidelines. However, they need to be given the opportunity to make a good decision for themselves with the best possible data,” Daskivich said.

This work was supported in part by a US Department of VA Merit Review. Daskivich reported receiving personal fees from the Medical Education Speakers Network, EDAP, and RAND; research support from Lantheus and Janssen; and a patent pending for a system for healthcare visit quality assessment outside the submitted work. Schoenborn, Walter, and Anderson had no relevant disclosures.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.