Head & Neck/Thyroid Cancers

Concurrent cisplatin should remain the standard treatment over cetuximab for patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, according to a large comparative phase 3 trial.

Based on the results of an interim analysis of the ARTSCAN III clinical trial, the independent safety data monitoring committee recommended early closure of the study because the results of the study suggest that cetuximab may be inferior to cisplatin.

“This study supports previous retrospective and prospective studies that suggest that concurrent cisplatin with radiation is superior to regimens with concurrent cetuximab in locally advanced head and neck cancers,” commented Sachin Jhawar, MD, MSCI, assistant professor in the department of radiation oncology at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus. “While the previous studies De-ESCALaTE HPV and RTOG 1016 were specific to HPV [human papillomavirus]-positive cancers, this study allowed non–virally mediated tumors, though the majority of cases were HPV related.”

The new study also used a lower-dose weekly regimen of cisplatin than the other two studies, noted Dr. Jhawar. Early trials used a cisplatin dose of 100 mg/m² every 3 weeks, but “the field is moving toward a dose of 40 mg/m² weekly, the dose use in the Swedish study. This study had an interesting second randomization of radiation dose-escalation for more advanced primary T stage tumors, but because the study ended early it is difficult to fully interpret those results.”

Swedish researchers, led by Maria Gebre-Medhin, MD, PhD, department of hematology, oncology, and radiation physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, performed an open-label, randomized, controlled, phase 3 study of patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. The patients received IV cetuximab 400 mg/m² 1 week before the start of radiation therapy followed by 250 mg/m² per week, or weekly IV cisplatin 40 mg/m² during radiation therapy.

The study results were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The study was prematurely closed after an unplanned interim analysis when 298 patients had been randomly assigned. The cumulative incidence of locoregional failures at 3 years was more than twice as high in the cetuximab group (23%), compared with the cisplatin group (9%; P = .0036). At 3 years, overall survival was higher in the cisplatin (88%) group than in the cetuximab group (78%), but the difference was not significant (P = .086). The cumulative incidence of distant failures did not differ between the treatment groups, and the toxicity burden was similar.

“Concurrent cisplatin led to improved locoregional control and event-free survival with a trend toward improved overall survival. The types of toxicity were different, as would be expected with the different drug mechanisms, but the rate of toxicity was not,” said Dr. Dr. Jhawar. “Interestingly, the benefit of cisplatin seemed to be limited to patients with p16-positive oropharyngeal cancer. There was clinical equipoise in the p16-negative oropharyngeal cancer group and in the non–oropharyngeal cancer group. The numbers were small, but this is intriguing and suggests that there is more work to be done in this group of patients to tease out if we can escalate or use alternative therapy.”

Cisplatin has been repeatedly proven to be superior in selected populations. The next steps, said Dr. Jhawar, include defining “optimal regimens in cisplatin-ineligible populations based on age, performance status, kidney function, hearing loss, neuropathy, and HIV/AIDS; improvements with new targeted therapies and immunotherapies; and deescalation of systemic and/or radiation regimens in the best outcome groups, such as low-risk HPV-positive patients. And we are going to see more personalized medicine with genetic testing of tumors.”

When patients are ineligible for cisplatin, no optimal regimens have been defined as yet. At Ohio State, Dr. Jhawar and colleagues use carboplatin therapy.

For practicing oncologists, Dr. Jhawar said the bottom line is “patients who are eligible should receive concurrent cisplatin therapy for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer.”

The ARTSCAN III study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and the Mrs. Berta Kamprad Cancer Foundation. One of the study’s coauthors reported a leadership role in ScandiDos. The other authors reported they had no conflicts. Dr. Jhawar reported he had no conflicts of interest.




 

Concurrent cisplatin should remain the standard treatment over cetuximab for patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, according to a large comparative phase 3 trial.

Based on the results of an interim analysis of the ARTSCAN III clinical trial, the independent safety data monitoring committee recommended early closure of the study because the results of the study suggest that cetuximab may be inferior to cisplatin.

“This study supports previous retrospective and prospective studies that suggest that concurrent cisplatin with radiation is superior to regimens with concurrent cetuximab in locally advanced head and neck cancers,” commented Sachin Jhawar, MD, MSCI, assistant professor in the department of radiation oncology at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus. “While the previous studies De-ESCALaTE HPV and RTOG 1016 were specific to HPV [human papillomavirus]-positive cancers, this study allowed non–virally mediated tumors, though the majority of cases were HPV related.”

The new study also used a lower-dose weekly regimen of cisplatin than the other two studies, noted Dr. Jhawar. Early trials used a cisplatin dose of 100 mg/m² every 3 weeks, but “the field is moving toward a dose of 40 mg/m² weekly, the dose use in the Swedish study. This study had an interesting second randomization of radiation dose-escalation for more advanced primary T stage tumors, but because the study ended early it is difficult to fully interpret those results.”

Swedish researchers, led by Maria Gebre-Medhin, MD, PhD, department of hematology, oncology, and radiation physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, performed an open-label, randomized, controlled, phase 3 study of patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. The patients received IV cetuximab 400 mg/m² 1 week before the start of radiation therapy followed by 250 mg/m² per week, or weekly IV cisplatin 40 mg/m² during radiation therapy.

The study results were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The study was prematurely closed after an unplanned interim analysis when 298 patients had been randomly assigned. The cumulative incidence of locoregional failures at 3 years was more than twice as high in the cetuximab group (23%), compared with the cisplatin group (9%; P = .0036). At 3 years, overall survival was higher in the cisplatin (88%) group than in the cetuximab group (78%), but the difference was not significant (P = .086). The cumulative incidence of distant failures did not differ between the treatment groups, and the toxicity burden was similar.

“Concurrent cisplatin led to improved locoregional control and event-free survival with a trend toward improved overall survival. The types of toxicity were different, as would be expected with the different drug mechanisms, but the rate of toxicity was not,” said Dr. Dr. Jhawar. “Interestingly, the benefit of cisplatin seemed to be limited to patients with p16-positive oropharyngeal cancer. There was clinical equipoise in the p16-negative oropharyngeal cancer group and in the non–oropharyngeal cancer group. The numbers were small, but this is intriguing and suggests that there is more work to be done in this group of patients to tease out if we can escalate or use alternative therapy.”

Cisplatin has been repeatedly proven to be superior in selected populations. The next steps, said Dr. Jhawar, include defining “optimal regimens in cisplatin-ineligible populations based on age, performance status, kidney function, hearing loss, neuropathy, and HIV/AIDS; improvements with new targeted therapies and immunotherapies; and deescalation of systemic and/or radiation regimens in the best outcome groups, such as low-risk HPV-positive patients. And we are going to see more personalized medicine with genetic testing of tumors.”

When patients are ineligible for cisplatin, no optimal regimens have been defined as yet. At Ohio State, Dr. Jhawar and colleagues use carboplatin therapy.

For practicing oncologists, Dr. Jhawar said the bottom line is “patients who are eligible should receive concurrent cisplatin therapy for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer.”

The ARTSCAN III study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and the Mrs. Berta Kamprad Cancer Foundation. One of the study’s coauthors reported a leadership role in ScandiDos. The other authors reported they had no conflicts. Dr. Jhawar reported he had no conflicts of interest.




 

Concurrent cisplatin should remain the standard treatment over cetuximab for patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, according to a large comparative phase 3 trial.

Based on the results of an interim analysis of the ARTSCAN III clinical trial, the independent safety data monitoring committee recommended early closure of the study because the results of the study suggest that cetuximab may be inferior to cisplatin.

“This study supports previous retrospective and prospective studies that suggest that concurrent cisplatin with radiation is superior to regimens with concurrent cetuximab in locally advanced head and neck cancers,” commented Sachin Jhawar, MD, MSCI, assistant professor in the department of radiation oncology at Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus. “While the previous studies De-ESCALaTE HPV and RTOG 1016 were specific to HPV [human papillomavirus]-positive cancers, this study allowed non–virally mediated tumors, though the majority of cases were HPV related.”

The new study also used a lower-dose weekly regimen of cisplatin than the other two studies, noted Dr. Jhawar. Early trials used a cisplatin dose of 100 mg/m² every 3 weeks, but “the field is moving toward a dose of 40 mg/m² weekly, the dose use in the Swedish study. This study had an interesting second randomization of radiation dose-escalation for more advanced primary T stage tumors, but because the study ended early it is difficult to fully interpret those results.”

Swedish researchers, led by Maria Gebre-Medhin, MD, PhD, department of hematology, oncology, and radiation physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, performed an open-label, randomized, controlled, phase 3 study of patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. The patients received IV cetuximab 400 mg/m² 1 week before the start of radiation therapy followed by 250 mg/m² per week, or weekly IV cisplatin 40 mg/m² during radiation therapy.

The study results were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The study was prematurely closed after an unplanned interim analysis when 298 patients had been randomly assigned. The cumulative incidence of locoregional failures at 3 years was more than twice as high in the cetuximab group (23%), compared with the cisplatin group (9%; P = .0036). At 3 years, overall survival was higher in the cisplatin (88%) group than in the cetuximab group (78%), but the difference was not significant (P = .086). The cumulative incidence of distant failures did not differ between the treatment groups, and the toxicity burden was similar.

“Concurrent cisplatin led to improved locoregional control and event-free survival with a trend toward improved overall survival. The types of toxicity were different, as would be expected with the different drug mechanisms, but the rate of toxicity was not,” said Dr. Dr. Jhawar. “Interestingly, the benefit of cisplatin seemed to be limited to patients with p16-positive oropharyngeal cancer. There was clinical equipoise in the p16-negative oropharyngeal cancer group and in the non–oropharyngeal cancer group. The numbers were small, but this is intriguing and suggests that there is more work to be done in this group of patients to tease out if we can escalate or use alternative therapy.”

Cisplatin has been repeatedly proven to be superior in selected populations. The next steps, said Dr. Jhawar, include defining “optimal regimens in cisplatin-ineligible populations based on age, performance status, kidney function, hearing loss, neuropathy, and HIV/AIDS; improvements with new targeted therapies and immunotherapies; and deescalation of systemic and/or radiation regimens in the best outcome groups, such as low-risk HPV-positive patients. And we are going to see more personalized medicine with genetic testing of tumors.”

When patients are ineligible for cisplatin, no optimal regimens have been defined as yet. At Ohio State, Dr. Jhawar and colleagues use carboplatin therapy.

For practicing oncologists, Dr. Jhawar said the bottom line is “patients who are eligible should receive concurrent cisplatin therapy for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer.”

The ARTSCAN III study was funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and the Mrs. Berta Kamprad Cancer Foundation. One of the study’s coauthors reported a leadership role in ScandiDos. The other authors reported they had no conflicts. Dr. Jhawar reported he had no conflicts of interest.




 

Asymptomatic screening of cancer patients receiving anticancer therapy detected a very low rate of COVID-19 in a retrospective study.

Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).

While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.

Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional anticancer therapy in May 2020.

The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.

Results

Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.

With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.

At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.

In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).

In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.

“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.

“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.

Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.

“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.

“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.

Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

Asymptomatic screening of cancer patients receiving anticancer therapy detected a very low rate of COVID-19 in a retrospective study.

Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).

While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.

Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional anticancer therapy in May 2020.

The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.

Results

Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.

With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.

At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.

In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).

In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.

“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.

“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.

Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.

“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.

“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.

Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

Asymptomatic screening of cancer patients receiving anticancer therapy detected a very low rate of COVID-19 in a retrospective study.

Of more than 2,000 patients, less than 1% were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening, an investigator reported at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer (Abstract S09-04).

While several models have been proposed to screen for COVID-19 among cancer patients, the optimal strategy remains unknown, said investigator Justin A. Shaya, MD, of the University of California, San Diego.

The most commonly used approach is symptom/exposure-based screening and testing. However, other models have combined this method with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for asymptomatic high-risk patients (such as those undergoing bone marrow transplant, receiving chemotherapy, or with hematologic malignancies) or with PCR testing for all asymptomatic cancer patients.

Dr. Shaya’s institution implemented a novel COVID-19 screening protocol for cancer patients receiving infusional anticancer therapy in May 2020.

The protocol required SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing for asymptomatic patients 24-96 hours prior to infusion. However, testing was only required before the administration of anticancer therapy. Infusion visits for supportive care interventions did not require previsit testing.

The researchers retrospectively analyzed data from patients with active cancer receiving infusional anticancer therapy who had at least one asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between June 1 and Dec. 1, 2020. The primary outcome was the rate of COVID-19 positivity among asymptomatic patients.

Results

Among 2,202 patients identified, 21 (0.95%) were found to be COVID-19 positive on asymptomatic screening. Most of these patients (90.5%) had solid tumors, but two (9.5%) had hematologic malignancies.

With respect to treatment, 16 patients (76.2%) received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 (9.5%) received targeted therapy, 1 (4.7%) received immunotherapy, and 2 (9.5%) were on a clinical trial.

At a median follow-up of 174 days from a positive PCR test (range, 55-223 days), only two patients (9.5%) developed COVID-related symptoms. Both patients had acute leukemia, and one required hospitalization for COVID-related complications.

In the COVID-19–positive cohort, 20 (95.2%) patients had their anticancer therapy delayed or deferred, with a median delay of 21 days (range, 7-77 days).

In the overall cohort, an additional 26 patients (1.2%) developed symptomatic COVID-19 during the study period.

“These results are particularly interesting because they come from a high-quality center that sees a large number of patients,” said Solange Peters, MD, PhD, of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), who was not involved in this study.

“As they suggest, it is still a debate on how efficient routine screening is, asking the question whether we’re really detecting COVID-19 infection in our patients. Of course, it depends on the time and environment,” Dr. Peters added.

Dr. Shaya acknowledged that the small sample size was a key limitation of the study. Thus, the results may not be generalizable to other regions.

“One of the most striking things is that asymptomatic patients suffer very few consequences of COVID-19 infection, except for patients with hematologic malignancies,” Dr. Shaya said during a live discussion. “The majority of our patients had solid tumors and failed to develop any signs/symptoms of COVID infection.

“Routine screening provides a lot of security, and our institution is big enough to allow for it, and it seems our teams enjoy the fact of knowing the COVID status for each patient,” he continued.

Dr. Shaya and Dr. Peters disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported in the presentation.

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

Best practices for managing cancer outpatients continue to evolve during the COVID-19 pandemic, with recent innovations in technology, operations, and communication.

“We’ve tried a lot of new things to ensure optimal care for our patients,” said Tiffany A. Traina, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) in New York. “We need to effectively utilize all resources at our disposal to keep in touch with our patients during this time.”

Dr. Traina described the approach to outpatient management used at MSKCC during a presentation at the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer.
 

Four guiding principles

MSKCC has established four guiding principles on how to manage cancer patients during the pandemic: openness, safety, technology, and staffing.

Openness ensures that decisions are guided by clinical priorities to provide optimal patient care and allow for prioritization of clinical research and education, Dr. Traina said.

The safety of patients and staff is of the utmost importance, she added. To ensure safety in the context of outpatient care, several operational levers were developed, including COVID surge planning, universal masking and personal protective equipment guidelines, remote work, clinical levers, and new dashboards and communications.

Dr. Traina said data analytics and dashboards have been key technological tools used to support evidence-based decision-making and deliver care remotely for patients during the pandemic.

Staffing resources have also shifted to support demand at different health system locations.
 

Screening, cohorting, and telemedicine

One measure MSKCC adopted is the MSK Engage Questionnaire, a COVID-19 screening questionnaire assigned to every patient with a scheduled outpatient visit. After completing the questionnaire, patients receive a response denoting whether they need to come into the outpatient setting.

On the staffing side, clinic coordinators prepare appointments accordingly, based on the risk level for each patient.

“We also try to cohort COVID-positive patients into particular areas within the outpatient setting,” Dr. Traina explained. “In addition, we control flow through ambulatory care locations by having separate patient entrances and use other tools to make flow as efficient as possible.”

On the technology side, interactive dashboards are being used to model traffic through different buildings.

“These data and analytics are useful for operational engineering, answering questions such as (1) Are there backups in chemotherapy? and (2) Are patients seeing one particular physician?” Dr. Traina explained. “One important key takeaway is the importance of frequently communicating simple messages through multiple mechanisms, including signage, websites, and dedicated resources.”

Other key technological measures are leveraging telemedicine to convert inpatient appointments to a virtual setting, as well as developing and deploying a system for centralized outpatient follow-up of COVID-19-positive patients.

“We saw a 3,000% increase in telemedicine utilization from February 2020 to June 2020,” Dr. Traina reported. “In a given month, we have approximately 230,000 outpatient visits, and a substantial proportion of these are now done via telemedicine.”

Dr. Traina also noted that multiple organizations have released guidelines addressing when to resume anticancer therapy in patients who have been COVID-19 positive. Adherence is important, as unnecessary COVID-19 testing may delay cancer therapy and is not recommended.

During a live discussion, Louis P. Voigt, MD, of MSKCC, said Dr. Traina’s presentation provided “a lot of good ideas for other institutions who may be facing similar challenges.”

Dr. Traina and Dr. Voigt disclosed no conflicts of interest. No funding sources were reported.

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

All patients receiving active cancer treatment should receive a COVID-19 vaccine and should be prioritized for vaccination, according to preliminary recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).

Vaccination timing considerations vary based on factors such as cancer and treatment type, and reasons for delaying vaccination in the general public also apply to cancer patients (recent COVID-19 exposure, for example).

In general, however, patients with cancer should be assigned to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention priority group 1 b/c and immunized when vaccination is available to them, the guidelines state. Exceptions to this recommendation include:

• Patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant or receiving engineered cellular therapy such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Vaccination should be delayed for at least 3 months in these patients to maximize vaccine efficacy. Caregivers of these patients, however, should be immunized when possible.
• Patients with hematologic malignancies who are receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, such as cytarabine- or anthracycline-based regimens for acute myeloid leukemia. Vaccination in these patients should be delayed until absolute neutrophil count recovery.
• Patients undergoing major surgery. Vaccination should occur at least a few days before or after surgery.
• Patients who have experienced a severe or immediate adverse reaction to any of the ingredients in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

Conversely, vaccination should occur when available in patients with hematologic malignancies and marrow failure who are expected to have limited or no recovery, patients with hematologic malignancies who are on long-term maintenance therapy, and patients with solid tumors who are receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, targeted therapy, checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapy, or radiotherapy.

Caregivers, household contacts, and other close contacts who are 16 years of age and older should be vaccinated whenever they are eligible.
 

Unique concerns in patients with cancer

The NCCN recommendations were developed to address the unique issues and concerns with respect to patients with cancer, who have an increased risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection. But the guidelines come with a caveat: “[t]here are limited safety and efficacy data in these patients,” the NCCN emphasized in a press statement.

“Right now, there is urgent need and limited data,” Steven Pergam, MD, co-leader of the NCCN COVID-19 Vaccination Committee, said in the statement.

“Our number one goal is helping to get the vaccine to as many people as we can,” Dr. Pergam said. “That means following existing national and regional directions for prioritizing people who are more likely to face death or severe illness from COVID-19.”

Dr. Pergam, associate professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, further explained that “people receiving active cancer treatment are at greater risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, particularly if they are older and have additional comorbidities, like immunosuppression.”

NCCN’s recommendations couldn’t have come at a better time for patients with cancer, according to Nora Disis, MD, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

“The NCCN’s recommendations to prioritize COVID vaccinations for cancer patients on active treatment is an important step forward in protecting our patients from the infection,” Dr. Disis said in an interview.

“Cancer patients may be at higher risk for the complications seen with infection. In addition, cancer is a disease of older people, and a good number of our patients have the comorbidities that would predict a poorer outcome if they should become sick,” Dr. Disis added. “With the correct treatment, many patients with cancer will be long-term survivors. It is important that they be protected from infection with COVID to realize their best outcome.”
 

Additional vaccine considerations

The NCCN recommendations also address several other issues of importance for cancer patients, including:

• Deprioritizing other vaccines. COVID-19 vaccines should take precedence over other vaccines because data on dual vaccination are lacking. The NCCN recommends waiting 14 days after COVID-19 vaccination to deliver other vaccines.
• Vaccinating clinical trial participants. Trial leads should be consulted to prevent protocol violations or exclusions.
• Decision-making in the setting of limited vaccine availability. The NCCN noted that decisions on allocation must be made in accordance with state and local vaccine guidance but suggests prioritizing appropriate patients on active treatment, those planning to start treatment, and those who have just completed treatment. Additional risk factors for these patients, as well as other factors associated with risk for adverse COVID-19 outcomes, should also be considered. These include advanced age, comorbidities, and adverse social and demographic factors such as poverty and limited health care access.
• The need for ongoing prevention measures. Vaccines have been shown to decrease the incidence of COVID-19 and related complications, but it remains unclear whether vaccines prevent infection and subsequent transmission. This means everyone should continue following prevention recommendations, such as wearing masks and avoiding crowds.

The NCCN stressed that these recommendations are “intended to be a living document that is constantly evolving – it will be updated rapidly whenever new data comes out, as well as any potential new vaccines that may get approved in the future.” The NCCN also noted that the advisory committee will meet regularly to refine the recommendations as needed.

Dr. Pergam disclosed relationships with Chimerix Inc., Merck & Co., Global Life Technologies Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis. Dr. Disis disclosed grants from Pfizer, Bavarian Nordisk, Janssen, and Precigen. She is the founder of EpiThany and editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology.

[email protected]

An investigational elastography technique for evaluating thyroid nodules while individuals use their voice could improve the detection of malignant tumors, which are sometimes missed by ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration biopsy, say French researchers. However, it has not yet been tested for cancer detection.

The new approach involves holding a linear ultrasound probe to the throat of the patient, who is then requested to vocalize an “eee” sound at 150 Hz. A loudspeaker plays a 150-Hz sound to guide the patient.

The vocal vibrations generated, called shear waves, are detected by the probe as they pass through the thyroid. Software the researchers developed calculates the velocity of the shear waves, which move faster through stiffer tissue. The software produces a stiffness map that is then superimposed onto a gray-scale (B mode) thyroid image from the ultrasound.

Cancerous tissue is stiffer than healthy tissue and benign nodules, so shear waves pass through it more quickly, the researchers explained. Areas of particular stiffness that are revealed by the test are a concern.

The study was published online Jan. 12 in Applied Physics Letters.

The new approach is a noninvasive method that “would reduce the stress of patients during their medical exams. Having to sing during a medical exam can perhaps help release some of the nervous tension even more,” lead investigator Steve Beuve, PhD, of the Université de Tours (France), said in a press release. The main benefit of this technique is that it is “quick and easy,” he added. Data acquisition takes about a second, and no specialized equipment is required. Imaging can be rendered by any Doppler ultrasound set at an ultrafast frame rate to track the shear waves. The computer program automatically calculates wave velocity through various parts of the thyroid.

The technique, dubbed vocal passive elastography (VPE), has not yet been tested to see how well it distinguishes cancerous from benign thyroid nodules.

“We want to cooperate with physicians to propose protocols to verify [VPE’s] relevance,” Dr. Beuve said.

Because no data are currently available on how accurate VPE is in diagnosing malignant nodules, it is not possible to comment on its potential usefulness, Aya Kamaya, MD, a radiology professor at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

Ultrasound elastography for diagnosing thyroid disease has been in development for years. More than 100 reports have been published in the medical literature since 2005. Various devices are available commercially, but for now, elastography for thyroid nodules remains investigational, she said.

Another expert who was approached for comment was more critical.

Lisa Orloff, MD, a professor and director of endocrine head and neck surgery and the thyroid tumor program at Stanford University, noted that, in general, “elastography has not gained more traction in thyroid evaluation to date because it does not appear to reduce the need for [fine-needle aspiration] of suspicious nodules based on gray-scale ultrasound alone, without elastography.”

As for the French report, she said that “while the voice might be a convenient shear wave source, I am very skeptical at many levels. I get the impression that [this is] a laboratory-based concept that is fraught with confounding factors in attempting real-world application.

“One concern is that the thyroid gland and nodule stiffness are affected by factors including underlying goiter, autoimmune disease, fluid content of nodules, calcifications, and other variables that can be present in benign or malignant conditions. And there are so many variables that would affect an individual patient’s ability (or not) to phonate at 150 Hz,” Dr. Orloff said.

VPE is an extension of passive elastography, which extracts elasticity data from the natural vibrations caused by the heart, blood pulsatility, and muscle activity, the authors explained. The team turned to vocalization at 150 Hz in part to overcome the physiological background noise in the thyroid from carotid pulsation at about 1-10 Hz.

The group is exploring vocalizations at other frequencies and is working to improve the computer program interface. They are also exploring VPE for other organs, including the brain.

The source of funding for the study and the authors’ relevant financial relationships were not reported.

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

An investigational elastography technique for evaluating thyroid nodules while individuals use their voice could improve the detection of malignant tumors, which are sometimes missed by ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration biopsy, say French researchers. However, it has not yet been tested for cancer detection.

The new approach involves holding a linear ultrasound probe to the throat of the patient, who is then requested to vocalize an “eee” sound at 150 Hz. A loudspeaker plays a 150-Hz sound to guide the patient.

The vocal vibrations generated, called shear waves, are detected by the probe as they pass through the thyroid. Software the researchers developed calculates the velocity of the shear waves, which move faster through stiffer tissue. The software produces a stiffness map that is then superimposed onto a gray-scale (B mode) thyroid image from the ultrasound.

Cancerous tissue is stiffer than healthy tissue and benign nodules, so shear waves pass through it more quickly, the researchers explained. Areas of particular stiffness that are revealed by the test are a concern.

The study was published online Jan. 12 in Applied Physics Letters.

The new approach is a noninvasive method that “would reduce the stress of patients during their medical exams. Having to sing during a medical exam can perhaps help release some of the nervous tension even more,” lead investigator Steve Beuve, PhD, of the Université de Tours (France), said in a press release. The main benefit of this technique is that it is “quick and easy,” he added. Data acquisition takes about a second, and no specialized equipment is required. Imaging can be rendered by any Doppler ultrasound set at an ultrafast frame rate to track the shear waves. The computer program automatically calculates wave velocity through various parts of the thyroid.

The technique, dubbed vocal passive elastography (VPE), has not yet been tested to see how well it distinguishes cancerous from benign thyroid nodules.

“We want to cooperate with physicians to propose protocols to verify [VPE’s] relevance,” Dr. Beuve said.

Because no data are currently available on how accurate VPE is in diagnosing malignant nodules, it is not possible to comment on its potential usefulness, Aya Kamaya, MD, a radiology professor at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

Ultrasound elastography for diagnosing thyroid disease has been in development for years. More than 100 reports have been published in the medical literature since 2005. Various devices are available commercially, but for now, elastography for thyroid nodules remains investigational, she said.

Another expert who was approached for comment was more critical.

Lisa Orloff, MD, a professor and director of endocrine head and neck surgery and the thyroid tumor program at Stanford University, noted that, in general, “elastography has not gained more traction in thyroid evaluation to date because it does not appear to reduce the need for [fine-needle aspiration] of suspicious nodules based on gray-scale ultrasound alone, without elastography.”

As for the French report, she said that “while the voice might be a convenient shear wave source, I am very skeptical at many levels. I get the impression that [this is] a laboratory-based concept that is fraught with confounding factors in attempting real-world application.

“One concern is that the thyroid gland and nodule stiffness are affected by factors including underlying goiter, autoimmune disease, fluid content of nodules, calcifications, and other variables that can be present in benign or malignant conditions. And there are so many variables that would affect an individual patient’s ability (or not) to phonate at 150 Hz,” Dr. Orloff said.

VPE is an extension of passive elastography, which extracts elasticity data from the natural vibrations caused by the heart, blood pulsatility, and muscle activity, the authors explained. The team turned to vocalization at 150 Hz in part to overcome the physiological background noise in the thyroid from carotid pulsation at about 1-10 Hz.

The group is exploring vocalizations at other frequencies and is working to improve the computer program interface. They are also exploring VPE for other organs, including the brain.

The source of funding for the study and the authors’ relevant financial relationships were not reported.

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

An investigational elastography technique for evaluating thyroid nodules while individuals use their voice could improve the detection of malignant tumors, which are sometimes missed by ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration biopsy, say French researchers. However, it has not yet been tested for cancer detection.

The new approach involves holding a linear ultrasound probe to the throat of the patient, who is then requested to vocalize an “eee” sound at 150 Hz. A loudspeaker plays a 150-Hz sound to guide the patient.

The vocal vibrations generated, called shear waves, are detected by the probe as they pass through the thyroid. Software the researchers developed calculates the velocity of the shear waves, which move faster through stiffer tissue. The software produces a stiffness map that is then superimposed onto a gray-scale (B mode) thyroid image from the ultrasound.

Cancerous tissue is stiffer than healthy tissue and benign nodules, so shear waves pass through it more quickly, the researchers explained. Areas of particular stiffness that are revealed by the test are a concern.

The study was published online Jan. 12 in Applied Physics Letters.

The new approach is a noninvasive method that “would reduce the stress of patients during their medical exams. Having to sing during a medical exam can perhaps help release some of the nervous tension even more,” lead investigator Steve Beuve, PhD, of the Université de Tours (France), said in a press release. The main benefit of this technique is that it is “quick and easy,” he added. Data acquisition takes about a second, and no specialized equipment is required. Imaging can be rendered by any Doppler ultrasound set at an ultrafast frame rate to track the shear waves. The computer program automatically calculates wave velocity through various parts of the thyroid.

The technique, dubbed vocal passive elastography (VPE), has not yet been tested to see how well it distinguishes cancerous from benign thyroid nodules.

“We want to cooperate with physicians to propose protocols to verify [VPE’s] relevance,” Dr. Beuve said.

Because no data are currently available on how accurate VPE is in diagnosing malignant nodules, it is not possible to comment on its potential usefulness, Aya Kamaya, MD, a radiology professor at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, said in an interview.

Ultrasound elastography for diagnosing thyroid disease has been in development for years. More than 100 reports have been published in the medical literature since 2005. Various devices are available commercially, but for now, elastography for thyroid nodules remains investigational, she said.

Another expert who was approached for comment was more critical.

Lisa Orloff, MD, a professor and director of endocrine head and neck surgery and the thyroid tumor program at Stanford University, noted that, in general, “elastography has not gained more traction in thyroid evaluation to date because it does not appear to reduce the need for [fine-needle aspiration] of suspicious nodules based on gray-scale ultrasound alone, without elastography.”

As for the French report, she said that “while the voice might be a convenient shear wave source, I am very skeptical at many levels. I get the impression that [this is] a laboratory-based concept that is fraught with confounding factors in attempting real-world application.

“One concern is that the thyroid gland and nodule stiffness are affected by factors including underlying goiter, autoimmune disease, fluid content of nodules, calcifications, and other variables that can be present in benign or malignant conditions. And there are so many variables that would affect an individual patient’s ability (or not) to phonate at 150 Hz,” Dr. Orloff said.

VPE is an extension of passive elastography, which extracts elasticity data from the natural vibrations caused by the heart, blood pulsatility, and muscle activity, the authors explained. The team turned to vocalization at 150 Hz in part to overcome the physiological background noise in the thyroid from carotid pulsation at about 1-10 Hz.

The group is exploring vocalizations at other frequencies and is working to improve the computer program interface. They are also exploring VPE for other organs, including the brain.

The source of funding for the study and the authors’ relevant financial relationships were not reported.

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

Global patterns of the incidence of thyroid cancer in children and adolescents closely correspond to the increases seen in recent decades in adults. The patterns point to the same culprit in both groups – overdiagnosis. The finding underscores recommendations to limit screening.

“Our findings suggest that recommendations against screening for thyroid cancer in the asymptomatic adult population who are free from risk factors should be extended to explicitly recommend against screening for thyroid cancer in similar populations of children and adolescents,” say the authors, led by Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in Lyon, France.

The study was published online Jan. 19 in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology.

In an accompanying comment, Livia Lamartina and colleagues from the department of nuclear medicine and endocrine oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy and the University Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France, emphasize that unnecessary screening of thyroid cancer in children can have substantial implications.

“Overdiagnosis might transform a child into a thyroid cancer patient for the rest of their life, and overtreatment might induce complications and possibly lead to the requirement of lifelong thyroid hormone treatment,” they write.

“Therefore, screening with ultrasonography should not be recommended in asymptomatic children and adolescents,” they conclude.
 

Study findings

For the study, Dr. Vaccarella and colleagues evaluated the incidence of thyroid cancer in 49 countries and territories and mortality in 27 countries, using the most up-to-date data from the International Incidence of Childhood Cancer Volume 3 study, the Cancer in Five Continents database, and the World Health Organization mortality database.

Although there was considerable variability between countries, the incidence of thyroid cancer in children and adolescents aged 0-19 years increased rapidly between 1998 and 2002 and again between 2008 and 2012 in nearly all countries.

Country-specific incidence rates strongly correlated with rates in adults (r > 0.8), including the temporal aspects of the incidence rates (r > .0.6).

Of the 8049 thyroid cancers that were detected, 6935 (86.2%) were papillary carcinomas, 682 (8.5%) were follicular carcinomas, and 307 (3.8%) were medullary carcinomas, as determined on the basis of the WHO classification of thyroid carcinomas. Sixty-four tumors (0.8%) were of unspecified subtype. As is commonly observed in adults, rates were higher in girls than in boys and increased with older age for both sexes.

The strong correlation between children and adults in the timing of the increases in incidence was especially notable in countries where overdiagnosis has been identified as having a major role in the increasing thyroid cancer rates. Those countries are South Korea, the United States, Italy, France, and Australia, where 60%-90% of thyroid cancer diagnoses are attributable to overdiagnosis. Overall, the incidence of thyroid cancer was less than 1.5 per one million person-years in children younger than 10 years. There were small variations by country and sex.
 

Thyroid cancer mortalities remain low

Overall, the rate of thyroid cancer mortality among those younger than 20 years in each country was less than 0.1 per 10 million person-years, “corresponding to less than 10 deaths per year in all of the included countries collectively,” note Dr. Vaccarella and colleagues.

“The epidemiological pattern seen in children and adolescents mirrored that seen in adults. These findings suggest that, in affected countries and territories, there might be overdiagnosis in children and adolescents, as has been observed in adults,” they write.

The incidence of thyroid cancer in children and adolescents between 2008 and 2012 ranged from 0.4 per one million person-years in Uganda and Kenya and 13.4 per 1 million person-years in Belarus, where the increase is believed to be related to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident and to increased screening in the years following the accident.
 

Subclinical discoveries may lead to unnecessary measures

Thyroid cancer was once a rare condition. Rates began to increase steadily in the 1990s, corresponding with rapid advances in noninvasive diagnostic imaging. Currently, thyroid cancer is the fifth most diagnosed cancer worldwide in adult women and the third most common in women aged 50 years and younger.

Diagnostic measures ranging from ultrasound and MRI to fine-needle aspiration biopsy have played a large role in the increase in diagnoses. The diagnostic techniques are revealing subclinical cancers in thyroid glands that previously went undetected and that usually do not cause harm over a person’s lifetime. According to Dr. Vaccarella and colleagues, such discoveries can open the door to a wide range of unnecessary measures.

The possible consequences of overdiagnosis include unnecessary treatments, the need to undergo lifelong medical care, and potential adverse effects, which could negatively affect quality of life.

Recent research from the International Agency for Research on Cancer has indicated that there has been an “epidemic of overdiagnosis” of thyroid cancer. The pattern has even reached less affluent regions as diagnostic technologies have become widely available.

“What is surprising is the magnitude of this,” Dr. Vaccarella said in an interview.

“Without overdiagnosis, thyroid cancer would probably still be a relatively rare cancer,” he said.

The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lamartina has received personal, advisory board, and clinical trial principal investigator fees from Bayer, personal fees from Eisai, and clinical trial principal investigator fees from AstraZeneca. The other editorialists’ financial relationships are listed in the original article.

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

Global patterns of the incidence of thyroid cancer in children and adolescents closely correspond to the increases seen in recent decades in adults. The patterns point to the same culprit in both groups – overdiagnosis. The finding underscores recommendations to limit screening.

“Our findings suggest that recommendations against screening for thyroid cancer in the asymptomatic adult population who are free from risk factors should be extended to explicitly recommend against screening for thyroid cancer in similar populations of children and adolescents,” say the authors, led by Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in Lyon, France.

The study was published online Jan. 19 in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology.

In an accompanying comment, Livia Lamartina and colleagues from the department of nuclear medicine and endocrine oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy and the University Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France, emphasize that unnecessary screening of thyroid cancer in children can have substantial implications.

“Overdiagnosis might transform a child into a thyroid cancer patient for the rest of their life, and overtreatment might induce complications and possibly lead to the requirement of lifelong thyroid hormone treatment,” they write.

“Therefore, screening with ultrasonography should not be recommended in asymptomatic children and adolescents,” they conclude.
 

Study findings

For the study, Dr. Vaccarella and colleagues evaluated the incidence of thyroid cancer in 49 countries and territories and mortality in 27 countries, using the most up-to-date data from the International Incidence of Childhood Cancer Volume 3 study, the Cancer in Five Continents database, and the World Health Organization mortality database.

Although there was considerable variability between countries, the incidence of thyroid cancer in children and adolescents aged 0-19 years increased rapidly between 1998 and 2002 and again between 2008 and 2012 in nearly all countries.

Country-specific incidence rates strongly correlated with rates in adults (r > 0.8), including the temporal aspects of the incidence rates (r > .0.6).

Of the 8049 thyroid cancers that were detected, 6935 (86.2%) were papillary carcinomas, 682 (8.5%) were follicular carcinomas, and 307 (3.8%) were medullary carcinomas, as determined on the basis of the WHO classification of thyroid carcinomas. Sixty-four tumors (0.8%) were of unspecified subtype. As is commonly observed in adults, rates were higher in girls than in boys and increased with older age for both sexes.

The strong correlation between children and adults in the timing of the increases in incidence was especially notable in countries where overdiagnosis has been identified as having a major role in the increasing thyroid cancer rates. Those countries are South Korea, the United States, Italy, France, and Australia, where 60%-90% of thyroid cancer diagnoses are attributable to overdiagnosis. Overall, the incidence of thyroid cancer was less than 1.5 per one million person-years in children younger than 10 years. There were small variations by country and sex.
 

Thyroid cancer mortalities remain low

Overall, the rate of thyroid cancer mortality among those younger than 20 years in each country was less than 0.1 per 10 million person-years, “corresponding to less than 10 deaths per year in all of the included countries collectively,” note Dr. Vaccarella and colleagues.

“The epidemiological pattern seen in children and adolescents mirrored that seen in adults. These findings suggest that, in affected countries and territories, there might be overdiagnosis in children and adolescents, as has been observed in adults,” they write.

The incidence of thyroid cancer in children and adolescents between 2008 and 2012 ranged from 0.4 per one million person-years in Uganda and Kenya and 13.4 per 1 million person-years in Belarus, where the increase is believed to be related to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident and to increased screening in the years following the accident.
 

Subclinical discoveries may lead to unnecessary measures

Thyroid cancer was once a rare condition. Rates began to increase steadily in the 1990s, corresponding with rapid advances in noninvasive diagnostic imaging. Currently, thyroid cancer is the fifth most diagnosed cancer worldwide in adult women and the third most common in women aged 50 years and younger.

Diagnostic measures ranging from ultrasound and MRI to fine-needle aspiration biopsy have played a large role in the increase in diagnoses. The diagnostic techniques are revealing subclinical cancers in thyroid glands that previously went undetected and that usually do not cause harm over a person’s lifetime. According to Dr. Vaccarella and colleagues, such discoveries can open the door to a wide range of unnecessary measures.

The possible consequences of overdiagnosis include unnecessary treatments, the need to undergo lifelong medical care, and potential adverse effects, which could negatively affect quality of life.

Recent research from the International Agency for Research on Cancer has indicated that there has been an “epidemic of overdiagnosis” of thyroid cancer. The pattern has even reached less affluent regions as diagnostic technologies have become widely available.

“What is surprising is the magnitude of this,” Dr. Vaccarella said in an interview.

“Without overdiagnosis, thyroid cancer would probably still be a relatively rare cancer,” he said.

The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lamartina has received personal, advisory board, and clinical trial principal investigator fees from Bayer, personal fees from Eisai, and clinical trial principal investigator fees from AstraZeneca. The other editorialists’ financial relationships are listed in the original article.

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

Global patterns of the incidence of thyroid cancer in children and adolescents closely correspond to the increases seen in recent decades in adults. The patterns point to the same culprit in both groups – overdiagnosis. The finding underscores recommendations to limit screening.

“Our findings suggest that recommendations against screening for thyroid cancer in the asymptomatic adult population who are free from risk factors should be extended to explicitly recommend against screening for thyroid cancer in similar populations of children and adolescents,” say the authors, led by Salvatore Vaccarella, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in Lyon, France.

The study was published online Jan. 19 in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology.

In an accompanying comment, Livia Lamartina and colleagues from the department of nuclear medicine and endocrine oncology, Institut Gustave Roussy and the University Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France, emphasize that unnecessary screening of thyroid cancer in children can have substantial implications.

“Overdiagnosis might transform a child into a thyroid cancer patient for the rest of their life, and overtreatment might induce complications and possibly lead to the requirement of lifelong thyroid hormone treatment,” they write.

“Therefore, screening with ultrasonography should not be recommended in asymptomatic children and adolescents,” they conclude.
 

Study findings

For the study, Dr. Vaccarella and colleagues evaluated the incidence of thyroid cancer in 49 countries and territories and mortality in 27 countries, using the most up-to-date data from the International Incidence of Childhood Cancer Volume 3 study, the Cancer in Five Continents database, and the World Health Organization mortality database.

Although there was considerable variability between countries, the incidence of thyroid cancer in children and adolescents aged 0-19 years increased rapidly between 1998 and 2002 and again between 2008 and 2012 in nearly all countries.

Country-specific incidence rates strongly correlated with rates in adults (r > 0.8), including the temporal aspects of the incidence rates (r > .0.6).

Of the 8049 thyroid cancers that were detected, 6935 (86.2%) were papillary carcinomas, 682 (8.5%) were follicular carcinomas, and 307 (3.8%) were medullary carcinomas, as determined on the basis of the WHO classification of thyroid carcinomas. Sixty-four tumors (0.8%) were of unspecified subtype. As is commonly observed in adults, rates were higher in girls than in boys and increased with older age for both sexes.

The strong correlation between children and adults in the timing of the increases in incidence was especially notable in countries where overdiagnosis has been identified as having a major role in the increasing thyroid cancer rates. Those countries are South Korea, the United States, Italy, France, and Australia, where 60%-90% of thyroid cancer diagnoses are attributable to overdiagnosis. Overall, the incidence of thyroid cancer was less than 1.5 per one million person-years in children younger than 10 years. There were small variations by country and sex.
 

Thyroid cancer mortalities remain low

Overall, the rate of thyroid cancer mortality among those younger than 20 years in each country was less than 0.1 per 10 million person-years, “corresponding to less than 10 deaths per year in all of the included countries collectively,” note Dr. Vaccarella and colleagues.

“The epidemiological pattern seen in children and adolescents mirrored that seen in adults. These findings suggest that, in affected countries and territories, there might be overdiagnosis in children and adolescents, as has been observed in adults,” they write.

The incidence of thyroid cancer in children and adolescents between 2008 and 2012 ranged from 0.4 per one million person-years in Uganda and Kenya and 13.4 per 1 million person-years in Belarus, where the increase is believed to be related to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident and to increased screening in the years following the accident.
 

Subclinical discoveries may lead to unnecessary measures

Thyroid cancer was once a rare condition. Rates began to increase steadily in the 1990s, corresponding with rapid advances in noninvasive diagnostic imaging. Currently, thyroid cancer is the fifth most diagnosed cancer worldwide in adult women and the third most common in women aged 50 years and younger.

Diagnostic measures ranging from ultrasound and MRI to fine-needle aspiration biopsy have played a large role in the increase in diagnoses. The diagnostic techniques are revealing subclinical cancers in thyroid glands that previously went undetected and that usually do not cause harm over a person’s lifetime. According to Dr. Vaccarella and colleagues, such discoveries can open the door to a wide range of unnecessary measures.

The possible consequences of overdiagnosis include unnecessary treatments, the need to undergo lifelong medical care, and potential adverse effects, which could negatively affect quality of life.

Recent research from the International Agency for Research on Cancer has indicated that there has been an “epidemic of overdiagnosis” of thyroid cancer. The pattern has even reached less affluent regions as diagnostic technologies have become widely available.

“What is surprising is the magnitude of this,” Dr. Vaccarella said in an interview.

“Without overdiagnosis, thyroid cancer would probably still be a relatively rare cancer,” he said.

The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Lamartina has received personal, advisory board, and clinical trial principal investigator fees from Bayer, personal fees from Eisai, and clinical trial principal investigator fees from AstraZeneca. The other editorialists’ financial relationships are listed in the original article.

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

For the second year in a row, mortality from cancer has fallen in the United States, driven largely by reductions in the incidence of, and death from, non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in men and women, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society.

The study was published online Jan. 12 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

“Mortality rates are a better indicator of progress against cancer than incidence or survival because they are less affected by biases resulting from changes in detection practices,” wrote the authors, led by Rebecca Siegel, MPH, American Cancer Society, Atlanta.  

“The overall drop of 31% as of 2018 [since the early 1990s] translates to an estimated 3,188,500 fewer cancer deaths (2,170,700 in men and 1,017,800 in women) than what would have occurred if mortality rates had remained at their peak,” the researchers added.

Lung cancer accounted for 46% of the total decline in cancer mortality in the past 5 years, with a record, single-year drop of 2.4% between 2017 and 2018.

The recent and rapid reductions in lung cancer mortality reflect better treatments for NSCLC, the authors suggested. For example, survival rates at 2 years have increased from 34% for patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2009 and 2010 to 42% for those diagnosed during 2015 and 2016 – an absolute gain of 5%-6% in survival odds for every stage of diagnosis.

On a more somber note, the authors warned that COVID-19 is predicted to have a negative impact on both the diagnosis and outcomes of patients with cancer in the near future.  

“We anticipate that disruptions in access to cancer care in 2020 will lead to downstream increases in advanced stage diagnoses that may impede progress in reducing cancer mortality rates in the years to come,” Ms. Siegel said in a statement.
 

New cancer cases

The report provides an estimated number of new cancer cases and deaths in 2021 in the United States (nationally and state-by-state) based on the most current population-based data for cancer incidence through 2017 and for mortality through 2018. “An estimated 608,570 Americans will die from cancer in 2021, corresponding to more than 1600 deaths per day,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues reported.

The greatest number of deaths are predicted to be from the most common cancers: Lung, prostate, and colorectal cancer in men and lung, breast, and colorectal cancer in women, they added. However, the mortality rates for all four cancers are continuing to fall.

As of 2018, the death rate from lung cancer had dropped by 54% among males and by 30% among females over the past few decades, the investigators noted.

Mortality from female breast cancer has dropped by 41% since 1989; by 52% for prostate cancer since 1993; and by 53% and 59% for colorectal cancer for men (since 1980) and women (since 1969), respectively.

“However, in recent years, mortality declines have slowed for breast cancer and [colorectal cancer] and have halted for prostate cancer,” the researchers noted.

In contrast, the pace of the annual decline in lung cancer mortality doubled among men from 3.1% between 2009 and 2013 to 5.5% between 2014 and 2018, and from 1.8% to 4.4% among women during the same time intervals.
 

Increase in incidence at common sites

Despite the steady progress in mortality for most cancers, “rates continue to increase for some common sites,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues reported.

For example, death rates from uterine corpus cancer have accelerated from the late 1990s at twice the pace of the increase in its incidence. Death rates also have increased for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx – although in this cancer, increases in mortality parallel an increase in its incidence. 

“Pancreatic cancer death rates [in turn] continued to increase slowly in men ... but remained stable in women, despite incidence [rates] rising by about 1% per year in both sexes,” the authors observed.

Meanwhile, the incidence of cervical cancer, although declining for decades overall, is increasing for patients who present with more distant-stage disease as well as cervical adenocarcinoma, both of which are often undetected by cytology.

“These findings underscore the need for more targeted efforts to increase both HPV [human papillomavirus] vaccination among all individuals aged [26 and younger] and primary HPV testing or HPV/cytology co-testing every 5 years among women beginning at age 25,” the authors emphasized.

On a more positive note, the long-term increase in mortality from liver cancer has recently slowed among women and has stabilized among men, they added.

Once again, disparities in both cancer occurrence and outcomes varied considerably between racial and ethnic groups. For example, cancer is the leading cause of death in people who are Hispanic, Asian American, and Alaska Native. Survival rates at 5 years for almost all cancers are still higher for White patients than for Black patients, although the disparity in cancer mortality between Black persons and White persons has declined to 13% from a peak of 33% in 1993.

Geographic disparities in cancer mortality rates still prevail; the rates are largest for preventable cancers such as lung and cervical cancer, for which mortality varies by as much as fivefold across states.

And although cancer remains the second most common cause of death among children, death rates from cancer have continuously declined over time among both children and adolescents, largely the result of dramatic declines in death rates from leukemia in both age groups.

The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For the second year in a row, mortality from cancer has fallen in the United States, driven largely by reductions in the incidence of, and death from, non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in men and women, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society.

The study was published online Jan. 12 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

“Mortality rates are a better indicator of progress against cancer than incidence or survival because they are less affected by biases resulting from changes in detection practices,” wrote the authors, led by Rebecca Siegel, MPH, American Cancer Society, Atlanta.  

“The overall drop of 31% as of 2018 [since the early 1990s] translates to an estimated 3,188,500 fewer cancer deaths (2,170,700 in men and 1,017,800 in women) than what would have occurred if mortality rates had remained at their peak,” the researchers added.

Lung cancer accounted for 46% of the total decline in cancer mortality in the past 5 years, with a record, single-year drop of 2.4% between 2017 and 2018.

The recent and rapid reductions in lung cancer mortality reflect better treatments for NSCLC, the authors suggested. For example, survival rates at 2 years have increased from 34% for patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2009 and 2010 to 42% for those diagnosed during 2015 and 2016 – an absolute gain of 5%-6% in survival odds for every stage of diagnosis.

On a more somber note, the authors warned that COVID-19 is predicted to have a negative impact on both the diagnosis and outcomes of patients with cancer in the near future.  

“We anticipate that disruptions in access to cancer care in 2020 will lead to downstream increases in advanced stage diagnoses that may impede progress in reducing cancer mortality rates in the years to come,” Ms. Siegel said in a statement.
 

New cancer cases

The report provides an estimated number of new cancer cases and deaths in 2021 in the United States (nationally and state-by-state) based on the most current population-based data for cancer incidence through 2017 and for mortality through 2018. “An estimated 608,570 Americans will die from cancer in 2021, corresponding to more than 1600 deaths per day,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues reported.

The greatest number of deaths are predicted to be from the most common cancers: Lung, prostate, and colorectal cancer in men and lung, breast, and colorectal cancer in women, they added. However, the mortality rates for all four cancers are continuing to fall.

As of 2018, the death rate from lung cancer had dropped by 54% among males and by 30% among females over the past few decades, the investigators noted.

Mortality from female breast cancer has dropped by 41% since 1989; by 52% for prostate cancer since 1993; and by 53% and 59% for colorectal cancer for men (since 1980) and women (since 1969), respectively.

“However, in recent years, mortality declines have slowed for breast cancer and [colorectal cancer] and have halted for prostate cancer,” the researchers noted.

In contrast, the pace of the annual decline in lung cancer mortality doubled among men from 3.1% between 2009 and 2013 to 5.5% between 2014 and 2018, and from 1.8% to 4.4% among women during the same time intervals.
 

Increase in incidence at common sites

Despite the steady progress in mortality for most cancers, “rates continue to increase for some common sites,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues reported.

For example, death rates from uterine corpus cancer have accelerated from the late 1990s at twice the pace of the increase in its incidence. Death rates also have increased for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx – although in this cancer, increases in mortality parallel an increase in its incidence. 

“Pancreatic cancer death rates [in turn] continued to increase slowly in men ... but remained stable in women, despite incidence [rates] rising by about 1% per year in both sexes,” the authors observed.

Meanwhile, the incidence of cervical cancer, although declining for decades overall, is increasing for patients who present with more distant-stage disease as well as cervical adenocarcinoma, both of which are often undetected by cytology.

“These findings underscore the need for more targeted efforts to increase both HPV [human papillomavirus] vaccination among all individuals aged [26 and younger] and primary HPV testing or HPV/cytology co-testing every 5 years among women beginning at age 25,” the authors emphasized.

On a more positive note, the long-term increase in mortality from liver cancer has recently slowed among women and has stabilized among men, they added.

Once again, disparities in both cancer occurrence and outcomes varied considerably between racial and ethnic groups. For example, cancer is the leading cause of death in people who are Hispanic, Asian American, and Alaska Native. Survival rates at 5 years for almost all cancers are still higher for White patients than for Black patients, although the disparity in cancer mortality between Black persons and White persons has declined to 13% from a peak of 33% in 1993.

Geographic disparities in cancer mortality rates still prevail; the rates are largest for preventable cancers such as lung and cervical cancer, for which mortality varies by as much as fivefold across states.

And although cancer remains the second most common cause of death among children, death rates from cancer have continuously declined over time among both children and adolescents, largely the result of dramatic declines in death rates from leukemia in both age groups.

The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For the second year in a row, mortality from cancer has fallen in the United States, driven largely by reductions in the incidence of, and death from, non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in men and women, according to a new report from the American Cancer Society.

The study was published online Jan. 12 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

“Mortality rates are a better indicator of progress against cancer than incidence or survival because they are less affected by biases resulting from changes in detection practices,” wrote the authors, led by Rebecca Siegel, MPH, American Cancer Society, Atlanta.  

“The overall drop of 31% as of 2018 [since the early 1990s] translates to an estimated 3,188,500 fewer cancer deaths (2,170,700 in men and 1,017,800 in women) than what would have occurred if mortality rates had remained at their peak,” the researchers added.

Lung cancer accounted for 46% of the total decline in cancer mortality in the past 5 years, with a record, single-year drop of 2.4% between 2017 and 2018.

The recent and rapid reductions in lung cancer mortality reflect better treatments for NSCLC, the authors suggested. For example, survival rates at 2 years have increased from 34% for patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2009 and 2010 to 42% for those diagnosed during 2015 and 2016 – an absolute gain of 5%-6% in survival odds for every stage of diagnosis.

On a more somber note, the authors warned that COVID-19 is predicted to have a negative impact on both the diagnosis and outcomes of patients with cancer in the near future.  

“We anticipate that disruptions in access to cancer care in 2020 will lead to downstream increases in advanced stage diagnoses that may impede progress in reducing cancer mortality rates in the years to come,” Ms. Siegel said in a statement.
 

New cancer cases

The report provides an estimated number of new cancer cases and deaths in 2021 in the United States (nationally and state-by-state) based on the most current population-based data for cancer incidence through 2017 and for mortality through 2018. “An estimated 608,570 Americans will die from cancer in 2021, corresponding to more than 1600 deaths per day,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues reported.

The greatest number of deaths are predicted to be from the most common cancers: Lung, prostate, and colorectal cancer in men and lung, breast, and colorectal cancer in women, they added. However, the mortality rates for all four cancers are continuing to fall.

As of 2018, the death rate from lung cancer had dropped by 54% among males and by 30% among females over the past few decades, the investigators noted.

Mortality from female breast cancer has dropped by 41% since 1989; by 52% for prostate cancer since 1993; and by 53% and 59% for colorectal cancer for men (since 1980) and women (since 1969), respectively.

“However, in recent years, mortality declines have slowed for breast cancer and [colorectal cancer] and have halted for prostate cancer,” the researchers noted.

In contrast, the pace of the annual decline in lung cancer mortality doubled among men from 3.1% between 2009 and 2013 to 5.5% between 2014 and 2018, and from 1.8% to 4.4% among women during the same time intervals.
 

Increase in incidence at common sites

Despite the steady progress in mortality for most cancers, “rates continue to increase for some common sites,” Ms. Siegel and colleagues reported.

For example, death rates from uterine corpus cancer have accelerated from the late 1990s at twice the pace of the increase in its incidence. Death rates also have increased for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx – although in this cancer, increases in mortality parallel an increase in its incidence. 

“Pancreatic cancer death rates [in turn] continued to increase slowly in men ... but remained stable in women, despite incidence [rates] rising by about 1% per year in both sexes,” the authors observed.

Meanwhile, the incidence of cervical cancer, although declining for decades overall, is increasing for patients who present with more distant-stage disease as well as cervical adenocarcinoma, both of which are often undetected by cytology.

“These findings underscore the need for more targeted efforts to increase both HPV [human papillomavirus] vaccination among all individuals aged [26 and younger] and primary HPV testing or HPV/cytology co-testing every 5 years among women beginning at age 25,” the authors emphasized.

On a more positive note, the long-term increase in mortality from liver cancer has recently slowed among women and has stabilized among men, they added.

Once again, disparities in both cancer occurrence and outcomes varied considerably between racial and ethnic groups. For example, cancer is the leading cause of death in people who are Hispanic, Asian American, and Alaska Native. Survival rates at 5 years for almost all cancers are still higher for White patients than for Black patients, although the disparity in cancer mortality between Black persons and White persons has declined to 13% from a peak of 33% in 1993.

Geographic disparities in cancer mortality rates still prevail; the rates are largest for preventable cancers such as lung and cervical cancer, for which mortality varies by as much as fivefold across states.

And although cancer remains the second most common cause of death among children, death rates from cancer have continuously declined over time among both children and adolescents, largely the result of dramatic declines in death rates from leukemia in both age groups.

The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Having oral sex with more than 10 previous partners was associated with a 4.3 times’ greater likelihood of developing human papillomavirus (HPV)–related oropharyngeal cancer, according to new findings.

The study also found that having more partners in a shorter period (i.e., greater oral sex intensity) and starting oral sex at a younger age were associated with higher odds of having HPV-related cancer of the mouth and throat.

The new study, published online on Jan. 11 in Cancer, confirms previous findings and adds more nuance, say the researchers.

Previous studies have demonstrated that oral sex is a strong risk factor for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer, which has increased in incidence in recent decades, particularly cancer of the base of the tongue and palatine and lingual tonsils.

“Our research adds more nuance in our understanding of how people acquire oral HPV infection and HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer,” said study author Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. “It suggests that risk of infection is not only from the number of oral sexual partners but that the timing and type of partner also influence risk.”

The results of the study do not change the clinical care or screening of patients, Dr. D’Souza noted, but the study does add context for patients and providers in understanding, “Why did I get HPV-oropharyngeal cancer?” she said.

“We know that people who develop HPV-oropharyngeal cancer have a wide range of sexual histories, but we do not suggest sexual history be used for screening, as many patients have low-risk sexual histories,” she said. “By chance, it only takes one partner who is infected to acquire the infection, while others who have had many partners by chance do not get exposed, or who are exposed but clear the infection.”
 

Reinforces the need for vaccination

Approached for comment, Joseph Califano, MD, physician-in-chief at the Moores Cancer Center and director of the Head and Neck Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego, noted that similar data have been published before. The novelty here is in the timing and intensity of oral sex. “It’s not new data, but it certainly reinforces what we knew,” he said in an interview.

These new data are not going to change monitoring, he suggested. “It’s not going to change how we screen, because we don’t do population-based screening for oropharyngeal cancer,” Dr. Califano said.

“It does underline the fact that vaccination is really the key to preventing HPV-mediated cancers,” he said.

He pointed out that some data show lower rates of high-risk oral HPV shedding by children who have been appropriately vaccinated.

“This paper really highlights the fact we need to get people vaccinated early, before sexual debut,” he said. “In this case, sexual debut doesn’t necessarily mean intercourse but oral sex, and that’s a different concept of when sex starts.”

These new data “reinforce the fact that early exposure is what we need to focus on,” he said.
 

Details of the new findings

The current study by Dr. D’Souza and colleagues included 163 patients with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer who were enrolled in the Papillomavirus Role in Oral Cancer Viral Etiology (PROVE) study. These patients were compared with 345 matched control persons.

All participants completed a behavioral survey and provided a blood sample. For the patients with cancer, a tumor sample was obtained.

The majority of participants were male (85% and 82%), were aged 50-69 years, were currently married or living with a partner, and identified as heterosexual. Case patients were more likely to report a history of sexually transmitted infection than were control participants (P = .003).

Case patients were more likely to have ever performed oral sex compared to control persons (98.8% vs 90.4%; P < .001) and to have performed oral sex at the time of their sexual debut (33.3% of case patients vs 21.4% of control persons; P = .004; odds ratio [OR], 1.8).

Significantly more case patients than control persons reported starting oral sex before they were 18 years old (37.4% of cases vs. 22.6% of controls; P < .001; OR, 3.1), and they had a greater number of lifetime oral sex partners (44.8% of cases and 19.1% of controls reported having more than 10 partners; P < .001; OR, 4.3).

Intensity of oral sexual exposure, which the authors measured by number of partners per 10 years, was also significantly higher among cases than controls (30.8% vs 11.1%; P < .001; OR, 5.6).

After adjustment for confounders (such as the lifetime number of oral sex partners and tobacco use), ever performing oral sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.4), early age of first oral sex encounter (20 years: aOR, 1.8), and oral sex intensity (aOR, 2.8) all remained significantly associated with increased odds of HPV-oropharyngeal cancer.

The type of sexual partner, such as partners who were older (OR, 1.7) and having a partner who engaged in extramarital sex (OR, 1.6), were also associated with increased odds of developing HPV-oropharyngeal cancer. In addition, seropositivity for antibodies to HPV16 E6 (OR, 286) and any HPV16 E protein (E1, E2, E6, E7; OR, 163) were also associated with increased odds of developing the disease.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Califano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Having oral sex with more than 10 previous partners was associated with a 4.3 times’ greater likelihood of developing human papillomavirus (HPV)–related oropharyngeal cancer, according to new findings.

The study also found that having more partners in a shorter period (i.e., greater oral sex intensity) and starting oral sex at a younger age were associated with higher odds of having HPV-related cancer of the mouth and throat.

The new study, published online on Jan. 11 in Cancer, confirms previous findings and adds more nuance, say the researchers.

Previous studies have demonstrated that oral sex is a strong risk factor for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer, which has increased in incidence in recent decades, particularly cancer of the base of the tongue and palatine and lingual tonsils.

“Our research adds more nuance in our understanding of how people acquire oral HPV infection and HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer,” said study author Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. “It suggests that risk of infection is not only from the number of oral sexual partners but that the timing and type of partner also influence risk.”

The results of the study do not change the clinical care or screening of patients, Dr. D’Souza noted, but the study does add context for patients and providers in understanding, “Why did I get HPV-oropharyngeal cancer?” she said.

“We know that people who develop HPV-oropharyngeal cancer have a wide range of sexual histories, but we do not suggest sexual history be used for screening, as many patients have low-risk sexual histories,” she said. “By chance, it only takes one partner who is infected to acquire the infection, while others who have had many partners by chance do not get exposed, or who are exposed but clear the infection.”
 

Reinforces the need for vaccination

Approached for comment, Joseph Califano, MD, physician-in-chief at the Moores Cancer Center and director of the Head and Neck Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego, noted that similar data have been published before. The novelty here is in the timing and intensity of oral sex. “It’s not new data, but it certainly reinforces what we knew,” he said in an interview.

These new data are not going to change monitoring, he suggested. “It’s not going to change how we screen, because we don’t do population-based screening for oropharyngeal cancer,” Dr. Califano said.

“It does underline the fact that vaccination is really the key to preventing HPV-mediated cancers,” he said.

He pointed out that some data show lower rates of high-risk oral HPV shedding by children who have been appropriately vaccinated.

“This paper really highlights the fact we need to get people vaccinated early, before sexual debut,” he said. “In this case, sexual debut doesn’t necessarily mean intercourse but oral sex, and that’s a different concept of when sex starts.”

These new data “reinforce the fact that early exposure is what we need to focus on,” he said.
 

Details of the new findings

The current study by Dr. D’Souza and colleagues included 163 patients with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer who were enrolled in the Papillomavirus Role in Oral Cancer Viral Etiology (PROVE) study. These patients were compared with 345 matched control persons.

All participants completed a behavioral survey and provided a blood sample. For the patients with cancer, a tumor sample was obtained.

The majority of participants were male (85% and 82%), were aged 50-69 years, were currently married or living with a partner, and identified as heterosexual. Case patients were more likely to report a history of sexually transmitted infection than were control participants (P = .003).

Case patients were more likely to have ever performed oral sex compared to control persons (98.8% vs 90.4%; P < .001) and to have performed oral sex at the time of their sexual debut (33.3% of case patients vs 21.4% of control persons; P = .004; odds ratio [OR], 1.8).

Significantly more case patients than control persons reported starting oral sex before they were 18 years old (37.4% of cases vs. 22.6% of controls; P < .001; OR, 3.1), and they had a greater number of lifetime oral sex partners (44.8% of cases and 19.1% of controls reported having more than 10 partners; P < .001; OR, 4.3).

Intensity of oral sexual exposure, which the authors measured by number of partners per 10 years, was also significantly higher among cases than controls (30.8% vs 11.1%; P < .001; OR, 5.6).

After adjustment for confounders (such as the lifetime number of oral sex partners and tobacco use), ever performing oral sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.4), early age of first oral sex encounter (20 years: aOR, 1.8), and oral sex intensity (aOR, 2.8) all remained significantly associated with increased odds of HPV-oropharyngeal cancer.

The type of sexual partner, such as partners who were older (OR, 1.7) and having a partner who engaged in extramarital sex (OR, 1.6), were also associated with increased odds of developing HPV-oropharyngeal cancer. In addition, seropositivity for antibodies to HPV16 E6 (OR, 286) and any HPV16 E protein (E1, E2, E6, E7; OR, 163) were also associated with increased odds of developing the disease.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Califano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Having oral sex with more than 10 previous partners was associated with a 4.3 times’ greater likelihood of developing human papillomavirus (HPV)–related oropharyngeal cancer, according to new findings.

The study also found that having more partners in a shorter period (i.e., greater oral sex intensity) and starting oral sex at a younger age were associated with higher odds of having HPV-related cancer of the mouth and throat.

The new study, published online on Jan. 11 in Cancer, confirms previous findings and adds more nuance, say the researchers.

Previous studies have demonstrated that oral sex is a strong risk factor for HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer, which has increased in incidence in recent decades, particularly cancer of the base of the tongue and palatine and lingual tonsils.

“Our research adds more nuance in our understanding of how people acquire oral HPV infection and HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer,” said study author Gypsyamber D’Souza, PhD, professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. “It suggests that risk of infection is not only from the number of oral sexual partners but that the timing and type of partner also influence risk.”

The results of the study do not change the clinical care or screening of patients, Dr. D’Souza noted, but the study does add context for patients and providers in understanding, “Why did I get HPV-oropharyngeal cancer?” she said.

“We know that people who develop HPV-oropharyngeal cancer have a wide range of sexual histories, but we do not suggest sexual history be used for screening, as many patients have low-risk sexual histories,” she said. “By chance, it only takes one partner who is infected to acquire the infection, while others who have had many partners by chance do not get exposed, or who are exposed but clear the infection.”
 

Reinforces the need for vaccination

Approached for comment, Joseph Califano, MD, physician-in-chief at the Moores Cancer Center and director of the Head and Neck Cancer Center at the University of California, San Diego, noted that similar data have been published before. The novelty here is in the timing and intensity of oral sex. “It’s not new data, but it certainly reinforces what we knew,” he said in an interview.

These new data are not going to change monitoring, he suggested. “It’s not going to change how we screen, because we don’t do population-based screening for oropharyngeal cancer,” Dr. Califano said.

“It does underline the fact that vaccination is really the key to preventing HPV-mediated cancers,” he said.

He pointed out that some data show lower rates of high-risk oral HPV shedding by children who have been appropriately vaccinated.

“This paper really highlights the fact we need to get people vaccinated early, before sexual debut,” he said. “In this case, sexual debut doesn’t necessarily mean intercourse but oral sex, and that’s a different concept of when sex starts.”

These new data “reinforce the fact that early exposure is what we need to focus on,” he said.
 

Details of the new findings

The current study by Dr. D’Souza and colleagues included 163 patients with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer who were enrolled in the Papillomavirus Role in Oral Cancer Viral Etiology (PROVE) study. These patients were compared with 345 matched control persons.

All participants completed a behavioral survey and provided a blood sample. For the patients with cancer, a tumor sample was obtained.

The majority of participants were male (85% and 82%), were aged 50-69 years, were currently married or living with a partner, and identified as heterosexual. Case patients were more likely to report a history of sexually transmitted infection than were control participants (P = .003).

Case patients were more likely to have ever performed oral sex compared to control persons (98.8% vs 90.4%; P < .001) and to have performed oral sex at the time of their sexual debut (33.3% of case patients vs 21.4% of control persons; P = .004; odds ratio [OR], 1.8).

Significantly more case patients than control persons reported starting oral sex before they were 18 years old (37.4% of cases vs. 22.6% of controls; P < .001; OR, 3.1), and they had a greater number of lifetime oral sex partners (44.8% of cases and 19.1% of controls reported having more than 10 partners; P < .001; OR, 4.3).

Intensity of oral sexual exposure, which the authors measured by number of partners per 10 years, was also significantly higher among cases than controls (30.8% vs 11.1%; P < .001; OR, 5.6).

After adjustment for confounders (such as the lifetime number of oral sex partners and tobacco use), ever performing oral sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.4), early age of first oral sex encounter (20 years: aOR, 1.8), and oral sex intensity (aOR, 2.8) all remained significantly associated with increased odds of HPV-oropharyngeal cancer.

The type of sexual partner, such as partners who were older (OR, 1.7) and having a partner who engaged in extramarital sex (OR, 1.6), were also associated with increased odds of developing HPV-oropharyngeal cancer. In addition, seropositivity for antibodies to HPV16 E6 (OR, 286) and any HPV16 E protein (E1, E2, E6, E7; OR, 163) were also associated with increased odds of developing the disease.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Dr. D’Souza and Dr. Califano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There was no evidence of an abscopal effect with the addition of limited radiation therapy to nivolumab in patients with metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, according to new results from a randomized trial. 

The phase 2, single-center study was conducted in 62 patients with head and neck cancer and at least two metastatic lesions. They were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab with or without additional radiation, delivered as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), but directed at only one of the metastatic lesions.

The results showed a similar rate of tumor shrinkage and disappearance in both groups (34.5% for nivolumab vs. 29.0% for the combination; P = .86) reported Sean McBride, MD, MPH, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues in a paper published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The finding indicates that there was no abscopal effect, the team concluded.

The abscopal (from the Latin ab “away from” and scopus “target”) effect, first described in the 1950s, is a hypothetical result of radiation, whereby tumors situated outside the radiation field are reduced or eliminated by an assumed reaction mediated by the immune system.

This study is only the second randomized controlled trial to look at this effect. A previous trial in lung cancer (JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:1276) also failed to show a significant difference in objective response rate, the primary outcome.

In both studies, there was also no improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with the addition of radiation.

“There are still die-hard proponents of the existence of an abscopal response, but it is clear from our data – there is no abscopal response,” lead study author Nancy Lee, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Lee, also from Memorial Sloan Kettering, was referring to this trial in head and neck cancer specifically. But previous nonrandomized studies have also reported response rates for the combination of SBRT and immunotherapy that are similar to monotherapy, the authors point out. Overall, the collective data in oncology suggest that the abscopal response is “relatively rare,” the team comments.

A more emphatic statement comes from a pair of oncologists in an accompanying editorial.

The new study “provides the clearest evidence so far that the abscopal effect, contrary to widely held perception in the field, remains exceedingly rare,” wrote Tanguy Seiwert, MD, medical oncologist, and Ana Kiess, MD, PhD, radiation oncologist, both at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

This is a “well-executed study that has broader implications beyond head and neck cancer and speaks to larger issues of combination therapies in the era of cancer immunotherapy,” they also wrote.

The practice of using limited SBRT on any tumor type – along with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy – “should not be pursued for the sole purpose of induction of an abscopal effect until we have better data to support any benefit,” the editorialists added.

It’s time to put the abscopal effect to rest, suggested Dr. Lee.

“Instead of focusing on whether an abscopal response exists or not, as it clearly did not in our phase 2 study, our focus should shift to the broader picture. What is the optimal timing of PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy in relation to radiotherapy?” she said.

The answer appears to be sequentially – and not concurrently, which is how radiation has been used to induce the would-be abscopal effect, she explained. “I personally feel that immunotherapy should not be given concurrently with radiation therapy.”

Damning data for the concurrent approach come from the phase 3 Javelin Head and Neck 100 trial, she said. In March, trial sponsors announced that the trial was terminated as it was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint. Specifically, adding an anti–PD-L1 therapy to chemoradiotherapy was not superior to chemoradiotherapy alone.

On the other hand, in the phase 3 lung cancer study known as PACIFIC, chemoradiotherapy followed by sequential anti–PD-L1 therapy showed “dramatic” improvements in PFS and OS, the editorialists pointed out.
 

Radiation and immunotherapy combinations

Despite the failure of this trial, radiation has “significant potential for combination with immunotherapy,” observed Dr. Seiwert and Dr. Kiess.

There are at least three potential roles of radiation therapy in combination with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, they wrote.

They explained that the first is single-site palliative radiation therapy/SBRT, which can control local symptoms. The second is “consolidation” of all tumor sites with radiation therapy/SBRT, which may decrease tumor burden and heterogeneity. And the third potential role is definitive locoregional radiation therapy to achieve long-term locoregional tumor control.

Thus, the editorialists, like Dr. Lee, believed the question of concurrent versus sequential immunotherapy is “important.” But the field of oncology has an abundance of treatments that can now be aimed at a cancer, in a variety of potential combinations, they observed.

The editorialists concluded their commentary with a long list of needed work: “We should take this study to guide us to explore promising approaches in rigorous clinical trials, with a focus on sequential approaches such as definitive RT followed by immunotherapy, consolidative SBRT of all tumor sites in combination with immunotherapy, and trials that incorporate surrogate immunotherapy-relevant biomarkers to assess earlier and more efficiently the impact of an intervention.”

The study was partly supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Bristol-Myers Squibb provided the study drug and funded tumor staining.

Multiple study authors have financial ties to industry, including two with ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb. Both editorialists have ties to industry, including Dr. Seiwert’s ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

There was no evidence of an abscopal effect with the addition of limited radiation therapy to nivolumab in patients with metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, according to new results from a randomized trial. 

The phase 2, single-center study was conducted in 62 patients with head and neck cancer and at least two metastatic lesions. They were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab with or without additional radiation, delivered as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), but directed at only one of the metastatic lesions.

The results showed a similar rate of tumor shrinkage and disappearance in both groups (34.5% for nivolumab vs. 29.0% for the combination; P = .86) reported Sean McBride, MD, MPH, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues in a paper published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The finding indicates that there was no abscopal effect, the team concluded.

The abscopal (from the Latin ab “away from” and scopus “target”) effect, first described in the 1950s, is a hypothetical result of radiation, whereby tumors situated outside the radiation field are reduced or eliminated by an assumed reaction mediated by the immune system.

This study is only the second randomized controlled trial to look at this effect. A previous trial in lung cancer (JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:1276) also failed to show a significant difference in objective response rate, the primary outcome.

In both studies, there was also no improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with the addition of radiation.

“There are still die-hard proponents of the existence of an abscopal response, but it is clear from our data – there is no abscopal response,” lead study author Nancy Lee, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Lee, also from Memorial Sloan Kettering, was referring to this trial in head and neck cancer specifically. But previous nonrandomized studies have also reported response rates for the combination of SBRT and immunotherapy that are similar to monotherapy, the authors point out. Overall, the collective data in oncology suggest that the abscopal response is “relatively rare,” the team comments.

A more emphatic statement comes from a pair of oncologists in an accompanying editorial.

The new study “provides the clearest evidence so far that the abscopal effect, contrary to widely held perception in the field, remains exceedingly rare,” wrote Tanguy Seiwert, MD, medical oncologist, and Ana Kiess, MD, PhD, radiation oncologist, both at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

This is a “well-executed study that has broader implications beyond head and neck cancer and speaks to larger issues of combination therapies in the era of cancer immunotherapy,” they also wrote.

The practice of using limited SBRT on any tumor type – along with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy – “should not be pursued for the sole purpose of induction of an abscopal effect until we have better data to support any benefit,” the editorialists added.

It’s time to put the abscopal effect to rest, suggested Dr. Lee.

“Instead of focusing on whether an abscopal response exists or not, as it clearly did not in our phase 2 study, our focus should shift to the broader picture. What is the optimal timing of PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy in relation to radiotherapy?” she said.

The answer appears to be sequentially – and not concurrently, which is how radiation has been used to induce the would-be abscopal effect, she explained. “I personally feel that immunotherapy should not be given concurrently with radiation therapy.”

Damning data for the concurrent approach come from the phase 3 Javelin Head and Neck 100 trial, she said. In March, trial sponsors announced that the trial was terminated as it was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint. Specifically, adding an anti–PD-L1 therapy to chemoradiotherapy was not superior to chemoradiotherapy alone.

On the other hand, in the phase 3 lung cancer study known as PACIFIC, chemoradiotherapy followed by sequential anti–PD-L1 therapy showed “dramatic” improvements in PFS and OS, the editorialists pointed out.
 

Radiation and immunotherapy combinations

Despite the failure of this trial, radiation has “significant potential for combination with immunotherapy,” observed Dr. Seiwert and Dr. Kiess.

There are at least three potential roles of radiation therapy in combination with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, they wrote.

They explained that the first is single-site palliative radiation therapy/SBRT, which can control local symptoms. The second is “consolidation” of all tumor sites with radiation therapy/SBRT, which may decrease tumor burden and heterogeneity. And the third potential role is definitive locoregional radiation therapy to achieve long-term locoregional tumor control.

Thus, the editorialists, like Dr. Lee, believed the question of concurrent versus sequential immunotherapy is “important.” But the field of oncology has an abundance of treatments that can now be aimed at a cancer, in a variety of potential combinations, they observed.

The editorialists concluded their commentary with a long list of needed work: “We should take this study to guide us to explore promising approaches in rigorous clinical trials, with a focus on sequential approaches such as definitive RT followed by immunotherapy, consolidative SBRT of all tumor sites in combination with immunotherapy, and trials that incorporate surrogate immunotherapy-relevant biomarkers to assess earlier and more efficiently the impact of an intervention.”

The study was partly supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Bristol-Myers Squibb provided the study drug and funded tumor staining.

Multiple study authors have financial ties to industry, including two with ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb. Both editorialists have ties to industry, including Dr. Seiwert’s ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

There was no evidence of an abscopal effect with the addition of limited radiation therapy to nivolumab in patients with metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, according to new results from a randomized trial. 

The phase 2, single-center study was conducted in 62 patients with head and neck cancer and at least two metastatic lesions. They were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab with or without additional radiation, delivered as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), but directed at only one of the metastatic lesions.

The results showed a similar rate of tumor shrinkage and disappearance in both groups (34.5% for nivolumab vs. 29.0% for the combination; P = .86) reported Sean McBride, MD, MPH, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and colleagues in a paper published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The finding indicates that there was no abscopal effect, the team concluded.

The abscopal (from the Latin ab “away from” and scopus “target”) effect, first described in the 1950s, is a hypothetical result of radiation, whereby tumors situated outside the radiation field are reduced or eliminated by an assumed reaction mediated by the immune system.

This study is only the second randomized controlled trial to look at this effect. A previous trial in lung cancer (JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:1276) also failed to show a significant difference in objective response rate, the primary outcome.

In both studies, there was also no improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) with the addition of radiation.

“There are still die-hard proponents of the existence of an abscopal response, but it is clear from our data – there is no abscopal response,” lead study author Nancy Lee, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Lee, also from Memorial Sloan Kettering, was referring to this trial in head and neck cancer specifically. But previous nonrandomized studies have also reported response rates for the combination of SBRT and immunotherapy that are similar to monotherapy, the authors point out. Overall, the collective data in oncology suggest that the abscopal response is “relatively rare,” the team comments.

A more emphatic statement comes from a pair of oncologists in an accompanying editorial.

The new study “provides the clearest evidence so far that the abscopal effect, contrary to widely held perception in the field, remains exceedingly rare,” wrote Tanguy Seiwert, MD, medical oncologist, and Ana Kiess, MD, PhD, radiation oncologist, both at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

This is a “well-executed study that has broader implications beyond head and neck cancer and speaks to larger issues of combination therapies in the era of cancer immunotherapy,” they also wrote.

The practice of using limited SBRT on any tumor type – along with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy – “should not be pursued for the sole purpose of induction of an abscopal effect until we have better data to support any benefit,” the editorialists added.

It’s time to put the abscopal effect to rest, suggested Dr. Lee.

“Instead of focusing on whether an abscopal response exists or not, as it clearly did not in our phase 2 study, our focus should shift to the broader picture. What is the optimal timing of PD-1 or PD-L1 therapy in relation to radiotherapy?” she said.

The answer appears to be sequentially – and not concurrently, which is how radiation has been used to induce the would-be abscopal effect, she explained. “I personally feel that immunotherapy should not be given concurrently with radiation therapy.”

Damning data for the concurrent approach come from the phase 3 Javelin Head and Neck 100 trial, she said. In March, trial sponsors announced that the trial was terminated as it was unlikely to meet its primary endpoint. Specifically, adding an anti–PD-L1 therapy to chemoradiotherapy was not superior to chemoradiotherapy alone.

On the other hand, in the phase 3 lung cancer study known as PACIFIC, chemoradiotherapy followed by sequential anti–PD-L1 therapy showed “dramatic” improvements in PFS and OS, the editorialists pointed out.
 

Radiation and immunotherapy combinations

Despite the failure of this trial, radiation has “significant potential for combination with immunotherapy,” observed Dr. Seiwert and Dr. Kiess.

There are at least three potential roles of radiation therapy in combination with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, they wrote.

They explained that the first is single-site palliative radiation therapy/SBRT, which can control local symptoms. The second is “consolidation” of all tumor sites with radiation therapy/SBRT, which may decrease tumor burden and heterogeneity. And the third potential role is definitive locoregional radiation therapy to achieve long-term locoregional tumor control.

Thus, the editorialists, like Dr. Lee, believed the question of concurrent versus sequential immunotherapy is “important.” But the field of oncology has an abundance of treatments that can now be aimed at a cancer, in a variety of potential combinations, they observed.

The editorialists concluded their commentary with a long list of needed work: “We should take this study to guide us to explore promising approaches in rigorous clinical trials, with a focus on sequential approaches such as definitive RT followed by immunotherapy, consolidative SBRT of all tumor sites in combination with immunotherapy, and trials that incorporate surrogate immunotherapy-relevant biomarkers to assess earlier and more efficiently the impact of an intervention.”

The study was partly supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. Bristol-Myers Squibb provided the study drug and funded tumor staining.

Multiple study authors have financial ties to industry, including two with ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb. Both editorialists have ties to industry, including Dr. Seiwert’s ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.

Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.

We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.

Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.

The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.

The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.

Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.

These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.

Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.

Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.

It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.

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

Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.

Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.

We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.

Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.

The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.

The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.

Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.

These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.

Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.

Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.

It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.

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

Earlier this week, Medscape spoke with Nora Disis, MD, about vaccinating cancer patients. Disis is a medical oncologist and director of both the Institute of Translational Health Sciences and the Cancer Vaccine Institute, the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. As editor-in-chief of JAMA Oncology, she has watched COVID-19 developments in the oncology community over the past year.

Here are a few themes that Disis said oncologists should be aware of as vaccines eventually begin reaching cancer patients.

We should expect cancer patients to respond to vaccines. Historically, some believed that cancer patients would be unable to mount an immune response to vaccines. Data on other viral vaccines have shown otherwise. For example, there has been a long history of studies of flu vaccination in cancer patients, and in general, those vaccines confer protection. Likewise for pneumococcal vaccine, which, generally speaking, cancer patients should receive.

Special cases may include hematologic malignancies in which the immune system has been destroyed and profound immunosuppression occurs. Data on immunization during this immunosuppressed period are scarce, but what data are available suggest that once cancer patients are through this immunosuppressed period, they can be vaccinated successfully.

The type of vaccine will probably be important for cancer patients. Currently, there are 61 coronavirus vaccines in human clinical trials, and 17 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals.

Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA type. There are many other types, including protein-based vaccines, viral vector vaccines based on adenoviruses, and inactivated or attenuated coronavirus vaccines.

The latter vaccines, particularly attenuated live virus vaccines, may not be a good choice for cancer patients. Especially in those with rapidly progressing disease or on chemotherapy, attenuated live viruses may cause a low-grade infection.

Incidentally, the technology used in the genetic, or mRNA, vaccines developed by both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna was initially developed for fighting cancer, and studies have shown that patients can generate immune responses to cancer-associated proteins with this type of vaccine.

These genetic vaccines could turn out to be the most effective for cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors.

Our understanding is very limited right now. Neither the Pfizer-BioNTech nor the Moderna early data discuss cancer patients. Two of the most important questions for cancer patients are dosing and booster scheduling. Potential defects in lymphocyte function among cancer patients may require unique initial dosing and booster schedules. In terms of timing, it is unclear how active therapy might affect a patient’s immune response to vaccination and whether vaccines should be timed with therapy cycles.

Vaccine access may depend on whether cancer patients are viewed as a vulnerable population. Those at higher risk for severe COVID-19 clearly have a greater need for vaccination. While there are data suggesting that cancer patients are at higher risk, they are a bit murky, in part because cancer patients are a heterogeneous group. For example, there are data suggesting that lung and blood cancer patients fare worse. There is also a suggestion that, like in the general population, COVID risk in cancer patients remains driven by comorbidities.

It is likely, then, that personalized risk factors such as type of cancer therapy, site of disease, and comorbidities will shape individual choices about vaccination among cancer patients.

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