Melanoma

With the increasing utilization of telemedicine since the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical that clinicians have an appropriate understanding of the application of virtual care resources, including teledermatology. We present a case series of 3 patients to demonstrate the clinical utility of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of various rare and/or aggressive cutaneous malignancies, including Merkel cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, and atypical fibroxanthoma. Cases were obtained from one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Each case presented includes a description of the initial teledermatology presentation and reviews the clinical timeline from initial consultation submission to in-person clinic visit with lesion biopsy. This case series demonstrates real-world examples of how teledermatology can be utilized to expedite the care of specific vulnerable patient populations.

Teledermatology is a rapidly growing digital resource with specific utility in triaging patients to determine those requiring in-person evaluation for early and accurate detection of skin malignancies. Approximately one-third of teledermatology consultations result in face-to-face clinical encounters, with malignant neoplasms being the leading cause for biopsy.^1,2 For specific populations, such as geriatric and immunocompromised patients, teledermatology may serve as a valuable tool, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, telemedicine may aid in addressing health disparities within the field of medicine and ultimately may improve access to care for vulnerable populations.³ Along with increasing access to specific subspecialty expertise, the use of teledermatology may reduce health care costs and improve the overall quality of care delivered to patients.^4,5

We describe the clinical utility of teledermatology in triaging and diagnosing skin malignancies through a series of 3 cases obtained from digital image review at one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Three unique cases with a final diagnosis of a rare or aggressive skin cancer were selected as examples, including a 75-year-old man with Merkle cell carcinoma, a 55-year-old man with aggressive pT3b malignant melanoma, and a 72-year-old man with an atypical fibroxanthoma. A clinical timeline of each case is presented, including the time intervals from initial image submission to image review, image submission to face-to-face clinical encounter, and image submission to final diagnosis. In all cases, the primary care provider submitted an order for teledermatology, and the teledermatology team obtained the images.

Case Series

Patient 1—Images of the right hand of a 75-year-old man with a medical history of basal cell carcinoma were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing store-and-forward image-capturing technology (day 1). The patient history provided with image submission indicated that the lesion had been present for 6 months and there were no associated symptoms. Clinical imaging demonstrated a pink-red pearly papule located on the proximal fourth digit of the dorsal aspect of the right hand (Figure 1). One day following the teledermatology request (day 2), the patient’s case was reviewed and triaged for an in-person visit. The patient was brought to clinic on day 34, and a biopsy was performed. On day 36, dermatopathology results indicated a diagnosis of Merkel cell carcinoma. On day 37, the patient was referred to surgical oncology, and on day 44, the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit with a plan for wide local excision of the right fourth digit with right axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 2—Images of the left flank of a 55-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history provided with the image indicated that the lesion had been present for months to years and there were no associated symptoms, but the lesion recently had changed in color and size. Teledermatology images were reviewed on day 3 and demonstrated a 2- to 3-cm brown plaque on the left flank with color variegation and a prominent red papule protruding centrally (Figure 2). The patient was scheduled for an urgent in-person visit with biopsy. On day 6, the patient presented to clinic and an excision biopsy was performed. Dermatopathology was ordered with a RUSH indication, with results on day 7 revealing a pT3b malignant melanoma. An urgent consultation to surgical oncology was placed on the same day, and the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit on day 24 with a plan for wide local excision with left axillary and inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 3—Images of the left ear of a 72-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing review via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history indicated that the lesion had been present for 3 months with associated bleeding. Image review demonstrated a solitary pearly pink papule located on the crura of the antihelix (Figure 3). Initial teledermatology consultation was reviewed on day 2 with notification of the need for in-person evaluation. The patient presented to clinic on day 33 for a biopsy, with dermatopathology results on day 36 consistent with an atypical fibroxanthoma. The patient was scheduled for Mohs micrographic surgery on day 37 and underwent surgical treatment on day 64.

Comment

Teledermatology consultations from all patients demonstrated adequate image quality to be able to evaluate the lesion of concern and yielded a request for in-person evaluation with possible biopsy (Table). In this case series, the average time interval from teledermatology consultation placement to teledermatology image report was 2 days (range, 1–3 days). The average time from teledermatology consultation placement to face-to-face encounter with biopsy was 24.3 days for the 3 cases presented in this series (range, 6–34 days). The initial surgical oncology visits took place an average of 34 days after the initial teledermatology consultation was placed for the 2 patients requiring referral (44 days for patient 1; 24 days for patient 2). For patient 3, Mohs micrographic surgery was required for treatment, which was scheduled by day 37 and subsequently performed on day 64.

When specifically looking at the diagnosis of cutaneous malignancies, studies have found that the incidence of skin cancer detection is similar for teledermatology compared to in-person clinic visits.^6,7 Creighton-Smith et al⁶ performed a retrospective cohort study comparing prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic accuracy and detection rates of skin cancer between store-and-forward technology and face-to-face consultation. When adjusting for possible compounding factors including personal and family history of skin cancer, there was no notable difference in detection rates of any skin cancer, including melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers. Furthermore, the 2 cohorts of patients were found to have similar prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic concordance, with similar times from consultation being placed to requested biopsy and time from biopsy to final treatment.⁶

Clarke et al⁷ similarly analyzed the accuracy of store-and-forward teledermatology and found that there was overall concordance in diagnosis when comparing clinical dermatologists to teledermatologists. Moreover, when melanocytic lesions were excluded from the study, the decision to biopsy did not differ substantially.⁷

Areas of further study include determining what percentage of teledermatology lesions of concern for malignancy were proven to be skin cancer after in-person evaluation and biopsy, as well as investigating the effectiveness of teledermatology for melanocytic lesions, which frequently are removed from analysis in large-scale teledermatology studies.

Although teledermatology has substantial clinical utility and may serve as a great resource for specific populations, including geriatric patients and those who are immunocompromised, it is important to recognize notable limitations. Specifically, brief history and image review should not serve as replacements for a face-to-face visit with physical examination in cases where the diagnosis remains uncertain or when high-risk skin malignancies are suspected or included in the differential. Certain aggressive cutaneous malignancies such as Merkel cell carcinoma may appear as less aggressive via teledermatology due to restrictions of technology.

Conclusion

Teledermatology has had a major impact on the way health care is delivered to patients and may increase access to care, reducing unnecessary in-person visits and decreasing the number of in-person visit no-shows. With the appropriate use of a brief clinical history and image review, teledermatology can be effective to evaluate specific lesions of concern. We report 3 unique cases identified during a 1-month period at a large Midwestern medical center. These cases serve as important examples of the application of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of aggressive skin malignancies. Further research on the clinical utility of teledermatology is warranted.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank the additional providers from the University of Wisconsin and William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (both in Madison, Wisconsin) involved in the medical care of the patients included in this case series.

With the increasing utilization of telemedicine since the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical that clinicians have an appropriate understanding of the application of virtual care resources, including teledermatology. We present a case series of 3 patients to demonstrate the clinical utility of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of various rare and/or aggressive cutaneous malignancies, including Merkel cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, and atypical fibroxanthoma. Cases were obtained from one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Each case presented includes a description of the initial teledermatology presentation and reviews the clinical timeline from initial consultation submission to in-person clinic visit with lesion biopsy. This case series demonstrates real-world examples of how teledermatology can be utilized to expedite the care of specific vulnerable patient populations.

Teledermatology is a rapidly growing digital resource with specific utility in triaging patients to determine those requiring in-person evaluation for early and accurate detection of skin malignancies. Approximately one-third of teledermatology consultations result in face-to-face clinical encounters, with malignant neoplasms being the leading cause for biopsy.^1,2 For specific populations, such as geriatric and immunocompromised patients, teledermatology may serve as a valuable tool, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, telemedicine may aid in addressing health disparities within the field of medicine and ultimately may improve access to care for vulnerable populations.³ Along with increasing access to specific subspecialty expertise, the use of teledermatology may reduce health care costs and improve the overall quality of care delivered to patients.^4,5

We describe the clinical utility of teledermatology in triaging and diagnosing skin malignancies through a series of 3 cases obtained from digital image review at one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Three unique cases with a final diagnosis of a rare or aggressive skin cancer were selected as examples, including a 75-year-old man with Merkle cell carcinoma, a 55-year-old man with aggressive pT3b malignant melanoma, and a 72-year-old man with an atypical fibroxanthoma. A clinical timeline of each case is presented, including the time intervals from initial image submission to image review, image submission to face-to-face clinical encounter, and image submission to final diagnosis. In all cases, the primary care provider submitted an order for teledermatology, and the teledermatology team obtained the images.

Case Series

Patient 1—Images of the right hand of a 75-year-old man with a medical history of basal cell carcinoma were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing store-and-forward image-capturing technology (day 1). The patient history provided with image submission indicated that the lesion had been present for 6 months and there were no associated symptoms. Clinical imaging demonstrated a pink-red pearly papule located on the proximal fourth digit of the dorsal aspect of the right hand (Figure 1). One day following the teledermatology request (day 2), the patient’s case was reviewed and triaged for an in-person visit. The patient was brought to clinic on day 34, and a biopsy was performed. On day 36, dermatopathology results indicated a diagnosis of Merkel cell carcinoma. On day 37, the patient was referred to surgical oncology, and on day 44, the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit with a plan for wide local excision of the right fourth digit with right axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 2—Images of the left flank of a 55-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history provided with the image indicated that the lesion had been present for months to years and there were no associated symptoms, but the lesion recently had changed in color and size. Teledermatology images were reviewed on day 3 and demonstrated a 2- to 3-cm brown plaque on the left flank with color variegation and a prominent red papule protruding centrally (Figure 2). The patient was scheduled for an urgent in-person visit with biopsy. On day 6, the patient presented to clinic and an excision biopsy was performed. Dermatopathology was ordered with a RUSH indication, with results on day 7 revealing a pT3b malignant melanoma. An urgent consultation to surgical oncology was placed on the same day, and the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit on day 24 with a plan for wide local excision with left axillary and inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 3—Images of the left ear of a 72-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing review via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history indicated that the lesion had been present for 3 months with associated bleeding. Image review demonstrated a solitary pearly pink papule located on the crura of the antihelix (Figure 3). Initial teledermatology consultation was reviewed on day 2 with notification of the need for in-person evaluation. The patient presented to clinic on day 33 for a biopsy, with dermatopathology results on day 36 consistent with an atypical fibroxanthoma. The patient was scheduled for Mohs micrographic surgery on day 37 and underwent surgical treatment on day 64.

Comment

Teledermatology consultations from all patients demonstrated adequate image quality to be able to evaluate the lesion of concern and yielded a request for in-person evaluation with possible biopsy (Table). In this case series, the average time interval from teledermatology consultation placement to teledermatology image report was 2 days (range, 1–3 days). The average time from teledermatology consultation placement to face-to-face encounter with biopsy was 24.3 days for the 3 cases presented in this series (range, 6–34 days). The initial surgical oncology visits took place an average of 34 days after the initial teledermatology consultation was placed for the 2 patients requiring referral (44 days for patient 1; 24 days for patient 2). For patient 3, Mohs micrographic surgery was required for treatment, which was scheduled by day 37 and subsequently performed on day 64.

When specifically looking at the diagnosis of cutaneous malignancies, studies have found that the incidence of skin cancer detection is similar for teledermatology compared to in-person clinic visits.^6,7 Creighton-Smith et al⁶ performed a retrospective cohort study comparing prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic accuracy and detection rates of skin cancer between store-and-forward technology and face-to-face consultation. When adjusting for possible compounding factors including personal and family history of skin cancer, there was no notable difference in detection rates of any skin cancer, including melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers. Furthermore, the 2 cohorts of patients were found to have similar prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic concordance, with similar times from consultation being placed to requested biopsy and time from biopsy to final treatment.⁶

Clarke et al⁷ similarly analyzed the accuracy of store-and-forward teledermatology and found that there was overall concordance in diagnosis when comparing clinical dermatologists to teledermatologists. Moreover, when melanocytic lesions were excluded from the study, the decision to biopsy did not differ substantially.⁷

Areas of further study include determining what percentage of teledermatology lesions of concern for malignancy were proven to be skin cancer after in-person evaluation and biopsy, as well as investigating the effectiveness of teledermatology for melanocytic lesions, which frequently are removed from analysis in large-scale teledermatology studies.

Although teledermatology has substantial clinical utility and may serve as a great resource for specific populations, including geriatric patients and those who are immunocompromised, it is important to recognize notable limitations. Specifically, brief history and image review should not serve as replacements for a face-to-face visit with physical examination in cases where the diagnosis remains uncertain or when high-risk skin malignancies are suspected or included in the differential. Certain aggressive cutaneous malignancies such as Merkel cell carcinoma may appear as less aggressive via teledermatology due to restrictions of technology.

Conclusion

Teledermatology has had a major impact on the way health care is delivered to patients and may increase access to care, reducing unnecessary in-person visits and decreasing the number of in-person visit no-shows. With the appropriate use of a brief clinical history and image review, teledermatology can be effective to evaluate specific lesions of concern. We report 3 unique cases identified during a 1-month period at a large Midwestern medical center. These cases serve as important examples of the application of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of aggressive skin malignancies. Further research on the clinical utility of teledermatology is warranted.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank the additional providers from the University of Wisconsin and William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (both in Madison, Wisconsin) involved in the medical care of the patients included in this case series.

With the increasing utilization of telemedicine since the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical that clinicians have an appropriate understanding of the application of virtual care resources, including teledermatology. We present a case series of 3 patients to demonstrate the clinical utility of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of various rare and/or aggressive cutaneous malignancies, including Merkel cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, and atypical fibroxanthoma. Cases were obtained from one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Each case presented includes a description of the initial teledermatology presentation and reviews the clinical timeline from initial consultation submission to in-person clinic visit with lesion biopsy. This case series demonstrates real-world examples of how teledermatology can be utilized to expedite the care of specific vulnerable patient populations.

Teledermatology is a rapidly growing digital resource with specific utility in triaging patients to determine those requiring in-person evaluation for early and accurate detection of skin malignancies. Approximately one-third of teledermatology consultations result in face-to-face clinical encounters, with malignant neoplasms being the leading cause for biopsy.^1,2 For specific populations, such as geriatric and immunocompromised patients, teledermatology may serve as a valuable tool, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, telemedicine may aid in addressing health disparities within the field of medicine and ultimately may improve access to care for vulnerable populations.³ Along with increasing access to specific subspecialty expertise, the use of teledermatology may reduce health care costs and improve the overall quality of care delivered to patients.^4,5

We describe the clinical utility of teledermatology in triaging and diagnosing skin malignancies through a series of 3 cases obtained from digital image review at one large Midwestern medical center during the month of July 2021. Three unique cases with a final diagnosis of a rare or aggressive skin cancer were selected as examples, including a 75-year-old man with Merkle cell carcinoma, a 55-year-old man with aggressive pT3b malignant melanoma, and a 72-year-old man with an atypical fibroxanthoma. A clinical timeline of each case is presented, including the time intervals from initial image submission to image review, image submission to face-to-face clinical encounter, and image submission to final diagnosis. In all cases, the primary care provider submitted an order for teledermatology, and the teledermatology team obtained the images.

Case Series

Patient 1—Images of the right hand of a 75-year-old man with a medical history of basal cell carcinoma were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing store-and-forward image-capturing technology (day 1). The patient history provided with image submission indicated that the lesion had been present for 6 months and there were no associated symptoms. Clinical imaging demonstrated a pink-red pearly papule located on the proximal fourth digit of the dorsal aspect of the right hand (Figure 1). One day following the teledermatology request (day 2), the patient’s case was reviewed and triaged for an in-person visit. The patient was brought to clinic on day 34, and a biopsy was performed. On day 36, dermatopathology results indicated a diagnosis of Merkel cell carcinoma. On day 37, the patient was referred to surgical oncology, and on day 44, the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit with a plan for wide local excision of the right fourth digit with right axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 2—Images of the left flank of a 55-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history provided with the image indicated that the lesion had been present for months to years and there were no associated symptoms, but the lesion recently had changed in color and size. Teledermatology images were reviewed on day 3 and demonstrated a 2- to 3-cm brown plaque on the left flank with color variegation and a prominent red papule protruding centrally (Figure 2). The patient was scheduled for an urgent in-person visit with biopsy. On day 6, the patient presented to clinic and an excision biopsy was performed. Dermatopathology was ordered with a RUSH indication, with results on day 7 revealing a pT3b malignant melanoma. An urgent consultation to surgical oncology was placed on the same day, and the patient underwent an initial surgical oncology visit on day 24 with a plan for wide local excision with left axillary and inguinal sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Patient 3—Images of the left ear of a 72-year-old man were submitted for teledermatology consultation utilizing review via store-and-forward technology (day 1). A patient history indicated that the lesion had been present for 3 months with associated bleeding. Image review demonstrated a solitary pearly pink papule located on the crura of the antihelix (Figure 3). Initial teledermatology consultation was reviewed on day 2 with notification of the need for in-person evaluation. The patient presented to clinic on day 33 for a biopsy, with dermatopathology results on day 36 consistent with an atypical fibroxanthoma. The patient was scheduled for Mohs micrographic surgery on day 37 and underwent surgical treatment on day 64.

Comment

Teledermatology consultations from all patients demonstrated adequate image quality to be able to evaluate the lesion of concern and yielded a request for in-person evaluation with possible biopsy (Table). In this case series, the average time interval from teledermatology consultation placement to teledermatology image report was 2 days (range, 1–3 days). The average time from teledermatology consultation placement to face-to-face encounter with biopsy was 24.3 days for the 3 cases presented in this series (range, 6–34 days). The initial surgical oncology visits took place an average of 34 days after the initial teledermatology consultation was placed for the 2 patients requiring referral (44 days for patient 1; 24 days for patient 2). For patient 3, Mohs micrographic surgery was required for treatment, which was scheduled by day 37 and subsequently performed on day 64.

When specifically looking at the diagnosis of cutaneous malignancies, studies have found that the incidence of skin cancer detection is similar for teledermatology compared to in-person clinic visits.^6,7 Creighton-Smith et al⁶ performed a retrospective cohort study comparing prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic accuracy and detection rates of skin cancer between store-and-forward technology and face-to-face consultation. When adjusting for possible compounding factors including personal and family history of skin cancer, there was no notable difference in detection rates of any skin cancer, including melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers. Furthermore, the 2 cohorts of patients were found to have similar prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostic concordance, with similar times from consultation being placed to requested biopsy and time from biopsy to final treatment.⁶

Clarke et al⁷ similarly analyzed the accuracy of store-and-forward teledermatology and found that there was overall concordance in diagnosis when comparing clinical dermatologists to teledermatologists. Moreover, when melanocytic lesions were excluded from the study, the decision to biopsy did not differ substantially.⁷

Areas of further study include determining what percentage of teledermatology lesions of concern for malignancy were proven to be skin cancer after in-person evaluation and biopsy, as well as investigating the effectiveness of teledermatology for melanocytic lesions, which frequently are removed from analysis in large-scale teledermatology studies.

Although teledermatology has substantial clinical utility and may serve as a great resource for specific populations, including geriatric patients and those who are immunocompromised, it is important to recognize notable limitations. Specifically, brief history and image review should not serve as replacements for a face-to-face visit with physical examination in cases where the diagnosis remains uncertain or when high-risk skin malignancies are suspected or included in the differential. Certain aggressive cutaneous malignancies such as Merkel cell carcinoma may appear as less aggressive via teledermatology due to restrictions of technology.

Conclusion

Teledermatology has had a major impact on the way health care is delivered to patients and may increase access to care, reducing unnecessary in-person visits and decreasing the number of in-person visit no-shows. With the appropriate use of a brief clinical history and image review, teledermatology can be effective to evaluate specific lesions of concern. We report 3 unique cases identified during a 1-month period at a large Midwestern medical center. These cases serve as important examples of the application of teledermatology in reducing the time to diagnosis of aggressive skin malignancies. Further research on the clinical utility of teledermatology is warranted.

Acknowledgments—The authors thank the additional providers from the University of Wisconsin and William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital (both in Madison, Wisconsin) involved in the medical care of the patients included in this case series.

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

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

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

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

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

Cancer Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Underdeveloped Technology 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Consensus Yet

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

Cancer Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Underdeveloped Technology 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Consensus Yet

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

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

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

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

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

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

Cancer Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Underdeveloped Technology 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Influence on Cancer Treatment Outcomes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Consensus Yet

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

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

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

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

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey-based study found that only 4% of cancer survivors reported adhering to all four American Cancer Society (ACS) nutrition and physical activity guidelines, which include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, avoiding alcohol, and exercising regularly.

METHODOLOGY:

• The ACS has published nutrition and exercise guidelines for cancer survivors, which include recommendations to maintain a healthy weight and diet, cut out alcohol, and participate in regular physical activities. Engaging in these behaviors is associated with longer survival among cancer survivors, but whether survivors follow these nutrition and activity recommendations has not been systematically tracked.
• Researchers evaluated data on 10,020 individuals (mean age, 64.2 years) who had completed cancer treatment. Data came from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System telephone-based survey administered in 2017, 2019, and 2021, which represents 2.7 million cancer survivors.
• The researchers estimated survivors’ adherence to guidelines across four domains: Weight, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, and alcohol intake. Factors associated with adherence were also evaluated.
• Overall, 9,121 survivors (91%) completed questionnaires for all four domains.

TAKEAWAY:

Only 4% of patients (365 of 9121) followed ACS guidelines in all four categories.

When assessing adherence to each category, the researchers found that 72% of cancer survivors reported engaging in recommended levels of physical activity, 68% maintained a nonobese weight, 50% said they did not consume alcohol, and 12% said they consumed recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables.

Compared with people in the general population, cancer survivors generally engaged in fewer healthy behaviors than those who had never been diagnosed with cancer.

The authors identified certain factors associated with greater guideline adherence, including female sex, older age, Black (vs White) race, and higher education level (college graduate).

IN PRACTICE:

This study highlights a potential “gap between published guidelines regarding behavioral modifications for cancer survivors and uptake of these behaviors,” the authors wrote, adding that “it is essential for oncologists and general internists to improve widespread and systematic counseling on these guidelines to improve uptake of healthy behaviors in this vulnerable patient population.”

SOURCE:

This work, led by Carter Baughman, MD, from the Division of Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors reported several study limitations, most notably that self-reported data may introduce biases.

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not reported. One author received grants from the US Highbush Blueberry Council outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Signals for keratoacanthoma and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) with programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors were detected in an analysis of adverse events (AEs) reported to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODOLOGY:

• The risk for dermatologic immune-related side effects may be increased with immunologic-modifying drugs.
• To determine if there are significant signals between keratoacanthomas and cSCCs and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, researchers analyzed AEs associated with these agents reported to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) between January 2004 and May 2023.
• Pharmacovigilance signals were identified, and a significant signal was defined as the lower 95% CI of a reporting odds ratio (ROR) greater than one or the lower 95% CI of an information component (IC) greater than 0.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 158,000 reports of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor use, 43 were in patients who developed a keratoacanthoma (mean age, 77 years; 39% women) and 83 were in patients who developed cSCC (mean age, 71 years; 41% women). Patients aged 60-79 years were most likely to develop keratoacanthomas and cSCC on these treatments.
• A PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor was listed as the suspect drug in all 43 keratoacanthoma reports and in 70 of 83 cSCC reports (the remaining 13 listed them as the concomitant drug).
• Significant signals were reported for both keratoacanthoma (ROR, 9.7; IC, 1.9) and cSCC (ROR, 3.0; IC, 0.9) with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor use.
• Of the reports where this information was available, all 10 cases of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–linked keratoacanthoma and 10 of 17 cases (59%) of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–linked cSCC, resolution was noted following discontinuation or dose reduction of the inhibitor.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the large number of patients receiving immunotherapy, FAERS recording only 43 patients developing keratoacanthoma and 83 patients developing cSCC highlights that these conditions are relatively rare adverse events,” the authors wrote but added that more studies are needed to confirm these results.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Pushkar Aggarwal, MD, MBA, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The data obtained from FAERS did not contain information on all AEs from drugs. In addition, a causal association could not be determined.

DISCLOSURES:

The funding source was not reported. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Signals for keratoacanthoma and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) with programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors were detected in an analysis of adverse events (AEs) reported to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODOLOGY:

• The risk for dermatologic immune-related side effects may be increased with immunologic-modifying drugs.
• To determine if there are significant signals between keratoacanthomas and cSCCs and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, researchers analyzed AEs associated with these agents reported to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) between January 2004 and May 2023.
• Pharmacovigilance signals were identified, and a significant signal was defined as the lower 95% CI of a reporting odds ratio (ROR) greater than one or the lower 95% CI of an information component (IC) greater than 0.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 158,000 reports of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor use, 43 were in patients who developed a keratoacanthoma (mean age, 77 years; 39% women) and 83 were in patients who developed cSCC (mean age, 71 years; 41% women). Patients aged 60-79 years were most likely to develop keratoacanthomas and cSCC on these treatments.
• A PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor was listed as the suspect drug in all 43 keratoacanthoma reports and in 70 of 83 cSCC reports (the remaining 13 listed them as the concomitant drug).
• Significant signals were reported for both keratoacanthoma (ROR, 9.7; IC, 1.9) and cSCC (ROR, 3.0; IC, 0.9) with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor use.
• Of the reports where this information was available, all 10 cases of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–linked keratoacanthoma and 10 of 17 cases (59%) of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–linked cSCC, resolution was noted following discontinuation or dose reduction of the inhibitor.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the large number of patients receiving immunotherapy, FAERS recording only 43 patients developing keratoacanthoma and 83 patients developing cSCC highlights that these conditions are relatively rare adverse events,” the authors wrote but added that more studies are needed to confirm these results.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Pushkar Aggarwal, MD, MBA, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The data obtained from FAERS did not contain information on all AEs from drugs. In addition, a causal association could not be determined.

DISCLOSURES:

The funding source was not reported. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Signals for keratoacanthoma and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) with programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors were detected in an analysis of adverse events (AEs) reported to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODOLOGY:

• The risk for dermatologic immune-related side effects may be increased with immunologic-modifying drugs.
• To determine if there are significant signals between keratoacanthomas and cSCCs and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, researchers analyzed AEs associated with these agents reported to the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) between January 2004 and May 2023.
• Pharmacovigilance signals were identified, and a significant signal was defined as the lower 95% CI of a reporting odds ratio (ROR) greater than one or the lower 95% CI of an information component (IC) greater than 0.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 158,000 reports of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor use, 43 were in patients who developed a keratoacanthoma (mean age, 77 years; 39% women) and 83 were in patients who developed cSCC (mean age, 71 years; 41% women). Patients aged 60-79 years were most likely to develop keratoacanthomas and cSCC on these treatments.
• A PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor was listed as the suspect drug in all 43 keratoacanthoma reports and in 70 of 83 cSCC reports (the remaining 13 listed them as the concomitant drug).
• Significant signals were reported for both keratoacanthoma (ROR, 9.7; IC, 1.9) and cSCC (ROR, 3.0; IC, 0.9) with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor use.
• Of the reports where this information was available, all 10 cases of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–linked keratoacanthoma and 10 of 17 cases (59%) of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor–linked cSCC, resolution was noted following discontinuation or dose reduction of the inhibitor.

IN PRACTICE:

“Given the large number of patients receiving immunotherapy, FAERS recording only 43 patients developing keratoacanthoma and 83 patients developing cSCC highlights that these conditions are relatively rare adverse events,” the authors wrote but added that more studies are needed to confirm these results.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Pushkar Aggarwal, MD, MBA, of the Department of Dermatology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The data obtained from FAERS did not contain information on all AEs from drugs. In addition, a causal association could not be determined.

DISCLOSURES:

The funding source was not reported. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An analysis of molecular-targeted cancer drug therapies recently approved in the United States found that fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial clinical benefits at the time of approval.

METHODOLOGY:

• The strength and quality of evidence supporting genome-targeted cancer drug approvals vary. A big reason is the growing number of cancer drug approvals based on surrogate endpoints, such as disease-free and progression-free survival, instead of clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on phase 1 or single-arm trials.
• Given these less rigorous considerations for approval, “the validity and value of the targets and surrogate measures underlying FDA genome-targeted cancer drug approvals are uncertain,” the researchers explained.
• In the current analysis, researchers assessed the validity of the molecular targets as well as the clinical benefits of genome-targeted cancer drugs approved in the United States from 2015 to 2022 based on results from pivotal trials.
• The researchers evaluated the strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT) and the clinical benefit using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).
• The authors defined a substantial clinical benefit as an A or B grade for curative intent and a 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. High-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments were defined as those associated with a substantial clinical benefit (ESMO-MCBS) and that qualified as ESCAT category level I-A (a clinical benefit based on prospective randomized data) or I-B (prospective nonrandomized data).

TAKEAWAY:

• The analyses focused on 50 molecular-targeted cancer drugs covering 84 indications. Of which, 45 indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials and the remaining 39 (46%) by randomized trial, and 48 (57%) were approved based on subgroup analyses.
• Among the 84 indications, more than half (55%) of the pivotal trials supporting approval used overall response rate as a primary endpoint, 31% used progression-free survival, and 6% used disease-free survival. Only seven indications (8%) were supported by pivotal trials demonstrating an improvement in overall survival.
• Among the 84 trials, 24 (29%) met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit.
• Overall, when combining all ratings, only 24 of the 84 indications (29%) were considered high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments.

IN PRACTICE:

“We applied the ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT value frameworks to identify therapies and molecular targets providing high clinical value that should be widely available to patients” and “found that drug indications supported by these characteristics represent a minority of cancer drug approvals in recent years,” the authors said. Using these value frameworks could help payers, governments, and individual patients “prioritize the availability of high-value molecular-targeted therapies.”

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Ariadna Tibau, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only trials that supported regulatory approval and did not include outcomes of postapproval clinical studies, which could lead to changes in ESMO-MCBS grades and ESCAT levels of evidence over time.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, Arnold Ventures, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Early data suggested that several new multicancer early detection (MCED) tests in development show promise for identifying cancers that lack routine screening options.

Analyses presented during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting, revealed that three new MCED tests — CanScan, MERCURY, and OncoSeek — could detect a range of cancers and recognize the tissue of origin with high accuracy. One — OncoSeek — could also provide an affordable cancer screening option for individuals living in lower-income countries.

The need for these noninvasive liquid biopsy tests that can accurately identify multiple cancer types with a single blood draw, especially cancers without routine screening strategies, is pressing. “We know that the current cancer standard of care screening will identify less than 50% of all cancers, while more than 50% of all cancer deaths occur in types of cancer with no recommended screening,” said co-moderator Marie E. Wood, MD, of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, in Aurora, Colorado.

That being said, “the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests has not been established and we’re concerned about issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment,” she noted.

The Early Data 

One new MCED test called CanScan, developed by Geneseeq Technology, uses plasma cell-free DNA fragment patterns to detect cancer signals as well as identify the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

Overall, the CanScan test covers cancer types that contribute to two thirds of new cancer cases and 74% of morality globally, said presenter Shanshan Yang, of Geneseeq Research Institute, in Nanjing, China.

However, only five of these cancer types have screening recommendations issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), Dr. Yang added.

The interim data comes from an ongoing large-scale prospective study evaluating the MCED test in a cohort of asymptomatic individuals between ages 45 and 75 years with an average risk for cancer and no cancer-related symptoms on enrollment.

Patients at baseline had their blood collected for the CanScan test and subsequently received annual routine physical exams once a year for 3 consecutive years, with an additional 2 years of follow-up. 

The analysis included 3724 participants with analyzable samples at the data cutoff in September 2023. Among the 3724 participants, 29 had confirmed cancer diagnoses. Among these cases, 14 patients had their cancer confirmed through USPSTF recommended screening and 15 were detected through outside of standard USPSTF screening, such as a thyroid ultrasound, Dr. Yang explained.

Almost 90% of the cancers (26 of 29) were detected in the stage I or II, and eight (27.5%) were not one of the test’s 13 targeted cancer types.

The CanScan test had a sensitivity of 55.2%, identifying 16 of 29 of the patients with cancer, including 10 of 21 individuals with stage I (47.6%), and two of three with stage II (66.7%). 

The test had a high specificity of 97.9%, meaning out of 100 people screened, only two had false negative findings.

Among the 15 patients who had their cancer detected outside of USPSTF screening recommendations, eight (53.3%) were found using a CanScan test, including patients with liver and endometrial cancers.

Compared with a positive predictive value of (PPV) of 1.6% with screening or physical exam methods alone, the CanScan test had a PPV of 17.4%, Dr. Yang reported. 

“The MCED test holds significant potential for early cancer screening in asymptomatic populations,” Dr. Yang and colleagues concluded.

Another new MCED test called MERCURY, also developed by Geneseeq Technology and presented during the session, used a similar method to detect cancer signals and predict the tissue of origin across 13 cancer types.

The researchers initially validated the test using 3076 patients with cancer and 3477 healthy controls with a target specificity of 99%. In this group, researchers reported a sensitivity of 0.865 and a specificity of 0.989.

The team then performed an independent validation analysis with 1465 participants, 732 with cancer and 733 with no cancer, and confirmed a high sensitivity and specificity of 0.874 and 0.978, respectively. The sensitivity increased incrementally by cancer stage — 0.768 for stage I, 0.840 for stage II, 0.923 for stage III, and 0.971 for stage IV.

The test identified the tissue of origin with high accuracy, the researchers noted, but cautioned that the test needs “to be further validated in a prospective cohort study.”

MCED in Low-Income Settings

The session also featured findings on a new affordable MCED test called OncoSeek, which could provide greater access to cancer testing in low- and middle-income countries.

The OncoSeek algorithm identifies the presence of cancer using seven protein tumor markers alongside clinical information, such as gender and age. Like other tests, the test also predicts the possible tissue of origin.

The test can be run on clinical protein assay instruments that are already widely available, such as Roche cobas analyzer, Mao Mao, MD, PhD, the founder and CEO of SeekIn, of Shenzhen, China, told this news organization.

This “feature makes the test accessible worldwide, even in low- and middle-income countries,” he said. “These instruments are fully-automated and part of today’s clinical practice. Therefore, the test does not require additional infrastructure building and lab personal training.”

Another notable advantage: the OncoSeek test only costs about $20, compared with other MCED tests, which can cost anywhere from $200 to $1000.

To validate the technology in a large, diverse cohort, Dr. Mao and colleagues enrolled approximately 10,000 participants, including 2003 cancer cases and 7888 non-cancer cases.

Peripheral blood was collected from each participant and analyzed using a panel of the seven protein tumor markers — AFP, CA125, CA15-3, CA19-9, CA72-4, CEA, and CYFRA 21-1.

To reduce the risk for false positive findings, the team designed the OncoSeek algorithm to achieve a specificity of 93%. Dr. Mao and colleagues found a sensitivity of 51.7%, resulting in an overall accuracy of 84.6%.

The performance was consistent in additional validation cohorts in Brazil, China, and the United States, with sensitivities ranging from 39.0% to 77.6% for detecting nine common cancer types, including breast, colorectal, liver, lung, lymphoma, esophagus, ovary, pancreas, and stomach. The sensitivity for pancreatic cancer was at the high end of 77.6%.

The test could predict the tissue of origin in about two thirds of cases. 

Given its low cost, OncoSeek represents an affordable and accessible option for cancer screening, the authors concluded. 

Overall, “I think MCEDs have the potential to enhance cancer screening,” Dr. Wood told this news organization.

Still, questions remain about the optimal use of these tests, such as whether they are best for average-risk or higher risk populations, and how to integrate them into standard screening, she said. 

Dr. Wood also cautioned that the studies presented in the session represent early data, and it is likely that the numbers, such as sensitivity and specificity, will change with further prospective analyses.

And ultimately, these tests should complement, not replace, standard screening. “A negative testing should not be taken as a sign to avoid standard screening,” Dr. Wood said.

Dr. Yang is an employee of Geneseeq Technology, Inc., and Dr. Mao is an employee of SeekIn. Dr. Wood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A recent survey highlighted ethical concerns US oncologists have about using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make cancer treatment decisions and revealed some contradictory views about how best to integrate these tools into practice. Most respondents, for instance, said patients should not be expected to understand how AI tools work, but many also felt patients could make treatment decisions based on AI-generated recommendations. Most oncologists also felt responsible for protecting patients from biased AI, but few were confident that they could do so.

METHODOLOGY:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has  for use in various medical specialties over the past few decades, and increasingly, AI tools are being integrated into cancer care.
• However, the uptake of these tools in oncology has raised ethical questions and concerns, including challenges with AI bias, error, or misuse, as well as issues explaining how an AI model reached a result.
• In the current study, researchers asked 204 oncologists from 37 states for their views on the ethical implications of using AI for cancer care.
• Among the survey respondents, 64% were men and 63% were non-Hispanic White; 29% were from academic practices, 47% had received some education on AI use in healthcare, and 45% were familiar with clinical decision models.
• The researchers assessed respondents’ answers to various questions, including whether to provide informed consent for AI use and how oncologists would approach a scenario where the AI model and the oncologist recommended a different treatment regimen.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 81% of oncologists supported having patient consent to use an AI model during treatment decisions, and 85% felt that oncologists needed to be able to explain an AI-based clinical decision model to use it in the clinic; however, only 23% felt that patients also needed to be able to explain an AI model.
• When an AI decision model recommended a different treatment regimen than the treating oncologist, the most common response (36.8%) was to present both options to the patient and let the patient decide. Oncologists from academic settings were about 2.5 times more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide. About 34% of respondents said they would present both options but recommend the oncologist’s regimen, whereas about 22% said they would present both but recommend the AI’s regimen. A small percentage would only present the oncologist’s regimen (5%) or the AI’s regimen (about 2.5%).
• About three of four respondents (76.5%) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools; however, only about one of four (27.9%) felt confident they could identify biased AI models.
• Most oncologists (91%) felt that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use; less than half (47%) said oncologists or hospitals (43%) shared this responsibility.

IN PRACTICE:

“Together, these data characterize barriers that may impede the ethical adoption of AI into cancer care. The findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions, as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Andrew Hantel, MD, from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, was published last month in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a moderate sample size and response rate, although demographics of participating oncologists appear to be nationally representative. The cross-sectional study design limited the generalizability of the findings over time as AI is integrated into cancer care.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Dana-Farber McGraw/Patterson Research Fund, and the Mark Foundation Emerging Leader Award. Dr. Hantel reported receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, the American Journal of Managed Care, Genentech, and GSK.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — The number of solid organ transplant survivors is on the rise, a dermatologist told colleagues, and they face unique challenges from higher risks for skin cancer and skin infections because of their suppressed immune systems.

“There are over 450,000 people with a solid organ transplant living in the United States. If you do the math, that works out to about 40 organ transplant recipients for every dermatologist, so there’s a lot of them out there for us to take care of,” Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD). “If we expand that umbrella to include all types of immunosuppression, that’s over 4 million adults in the US.”

Dr. Christensen encouraged dermatologists to be aware of the varying risks for immunosuppressive drugs and best screening practices for these patients, and to take advantage of a validated skin cancer risk assessment tool for transplant patients.

During his presentation, he highlighted five classes of immunosuppressive drugs and their associated skin cancer risks:

• Calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus or cyclosporine), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk. They may also cause gingival hyperplasia and sebaceous hyperplasia.
• Antimetabolites (mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine), which cause moderate to severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk.
• Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (sirolimus or everolimus), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a moderate skin cancer risk. They also impair wound healing.
• Corticosteroids (prednisone), which cause mild to severe immune suppression and pose a minimal skin cancer risk.
• A decoy receptor protein (belatacept), which causes severe immune suppression and poses a mild skin cancer risk.

“Most of our solid-organ transplant recipients will be on both a calcineurin inhibitor and an antimetabolite,” Dr. Christensen said. “In addition to the skin cancer risk associated with immunosuppression, there is an additive risk” that is a direct effect of these medications on the skin. “That means our transplant recipients have a severely and disproportionate increase in skin cancer,” he noted.

Up to half of solid-organ transplant recipients will develop skin cancer, Dr. Christensen said. These patients have a sixfold to 10-fold increased risk for basal cell carcinoma (BCC), a 35- to 65-fold increased risk for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), a twofold to sevenfold increased risk for melanoma, and a 16- to 100-fold increased risk for Merkel cell carcinoma.

Transplant recipients with SCC, he said, have a twofold to threefold higher risk for metastasis (4%-8% nodal metastasis) and twofold to fivefold higher risk for death (2%-7% mortality) from SCC.

As for other kinds of immunosuppression, HIV positivity, treatment with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine (for inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis), and antitumor necrosis factor agents (for psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, and rheumatoid arthritis) have been linked in studies to a higher risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer.

Dr. Christensen also highlighted graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). “It does look like there is a disproportionate and increased risk of SCC of the oropharynx and of the skin in patients who have chronic GVHD. This is probably due to a combination of both the immunosuppressive medications that are required but also from chronic and ongoing inflammation in the skin.”

Chronic GVHD has been linked to a 5.3-fold increase in the risk for SCC and a twofold increase in the risk for BCC, he added.

Moreover, new medications for treating GVHD have been linked to an increased risk for SCC, including a 3.2-fold increased risk for SCC associated with ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2 inhibitor, in a study of patients with polycythemia vera and myelofibrosis; and a case report of SCC in a patient treated with belumosudil, a rho-associated coiled-coil-containing protein kinase-2 kinase inhibitor, for chronic GVHD. Risk for SCC appears to increase based on duration of use with voriconazole, an antifungal, which, he said, is a potent photosynthesizer.

Dr. Christensen also noted the higher risk for infections in immunocompromised patients and added that these patients can develop inflammatory disease despite immunosuppression:

Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Dermatophytes are the most common skin pathogens in these patients. There’s a significantly increased risk for reactivation of herpes simplex, varicella-zoster viruses, and cytomegalovirus. Opportunistic and disseminated fungal infections, such as mycobacteria, Candida, histoplasma, cryptococcus, aspergillus, and mucormycosis, can also appear.

More than 80% of transplant recipients develop molluscum and verruca vulgaris/human papillomavirus infection. They may also develop noninfectious inflammatory dermatoses.

Risk Calculator

What can dermatologists do to help transplant patients? Dr. Christensen highlighted the Skin and UV Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator, which predicts skin cancer risk based on points given for race, gender, skin cancer history, age at transplant, and site of transplant.

The tool, validated in a 2023 study of transplant recipients in Europe, is available online and as an app. It makes recommendations to users about when patients should have initial skin screening exams. Those with the most risk — 45% at 5 years — should be screened within 6 months. “We can use [the tool] to triage these cases when we first meet them and get them plugged into the appropriate care,” Dr. Christensen said.

He recommended seeing high-risk patients at least annually. Patients with a prior SCC and a heavy burden of actinic keratosis should be followed more frequently, he said.

In regard to SCC, he highlighted a 2024 study of solid organ transplant recipients that found the risk for a second SCC after a first SCC was 74%, the risk for a third SCC after a second SCC was 83%, and the risk for another SCC after five SCCs was 92%.

Dr. Christensen disclosed relationships with Canfield Scientific Inc. (consulting), Inhibitor Therapeutics (advisory board), and Sol-Gel Technologies Ltd. (grants/research funding).

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

SAN DIEGO — The number of solid organ transplant survivors is on the rise, a dermatologist told colleagues, and they face unique challenges from higher risks for skin cancer and skin infections because of their suppressed immune systems.

“There are over 450,000 people with a solid organ transplant living in the United States. If you do the math, that works out to about 40 organ transplant recipients for every dermatologist, so there’s a lot of them out there for us to take care of,” Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD). “If we expand that umbrella to include all types of immunosuppression, that’s over 4 million adults in the US.”

Dr. Christensen encouraged dermatologists to be aware of the varying risks for immunosuppressive drugs and best screening practices for these patients, and to take advantage of a validated skin cancer risk assessment tool for transplant patients.

During his presentation, he highlighted five classes of immunosuppressive drugs and their associated skin cancer risks:

• Calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus or cyclosporine), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk. They may also cause gingival hyperplasia and sebaceous hyperplasia.
• Antimetabolites (mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine), which cause moderate to severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk.
• Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (sirolimus or everolimus), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a moderate skin cancer risk. They also impair wound healing.
• Corticosteroids (prednisone), which cause mild to severe immune suppression and pose a minimal skin cancer risk.
• A decoy receptor protein (belatacept), which causes severe immune suppression and poses a mild skin cancer risk.

“Most of our solid-organ transplant recipients will be on both a calcineurin inhibitor and an antimetabolite,” Dr. Christensen said. “In addition to the skin cancer risk associated with immunosuppression, there is an additive risk” that is a direct effect of these medications on the skin. “That means our transplant recipients have a severely and disproportionate increase in skin cancer,” he noted.

Up to half of solid-organ transplant recipients will develop skin cancer, Dr. Christensen said. These patients have a sixfold to 10-fold increased risk for basal cell carcinoma (BCC), a 35- to 65-fold increased risk for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), a twofold to sevenfold increased risk for melanoma, and a 16- to 100-fold increased risk for Merkel cell carcinoma.

Transplant recipients with SCC, he said, have a twofold to threefold higher risk for metastasis (4%-8% nodal metastasis) and twofold to fivefold higher risk for death (2%-7% mortality) from SCC.

As for other kinds of immunosuppression, HIV positivity, treatment with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine (for inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis), and antitumor necrosis factor agents (for psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, and rheumatoid arthritis) have been linked in studies to a higher risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer.

Dr. Christensen also highlighted graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). “It does look like there is a disproportionate and increased risk of SCC of the oropharynx and of the skin in patients who have chronic GVHD. This is probably due to a combination of both the immunosuppressive medications that are required but also from chronic and ongoing inflammation in the skin.”

Chronic GVHD has been linked to a 5.3-fold increase in the risk for SCC and a twofold increase in the risk for BCC, he added.

Moreover, new medications for treating GVHD have been linked to an increased risk for SCC, including a 3.2-fold increased risk for SCC associated with ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2 inhibitor, in a study of patients with polycythemia vera and myelofibrosis; and a case report of SCC in a patient treated with belumosudil, a rho-associated coiled-coil-containing protein kinase-2 kinase inhibitor, for chronic GVHD. Risk for SCC appears to increase based on duration of use with voriconazole, an antifungal, which, he said, is a potent photosynthesizer.

Dr. Christensen also noted the higher risk for infections in immunocompromised patients and added that these patients can develop inflammatory disease despite immunosuppression:

Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Dermatophytes are the most common skin pathogens in these patients. There’s a significantly increased risk for reactivation of herpes simplex, varicella-zoster viruses, and cytomegalovirus. Opportunistic and disseminated fungal infections, such as mycobacteria, Candida, histoplasma, cryptococcus, aspergillus, and mucormycosis, can also appear.

More than 80% of transplant recipients develop molluscum and verruca vulgaris/human papillomavirus infection. They may also develop noninfectious inflammatory dermatoses.

Risk Calculator

What can dermatologists do to help transplant patients? Dr. Christensen highlighted the Skin and UV Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator, which predicts skin cancer risk based on points given for race, gender, skin cancer history, age at transplant, and site of transplant.

The tool, validated in a 2023 study of transplant recipients in Europe, is available online and as an app. It makes recommendations to users about when patients should have initial skin screening exams. Those with the most risk — 45% at 5 years — should be screened within 6 months. “We can use [the tool] to triage these cases when we first meet them and get them plugged into the appropriate care,” Dr. Christensen said.

He recommended seeing high-risk patients at least annually. Patients with a prior SCC and a heavy burden of actinic keratosis should be followed more frequently, he said.

In regard to SCC, he highlighted a 2024 study of solid organ transplant recipients that found the risk for a second SCC after a first SCC was 74%, the risk for a third SCC after a second SCC was 83%, and the risk for another SCC after five SCCs was 92%.

Dr. Christensen disclosed relationships with Canfield Scientific Inc. (consulting), Inhibitor Therapeutics (advisory board), and Sol-Gel Technologies Ltd. (grants/research funding).

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

SAN DIEGO — The number of solid organ transplant survivors is on the rise, a dermatologist told colleagues, and they face unique challenges from higher risks for skin cancer and skin infections because of their suppressed immune systems.

“There are over 450,000 people with a solid organ transplant living in the United States. If you do the math, that works out to about 40 organ transplant recipients for every dermatologist, so there’s a lot of them out there for us to take care of,” Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD). “If we expand that umbrella to include all types of immunosuppression, that’s over 4 million adults in the US.”

Dr. Christensen encouraged dermatologists to be aware of the varying risks for immunosuppressive drugs and best screening practices for these patients, and to take advantage of a validated skin cancer risk assessment tool for transplant patients.

During his presentation, he highlighted five classes of immunosuppressive drugs and their associated skin cancer risks:

• Calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus or cyclosporine), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk. They may also cause gingival hyperplasia and sebaceous hyperplasia.
• Antimetabolites (mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine), which cause moderate to severe immune suppression and pose a severe skin cancer risk.
• Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (sirolimus or everolimus), which cause severe immune suppression and pose a moderate skin cancer risk. They also impair wound healing.
• Corticosteroids (prednisone), which cause mild to severe immune suppression and pose a minimal skin cancer risk.
• A decoy receptor protein (belatacept), which causes severe immune suppression and poses a mild skin cancer risk.

“Most of our solid-organ transplant recipients will be on both a calcineurin inhibitor and an antimetabolite,” Dr. Christensen said. “In addition to the skin cancer risk associated with immunosuppression, there is an additive risk” that is a direct effect of these medications on the skin. “That means our transplant recipients have a severely and disproportionate increase in skin cancer,” he noted.

Up to half of solid-organ transplant recipients will develop skin cancer, Dr. Christensen said. These patients have a sixfold to 10-fold increased risk for basal cell carcinoma (BCC), a 35- to 65-fold increased risk for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), a twofold to sevenfold increased risk for melanoma, and a 16- to 100-fold increased risk for Merkel cell carcinoma.

Transplant recipients with SCC, he said, have a twofold to threefold higher risk for metastasis (4%-8% nodal metastasis) and twofold to fivefold higher risk for death (2%-7% mortality) from SCC.

As for other kinds of immunosuppression, HIV positivity, treatment with 6-mercaptopurine or azathioprine (for inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis), and antitumor necrosis factor agents (for psoriasis, inflammatory bowel disease, and rheumatoid arthritis) have been linked in studies to a higher risk for nonmelanoma skin cancer.

Dr. Christensen also highlighted graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). “It does look like there is a disproportionate and increased risk of SCC of the oropharynx and of the skin in patients who have chronic GVHD. This is probably due to a combination of both the immunosuppressive medications that are required but also from chronic and ongoing inflammation in the skin.”

Chronic GVHD has been linked to a 5.3-fold increase in the risk for SCC and a twofold increase in the risk for BCC, he added.

Moreover, new medications for treating GVHD have been linked to an increased risk for SCC, including a 3.2-fold increased risk for SCC associated with ruxolitinib, a Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK2 inhibitor, in a study of patients with polycythemia vera and myelofibrosis; and a case report of SCC in a patient treated with belumosudil, a rho-associated coiled-coil-containing protein kinase-2 kinase inhibitor, for chronic GVHD. Risk for SCC appears to increase based on duration of use with voriconazole, an antifungal, which, he said, is a potent photosynthesizer.

Dr. Christensen also noted the higher risk for infections in immunocompromised patients and added that these patients can develop inflammatory disease despite immunosuppression:

Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, and Dermatophytes are the most common skin pathogens in these patients. There’s a significantly increased risk for reactivation of herpes simplex, varicella-zoster viruses, and cytomegalovirus. Opportunistic and disseminated fungal infections, such as mycobacteria, Candida, histoplasma, cryptococcus, aspergillus, and mucormycosis, can also appear.

More than 80% of transplant recipients develop molluscum and verruca vulgaris/human papillomavirus infection. They may also develop noninfectious inflammatory dermatoses.

Risk Calculator

What can dermatologists do to help transplant patients? Dr. Christensen highlighted the Skin and UV Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator, which predicts skin cancer risk based on points given for race, gender, skin cancer history, age at transplant, and site of transplant.

The tool, validated in a 2023 study of transplant recipients in Europe, is available online and as an app. It makes recommendations to users about when patients should have initial skin screening exams. Those with the most risk — 45% at 5 years — should be screened within 6 months. “We can use [the tool] to triage these cases when we first meet them and get them plugged into the appropriate care,” Dr. Christensen said.

He recommended seeing high-risk patients at least annually. Patients with a prior SCC and a heavy burden of actinic keratosis should be followed more frequently, he said.

In regard to SCC, he highlighted a 2024 study of solid organ transplant recipients that found the risk for a second SCC after a first SCC was 74%, the risk for a third SCC after a second SCC was 83%, and the risk for another SCC after five SCCs was 92%.

Dr. Christensen disclosed relationships with Canfield Scientific Inc. (consulting), Inhibitor Therapeutics (advisory board), and Sol-Gel Technologies Ltd. (grants/research funding).

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

SAN DIEGO — Monitoring a patient’s circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can provide valuable insights on early response to targeted therapies among patients with HER2-positive cancers.

This was the main finding of new data presented by study author Razelle Kurzrock, MD, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

“We found that on-treatment ctDNA can detect progression before standard-of-care response assessments. These data suggest that monitoring ctDNA can provide clinicians with important prognostic information that may guide treatment decisions,” Dr. Kurzrock, professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said during her presentation.

Christos Evangelou/MDedge News

Commenting on the clinical implications of these findings during an interview, she said the results suggest that ctDNA dynamics provide an early window into predicting response to targeted therapies in patients with HER2-altered cancers, confirming previous findings of the predictive value of ctDNA in other cancer types.

“Such monitoring may be useful in clinical trials and eventually in practice,” she added.
 

Need for new methods to predict early tumor response

Limitations of standard radiographic tumor assessments present challenges in determining clinical response, particularly for patients receiving targeted therapies.

During her talk, Dr. Kurzrock explained that although targeted therapies are effective for patients with specific molecular alterations, standard imaging assessments fail to uncover molecular-level changes within tumors, limiting the ability of clinicians to accurately assess a patient’s response to targeted therapies.

“In addition to limitations with imaging, patients and physicians want to know as soon as possible whether or not the agents are effective, especially if there are side effects,” Dr. Kurzrock during an interview. She added that monitoring early response may be especially important across tumor types, as HER2 therapies are increasingly being considered in the pan-cancer setting.

Commenting on the potential use of this method in other cancer types with HER2 alterations, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, MS, noted that since the study relied on a tumor-informed assay, it would be applicable across diverse tumor types.

“It is less about tissue type but more about that particular patient’s tumor at that instant in time for which a unique barcode is created,” said Dr. Kasi, a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the study.

In an interview, he added that the shedding and biology would affect the assay’s performance for some tissue types.
 

Design of patient-specific ctDNA assays

In this retrospective study, the researchers examined ctDNA dynamics in 58 patients with various HER2-positive tumor types, including breast, colorectal, and other solid malignancies harboring HER2 alterations. All the patients received combination HER2-targeted therapy with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in the phase 2 basket trial My Pathway (NCT02091141).

By leveraging comprehensive genomic profiling of each patient’s tumor, the researchers designed personalized ctDNA assays, tracking 2-16 tumor-specific genetic variants in the patients’ blood samples. FoundationOne Tracker was used to detect and quantify ctDNA at baseline and the third cycle of therapy (cycle 3 day 1, or C3D1).

During an interview, Dr. Kurzrock explained that FoundationOne Tracker is a personalized ctDNA monitoring assay that allows for the detection of ctDNA in plasma, enabling ongoing liquid-based monitoring and highly sensitive quantification of ctDNA levels as mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.

Among the 52 patients for whom personalized ctDNA assays were successfully designed, 48 (92.3%) had ctDNA data available at baseline, with a median of 100.7 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma. Most patients (89.6%) were deemed ctDNA-positive, with a median of 119.5 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.
 

Changes in ctDNA levels predict patient survival

The researchers found that patients who experienced a greater than 90% decline in ctDNA levels by the third treatment cycle had significantly longer overall survival (OS) than those with less than 90% ctDNA decline or any increase. According to data presented by Dr. Kurzrock, the median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 9.4 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = .007). These findings held true when the analysis was limited to the 14 patients with colorectal cancer, in which median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 10.2 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = 0.04).

Notably, the prognostic significance of ctDNA changes remained even among patients exhibiting radiographic stable disease, underscoring the limitations of relying solely on anatomic tumor measurements and highlighting the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments. In the subset of patients with radiographic stable disease, those with a greater than 90% ctDNA decline had significantly longer OS than those with less ctDNA reduction (not reached versus 9.4 months; P = .01).

“When used as a complement to imaging, tissue-informed ctDNA monitoring with FoundationOne Tracker can provide more accuracy than imaging alone,” Dr. Kurzrock noted in an interview.

Dr. Kasi echoed Dr. Kurzrock’s enthusiasm regarding the clinical usefulness of these findings, saying, “Not only can you see very early on in whom the ctDNA is going down and clearing, but you can also tell apart within the group who has ‘stable disease’ as to who is deriving more benefit.”

The researchers also observed that increases in on-treatment ctDNA levels often preceded radiographic evidence of disease progression by a median of 1.3 months. These findings highlight the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments, allowing us to detect treatment response and disease progression earlier than what is possible with imaging alone, Dr. Kurzrock explained during her talk. “This early warning signal could allow clinicians to intervene and modify treatment strategies before overt clinical deterioration,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Kasi highlighted that this high sensitivity and specificity and the short half-life of the tumor-informed ctDNA assay make this liquid biopsy of great clinical value. “The short half-life of a few hours means that if you do an intervention to treat cancer with HER2-directed therapy, you can very quickly assess response to therapy way earlier than traditional radiographic methods.”

Dr. Kasi cautioned, however, that this assay would not capture whether new mutations or HER2 loss occurred at the time of resistance. “A repeat tissue biopsy or a next-generation sequencing-based plasma-only assay would be required for that,” he said.
 

Implementation of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials

Dr. Kurzrock acknowledged that further research is needed to validate these results in larger, prospective cohorts before FoundationOne Tracker is adopted in the clinic. She noted, however, that this retrospective analysis, along with results from previous studies, provides a rationale for the use of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials.

“In some centers like ours, ctDNA monitoring is already part of our standard of care since not only does it help from a physician standpoint to have a more accurate and early assessment of response, but patients also appreciate the information gained from ctDNA dynamics,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that when radiographic findings are equivocal, ctDNA monitoring is an additional tool in their toolbox to help guide care.

He noted, however, that the cost is a challenge for implementing ctDNA monitoring as a complementary tool for real-time treatment response monitoring. “For serial monitoring, helping to reduce costs would be important in the long run,” he said in an interview. He added that obtaining sufficient tissue for testing using a tumor-informed assay can present a logistical challenge, at least for the first test. “You need sufficient tissue to make the barcode that you then follow along,” he explained.

“Developing guidelines through systematic studies about testing cadence would also be important. This would help establish whether ctDNA monitoring is helpful,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that in some situations, biological variables affect the shedding and detection of ctDNA beyond the assay — in those cases, ctDNA monitoring may not be helpful. “Like any test, it is not meant for every patient or clinical question,” Dr. Kasi concluded.

Dr. Kurzrock and Dr. Kasi reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — Monitoring a patient’s circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can provide valuable insights on early response to targeted therapies among patients with HER2-positive cancers.

This was the main finding of new data presented by study author Razelle Kurzrock, MD, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

“We found that on-treatment ctDNA can detect progression before standard-of-care response assessments. These data suggest that monitoring ctDNA can provide clinicians with important prognostic information that may guide treatment decisions,” Dr. Kurzrock, professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said during her presentation.

Christos Evangelou/MDedge News

Commenting on the clinical implications of these findings during an interview, she said the results suggest that ctDNA dynamics provide an early window into predicting response to targeted therapies in patients with HER2-altered cancers, confirming previous findings of the predictive value of ctDNA in other cancer types.

“Such monitoring may be useful in clinical trials and eventually in practice,” she added.
 

Need for new methods to predict early tumor response

Limitations of standard radiographic tumor assessments present challenges in determining clinical response, particularly for patients receiving targeted therapies.

During her talk, Dr. Kurzrock explained that although targeted therapies are effective for patients with specific molecular alterations, standard imaging assessments fail to uncover molecular-level changes within tumors, limiting the ability of clinicians to accurately assess a patient’s response to targeted therapies.

“In addition to limitations with imaging, patients and physicians want to know as soon as possible whether or not the agents are effective, especially if there are side effects,” Dr. Kurzrock during an interview. She added that monitoring early response may be especially important across tumor types, as HER2 therapies are increasingly being considered in the pan-cancer setting.

Commenting on the potential use of this method in other cancer types with HER2 alterations, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, MS, noted that since the study relied on a tumor-informed assay, it would be applicable across diverse tumor types.

“It is less about tissue type but more about that particular patient’s tumor at that instant in time for which a unique barcode is created,” said Dr. Kasi, a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the study.

In an interview, he added that the shedding and biology would affect the assay’s performance for some tissue types.
 

Design of patient-specific ctDNA assays

In this retrospective study, the researchers examined ctDNA dynamics in 58 patients with various HER2-positive tumor types, including breast, colorectal, and other solid malignancies harboring HER2 alterations. All the patients received combination HER2-targeted therapy with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in the phase 2 basket trial My Pathway (NCT02091141).

By leveraging comprehensive genomic profiling of each patient’s tumor, the researchers designed personalized ctDNA assays, tracking 2-16 tumor-specific genetic variants in the patients’ blood samples. FoundationOne Tracker was used to detect and quantify ctDNA at baseline and the third cycle of therapy (cycle 3 day 1, or C3D1).

During an interview, Dr. Kurzrock explained that FoundationOne Tracker is a personalized ctDNA monitoring assay that allows for the detection of ctDNA in plasma, enabling ongoing liquid-based monitoring and highly sensitive quantification of ctDNA levels as mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.

Among the 52 patients for whom personalized ctDNA assays were successfully designed, 48 (92.3%) had ctDNA data available at baseline, with a median of 100.7 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma. Most patients (89.6%) were deemed ctDNA-positive, with a median of 119.5 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.
 

Changes in ctDNA levels predict patient survival

The researchers found that patients who experienced a greater than 90% decline in ctDNA levels by the third treatment cycle had significantly longer overall survival (OS) than those with less than 90% ctDNA decline or any increase. According to data presented by Dr. Kurzrock, the median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 9.4 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = .007). These findings held true when the analysis was limited to the 14 patients with colorectal cancer, in which median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 10.2 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = 0.04).

Notably, the prognostic significance of ctDNA changes remained even among patients exhibiting radiographic stable disease, underscoring the limitations of relying solely on anatomic tumor measurements and highlighting the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments. In the subset of patients with radiographic stable disease, those with a greater than 90% ctDNA decline had significantly longer OS than those with less ctDNA reduction (not reached versus 9.4 months; P = .01).

“When used as a complement to imaging, tissue-informed ctDNA monitoring with FoundationOne Tracker can provide more accuracy than imaging alone,” Dr. Kurzrock noted in an interview.

Dr. Kasi echoed Dr. Kurzrock’s enthusiasm regarding the clinical usefulness of these findings, saying, “Not only can you see very early on in whom the ctDNA is going down and clearing, but you can also tell apart within the group who has ‘stable disease’ as to who is deriving more benefit.”

The researchers also observed that increases in on-treatment ctDNA levels often preceded radiographic evidence of disease progression by a median of 1.3 months. These findings highlight the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments, allowing us to detect treatment response and disease progression earlier than what is possible with imaging alone, Dr. Kurzrock explained during her talk. “This early warning signal could allow clinicians to intervene and modify treatment strategies before overt clinical deterioration,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Kasi highlighted that this high sensitivity and specificity and the short half-life of the tumor-informed ctDNA assay make this liquid biopsy of great clinical value. “The short half-life of a few hours means that if you do an intervention to treat cancer with HER2-directed therapy, you can very quickly assess response to therapy way earlier than traditional radiographic methods.”

Dr. Kasi cautioned, however, that this assay would not capture whether new mutations or HER2 loss occurred at the time of resistance. “A repeat tissue biopsy or a next-generation sequencing-based plasma-only assay would be required for that,” he said.
 

Implementation of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials

Dr. Kurzrock acknowledged that further research is needed to validate these results in larger, prospective cohorts before FoundationOne Tracker is adopted in the clinic. She noted, however, that this retrospective analysis, along with results from previous studies, provides a rationale for the use of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials.

“In some centers like ours, ctDNA monitoring is already part of our standard of care since not only does it help from a physician standpoint to have a more accurate and early assessment of response, but patients also appreciate the information gained from ctDNA dynamics,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that when radiographic findings are equivocal, ctDNA monitoring is an additional tool in their toolbox to help guide care.

He noted, however, that the cost is a challenge for implementing ctDNA monitoring as a complementary tool for real-time treatment response monitoring. “For serial monitoring, helping to reduce costs would be important in the long run,” he said in an interview. He added that obtaining sufficient tissue for testing using a tumor-informed assay can present a logistical challenge, at least for the first test. “You need sufficient tissue to make the barcode that you then follow along,” he explained.

“Developing guidelines through systematic studies about testing cadence would also be important. This would help establish whether ctDNA monitoring is helpful,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that in some situations, biological variables affect the shedding and detection of ctDNA beyond the assay — in those cases, ctDNA monitoring may not be helpful. “Like any test, it is not meant for every patient or clinical question,” Dr. Kasi concluded.

Dr. Kurzrock and Dr. Kasi reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — Monitoring a patient’s circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can provide valuable insights on early response to targeted therapies among patients with HER2-positive cancers.

This was the main finding of new data presented by study author Razelle Kurzrock, MD, at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

“We found that on-treatment ctDNA can detect progression before standard-of-care response assessments. These data suggest that monitoring ctDNA can provide clinicians with important prognostic information that may guide treatment decisions,” Dr. Kurzrock, professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said during her presentation.

Christos Evangelou/MDedge News

Commenting on the clinical implications of these findings during an interview, she said the results suggest that ctDNA dynamics provide an early window into predicting response to targeted therapies in patients with HER2-altered cancers, confirming previous findings of the predictive value of ctDNA in other cancer types.

“Such monitoring may be useful in clinical trials and eventually in practice,” she added.
 

Need for new methods to predict early tumor response

Limitations of standard radiographic tumor assessments present challenges in determining clinical response, particularly for patients receiving targeted therapies.

During her talk, Dr. Kurzrock explained that although targeted therapies are effective for patients with specific molecular alterations, standard imaging assessments fail to uncover molecular-level changes within tumors, limiting the ability of clinicians to accurately assess a patient’s response to targeted therapies.

“In addition to limitations with imaging, patients and physicians want to know as soon as possible whether or not the agents are effective, especially if there are side effects,” Dr. Kurzrock during an interview. She added that monitoring early response may be especially important across tumor types, as HER2 therapies are increasingly being considered in the pan-cancer setting.

Commenting on the potential use of this method in other cancer types with HER2 alterations, Pashtoon Murtaza Kasi, MD, MS, noted that since the study relied on a tumor-informed assay, it would be applicable across diverse tumor types.

“It is less about tissue type but more about that particular patient’s tumor at that instant in time for which a unique barcode is created,” said Dr. Kasi, a medical oncologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was not involved in the study.

In an interview, he added that the shedding and biology would affect the assay’s performance for some tissue types.
 

Design of patient-specific ctDNA assays

In this retrospective study, the researchers examined ctDNA dynamics in 58 patients with various HER2-positive tumor types, including breast, colorectal, and other solid malignancies harboring HER2 alterations. All the patients received combination HER2-targeted therapy with trastuzumab and pertuzumab in the phase 2 basket trial My Pathway (NCT02091141).

By leveraging comprehensive genomic profiling of each patient’s tumor, the researchers designed personalized ctDNA assays, tracking 2-16 tumor-specific genetic variants in the patients’ blood samples. FoundationOne Tracker was used to detect and quantify ctDNA at baseline and the third cycle of therapy (cycle 3 day 1, or C3D1).

During an interview, Dr. Kurzrock explained that FoundationOne Tracker is a personalized ctDNA monitoring assay that allows for the detection of ctDNA in plasma, enabling ongoing liquid-based monitoring and highly sensitive quantification of ctDNA levels as mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.

Among the 52 patients for whom personalized ctDNA assays were successfully designed, 48 (92.3%) had ctDNA data available at baseline, with a median of 100.7 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma. Most patients (89.6%) were deemed ctDNA-positive, with a median of 119.5 tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma.
 

Changes in ctDNA levels predict patient survival

The researchers found that patients who experienced a greater than 90% decline in ctDNA levels by the third treatment cycle had significantly longer overall survival (OS) than those with less than 90% ctDNA decline or any increase. According to data presented by Dr. Kurzrock, the median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 9.4 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = .007). These findings held true when the analysis was limited to the 14 patients with colorectal cancer, in which median OS was not reached in the group with greater than 90% decline in on-treatment ctDNA levels, versus 10.2 months in the group with less than 90% decline or ctDNA increase (P = 0.04).

Notably, the prognostic significance of ctDNA changes remained even among patients exhibiting radiographic stable disease, underscoring the limitations of relying solely on anatomic tumor measurements and highlighting the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments. In the subset of patients with radiographic stable disease, those with a greater than 90% ctDNA decline had significantly longer OS than those with less ctDNA reduction (not reached versus 9.4 months; P = .01).

“When used as a complement to imaging, tissue-informed ctDNA monitoring with FoundationOne Tracker can provide more accuracy than imaging alone,” Dr. Kurzrock noted in an interview.

Dr. Kasi echoed Dr. Kurzrock’s enthusiasm regarding the clinical usefulness of these findings, saying, “Not only can you see very early on in whom the ctDNA is going down and clearing, but you can also tell apart within the group who has ‘stable disease’ as to who is deriving more benefit.”

The researchers also observed that increases in on-treatment ctDNA levels often preceded radiographic evidence of disease progression by a median of 1.3 months. These findings highlight the potential for ctDNA monitoring to complement standard clinical assessments, allowing us to detect treatment response and disease progression earlier than what is possible with imaging alone, Dr. Kurzrock explained during her talk. “This early warning signal could allow clinicians to intervene and modify treatment strategies before overt clinical deterioration,” she said.

In an interview, Dr. Kasi highlighted that this high sensitivity and specificity and the short half-life of the tumor-informed ctDNA assay make this liquid biopsy of great clinical value. “The short half-life of a few hours means that if you do an intervention to treat cancer with HER2-directed therapy, you can very quickly assess response to therapy way earlier than traditional radiographic methods.”

Dr. Kasi cautioned, however, that this assay would not capture whether new mutations or HER2 loss occurred at the time of resistance. “A repeat tissue biopsy or a next-generation sequencing-based plasma-only assay would be required for that,” he said.
 

Implementation of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials

Dr. Kurzrock acknowledged that further research is needed to validate these results in larger, prospective cohorts before FoundationOne Tracker is adopted in the clinic. She noted, however, that this retrospective analysis, along with results from previous studies, provides a rationale for the use of ctDNA monitoring in clinical trials.

“In some centers like ours, ctDNA monitoring is already part of our standard of care since not only does it help from a physician standpoint to have a more accurate and early assessment of response, but patients also appreciate the information gained from ctDNA dynamics,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that when radiographic findings are equivocal, ctDNA monitoring is an additional tool in their toolbox to help guide care.

He noted, however, that the cost is a challenge for implementing ctDNA monitoring as a complementary tool for real-time treatment response monitoring. “For serial monitoring, helping to reduce costs would be important in the long run,” he said in an interview. He added that obtaining sufficient tissue for testing using a tumor-informed assay can present a logistical challenge, at least for the first test. “You need sufficient tissue to make the barcode that you then follow along,” he explained.

“Developing guidelines through systematic studies about testing cadence would also be important. This would help establish whether ctDNA monitoring is helpful,” Dr. Kasi said in an interview. He explained that in some situations, biological variables affect the shedding and detection of ctDNA beyond the assay — in those cases, ctDNA monitoring may not be helpful. “Like any test, it is not meant for every patient or clinical question,” Dr. Kasi concluded.

Dr. Kurzrock and Dr. Kasi reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — A novel multicancer early detection (MCED) blood test has demonstrated promising real-world results in detecting new cancers, including several cases of early-stage disease.

This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.

The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.

The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.

“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”

“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.

This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
 

Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing

Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.

During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.

She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
 

Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers

The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.

“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.

She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.

“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
 

Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers

Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.

“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.

During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.

“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
 

MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup

The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.

“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”

He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.

“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.

Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — A novel multicancer early detection (MCED) blood test has demonstrated promising real-world results in detecting new cancers, including several cases of early-stage disease.

This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.

The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.

The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.

“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”

“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.

This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
 

Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing

Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.

During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.

She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
 

Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers

The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.

“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.

She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.

“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
 

Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers

Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.

“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.

During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.

“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
 

MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup

The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.

“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”

He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.

“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.

Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.

SAN DIEGO — A novel multicancer early detection (MCED) blood test has demonstrated promising real-world results in detecting new cancers, including several cases of early-stage disease.

This was the conclusion of recent data presented by Ora Karp Gordon, MD, MS, during a session at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting.

The MCED test, known as Galleri, was made clinically available in the United States in April 2021. Developed by GRAIL LLC, the test analyzes cell-free DNA in the blood using targeted methylation analysis and machine learning to detect the presence of a cancer signal and determine its organ of origin or cancer signal origin. The initial screening of over 53,000 individuals with the Galleri test detected a cancer signal in 1.1% of participants.

The new real-world analysis examines the outcomes of repeat MCED testing in 5,794 individuals.

The study looked at individuals who initially received a ‘no cancer signal detected’ result and then underwent a second Galleri test. Over 80% of participants received their follow-up test 10-18 months after the first, with a median interval between blood draws of 12.9 months.

“The repeat tests detect those cancer cases that have reached the detection threshold since their last MCED test, which should be less than one year of incidence,” Dr. Gordon, professor at Saint John’s Cancer Institute, Santa Monica, California, said in an interview. “We are just now starting to see results from patients who get their second and even third round of screening.”

“Galleri is recommended to be used annually in addition to USPSTF [US Preventive Services Task Force]–recommended cancer screening tests, like mammography and colonoscopy,” she said.

This recommendation is based on a modeling study suggesting that annual screening would improve stage shift, diagnostic yield, and potentially mortality when compared to biennial screening, although biennial screening was still favorable compared with no screening, she explained.
 

Early Real-World Evidence of Repeat Testing

Among the cohort of 5,794 individuals who received repeat testing, 26 received a positive cancer signal on their second test, yielding a cancer signal detection rate of 0.45% (95% CI: 0.31%-0.66%). The cancer signal detection rate was slightly higher in men. The rate was 0.50% (95% CI: 0.32%-0.81%; 17 of 3367) in men versus 0.37% (95% CI: 0.2%-0.7%; 9 of 2427) in women.

During her presentation, Dr. Gordon highlighted that the repeat testing signal detection rate was lower than the initial 0.95% rate (95% CI: 0.87-1.0; 510 of 53,744) seen in the previous larger cohort of patients who were retested at 1 year.

She acknowledged that the lower cancer signal detection rate of repeat testing may indicate some degree of ‘early adopter’ bias, where those who return for a second test are systematically different from the general screening population. This could suggest that broader population-level screening may yield different results, she continued.
 

Shift Toward Unscreened Cancers

The top cancer types identified in the second round of testing were lymphoid, head and neck, bladder/urothelial, colorectal, and anal cancers. Clinicians were able to confirm clinical outcomes in 12 of 26 cases, in which cancer signals were detected. Of those 12 cases, 8 individuals received a cancer diagnosis and 4 did not have cancer. The remaining 14 of 26 cases in which cancer signals were detected are still under investigation.

“We found a shift away from USPSTF screen-detected cancers, like breast, lung, and prostate, and relative increase in unscreened urinary, head and neck, and lymphoid cancers, with 75% of cancers being those without any screening guidelines,” Dr. Gordon said in an interview.

She added that patients who choose to retest may have different cancer rates for several reasons, including bias toward a population that is health conscious and adhered to all recommended cancer screening.

“So the shift toward unscreened cancers is not unexpected and highlights the value of Galleri,” she said, but also acknowledged that “continued monitoring is needed to see if this translates in a persistent finding over time and tests.”
 

Shift Toward Early-Stage Cancers

Staging information was available for five cases, and Dr. Gordon highlighted in her talk that four of these confirmed cancers were stage I, including cancers of the anus, head and neck, bladder, and lymphoma. The fifth confirmed cancer with staging information was stage IV ovarian cancer.

“It is still early, and the numbers are very small, but the detection of early-stage cancers with second annual testing is very encouraging as these are the cases where MCED testing could have the greatest impact in improving outcomes through earlier treatment,” Dr. Gordon told this publication.

During an interview after the talk, Kenneth L. Kehl, MD, MPH, echoed that data must be confirmed in larger cohorts.

“The shift toward earlier stage cancers that are less detectable by standard screening methods is an interesting result, but we need to be cautious since the numbers were relatively small, and we do not have data on cancers that were diagnosed among patients whose second MCED test was also negative,” said Dr. Kehl, a medical oncologist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
 

MCED Results Could Help Direct Diagnostic Workup

The test’s ability to predict the organ of origin was highly accurate, correctly identifying the cancer type in all eight confirmed cases. Among the eight cases with a confirmed cancer diagnosis, the accuracy of the first prediction was 100%, and diagnoses included invasive cancers across multiple tissues and organs, including anus, colon, head and neck, urothelial tract, ovary, and the lymphatic system.

“The fact that the site of origin for 100% of confirmed cancers was accurately predicted with GRAIL’s CSO by Galleri test confirms the promise that this can guide workup when a cancer signal is detected,” Dr. Gordon noted in the interview.
 

Looking Ahead

Dr. Kehl, who was not involved in the MCED study, noted in an interview that “further data on test characteristics beyond positive predictive value, including the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, as well as demonstration of clinical benefit — ideally in a randomized trial — will likely be required for MCED testing to become a standard public health recommendation.”

He added that challenges associated with implementing annual screening with MCED tests include the risks of both false positives and false negatives as testing becomes more widely available.

“False positives cause anxiety and lead to additional testing that may carry its own risks, and we need to understand if potentially false negative tests will be associated with less uptake of established screening strategies,” Dr. Kehl said in an interview. However, he noted that serial testing could lead to more frequent diagnoses of early-stage cancers that may be less detectable by standard methods.

Dr. Gordon reported financial relationships with GRAIL LLC and Genetic Technologies Corporation. Dr. Kehl reported no relationships with entities whose primary business is producing, marketing, selling, reselling, or distributing healthcare products used by or on patients.