Metastatic Breast Cancer

Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) breast cancer are generally uninformed about their diagnosis and are making uninformed treatment decisions, according to results of a study presented this month at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, an annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The standard of care for women diagnosed with DCIS includes surgery with or without radiotherapy – even low-risk patients who are increasingly being steered toward active surveillance with annual mammograms. But few patients understand their diagnosis well enough to make informed decisions about treatment, according to a study led by Ellen Engelhardt, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

“You’re not able to really have an informed preference until you understand the choices,” she said.

Dr. Engelhardt and colleagues surveyed 200 patients (mean age 59 years) from the LORD study, which is currently underway at The Netherlands Cancer Institute. The women were asked to complete a survey before treatment decisions were made. Their objective was to determine how knowledgeable patients were about DCIS. They found that only 34% of women answered four out of seven questions correctly: 19% of patients believed that DCIS could metastasize to organs other than the breast; 31% did not realize DCIS could progress to invasive breast cancer if left untreated; 79% thought DCIS could always be seen on mammograms; and, 93% said that progression could always be detected before it becomes “too extensive.” Knowledge of DCIS was found not to be associated with patient education level.

Susie X. Sun, MD, FACS, a breast surgeon at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said the findings clearly highlight a disconnect in communication between doctor and patient.

“I was surprised, because this clearly demonstrates there is a disconnect between what patients are being told by their providers and what is being perceived. It really shows us that we need to do a better job of making sure that our patients understand the information they’re given,” she said.

Dr. Sun, who was not involved in the study, said that DCIS needs to be explained well to patients. When they receive a diagnosis, often all they hear is, “I have breast cancer. It is really important for us to stress to patients how DCIS is different from invasive breast cancer,” she said.

The “Management of Low-risk (grade I and II) DCIS (LORD)” study is one of three studies comparing active surveillance to surgery (with or without radiotherapy).

A limitation of the study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer is that it remains unclear why patients answered questions incorrectly. Was information never communicated to them? Or, did they mishear or misunderstand the doctor? In future studies, Dr. Engelhardt and her colleagues plan to record and analyze audio tapes of consultations to determine where the communication disconnect lies.

Dr. Engelhardt did not disclose any conflicts associated with this work.

Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) breast cancer are generally uninformed about their diagnosis and are making uninformed treatment decisions, according to results of a study presented this month at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, an annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The standard of care for women diagnosed with DCIS includes surgery with or without radiotherapy – even low-risk patients who are increasingly being steered toward active surveillance with annual mammograms. But few patients understand their diagnosis well enough to make informed decisions about treatment, according to a study led by Ellen Engelhardt, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

“You’re not able to really have an informed preference until you understand the choices,” she said.

Dr. Engelhardt and colleagues surveyed 200 patients (mean age 59 years) from the LORD study, which is currently underway at The Netherlands Cancer Institute. The women were asked to complete a survey before treatment decisions were made. Their objective was to determine how knowledgeable patients were about DCIS. They found that only 34% of women answered four out of seven questions correctly: 19% of patients believed that DCIS could metastasize to organs other than the breast; 31% did not realize DCIS could progress to invasive breast cancer if left untreated; 79% thought DCIS could always be seen on mammograms; and, 93% said that progression could always be detected before it becomes “too extensive.” Knowledge of DCIS was found not to be associated with patient education level.

Susie X. Sun, MD, FACS, a breast surgeon at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said the findings clearly highlight a disconnect in communication between doctor and patient.

“I was surprised, because this clearly demonstrates there is a disconnect between what patients are being told by their providers and what is being perceived. It really shows us that we need to do a better job of making sure that our patients understand the information they’re given,” she said.

Dr. Sun, who was not involved in the study, said that DCIS needs to be explained well to patients. When they receive a diagnosis, often all they hear is, “I have breast cancer. It is really important for us to stress to patients how DCIS is different from invasive breast cancer,” she said.

The “Management of Low-risk (grade I and II) DCIS (LORD)” study is one of three studies comparing active surveillance to surgery (with or without radiotherapy).

A limitation of the study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer is that it remains unclear why patients answered questions incorrectly. Was information never communicated to them? Or, did they mishear or misunderstand the doctor? In future studies, Dr. Engelhardt and her colleagues plan to record and analyze audio tapes of consultations to determine where the communication disconnect lies.

Dr. Engelhardt did not disclose any conflicts associated with this work.

Women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) breast cancer are generally uninformed about their diagnosis and are making uninformed treatment decisions, according to results of a study presented this month at ESMO Breast Cancer 2022, an annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The standard of care for women diagnosed with DCIS includes surgery with or without radiotherapy – even low-risk patients who are increasingly being steered toward active surveillance with annual mammograms. But few patients understand their diagnosis well enough to make informed decisions about treatment, according to a study led by Ellen Engelhardt, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.

“You’re not able to really have an informed preference until you understand the choices,” she said.

Dr. Engelhardt and colleagues surveyed 200 patients (mean age 59 years) from the LORD study, which is currently underway at The Netherlands Cancer Institute. The women were asked to complete a survey before treatment decisions were made. Their objective was to determine how knowledgeable patients were about DCIS. They found that only 34% of women answered four out of seven questions correctly: 19% of patients believed that DCIS could metastasize to organs other than the breast; 31% did not realize DCIS could progress to invasive breast cancer if left untreated; 79% thought DCIS could always be seen on mammograms; and, 93% said that progression could always be detected before it becomes “too extensive.” Knowledge of DCIS was found not to be associated with patient education level.

Susie X. Sun, MD, FACS, a breast surgeon at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said the findings clearly highlight a disconnect in communication between doctor and patient.

“I was surprised, because this clearly demonstrates there is a disconnect between what patients are being told by their providers and what is being perceived. It really shows us that we need to do a better job of making sure that our patients understand the information they’re given,” she said.

Dr. Sun, who was not involved in the study, said that DCIS needs to be explained well to patients. When they receive a diagnosis, often all they hear is, “I have breast cancer. It is really important for us to stress to patients how DCIS is different from invasive breast cancer,” she said.

The “Management of Low-risk (grade I and II) DCIS (LORD)” study is one of three studies comparing active surveillance to surgery (with or without radiotherapy).

A limitation of the study presented at ESMO Breast Cancer is that it remains unclear why patients answered questions incorrectly. Was information never communicated to them? Or, did they mishear or misunderstand the doctor? In future studies, Dr. Engelhardt and her colleagues plan to record and analyze audio tapes of consultations to determine where the communication disconnect lies.

Dr. Engelhardt did not disclose any conflicts associated with this work.

In an updated clinical practice guideline, the American Society of Clinical Oncology has named the Breast Cancer Index (BCI) as the only genomic test that should be used to guide extended endocrine therapy decisions for women with early-stage, hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. The update applies to women who are node negative or have one to three positive nodes treated with 5 years of endocrine therapy and no sign of recurrence.

The update was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. It also gives more specific details on how to apply other, previously recommended, genomic tests to guide treatment choices.

More than half of breast cancer deaths occur after 5 years of tamoxifen therapy. The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)- B14 trial, published in 2001, showed no benefit to extending tamoxifen therapy to 10 years, but other studies have produced mixed results.

Extended endocrine therapy may reduce the risk of recurrence, but significant side effects can impact quality of life, including osteoporosis, bone fractures, and joint pain. The uncertain benefits of extended endocrine therapy, combined with its side effects and impact on quality of life, has generated interest in genomic tests to identify patients most likely to benefit.

The BCI analyzes 11 genes from the tumor and delivers two results: the likelihood of recurrence 5-10 years after diagnosis, and whether a total of 10 years of endocrine therapy are likely to provide a survival benefit.

The 21-gene prognostic and predictive assay Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score, the 70-gene signature test Mammaprint, the 12-gene risk score EndoPredict, levels of Ki67 expression, and immunohistochemistry are also recommended for guiding decisions on endocrine therapy. The update included additional guidance on specific situations that each can be used. However, their usefulness for predicting recurrence at 5-10 years is unproven.

“The clinical decision to either extend or end adjuvant endocrine therapy after 5 years is a challenging decision for healthcare providers and their patients,” Mark Pegram, MD, said in a press release. He is chief medical consultant for breast oncology at Biotheranostics, a subsidiary of Hologic. “There is an extensive body of clinical evidence consistently proving the utility of BCI, and its addition to major oncology clinical guidelines like those from ASCO further underscores the test’s potential in clinical decision-making regarding extended adjuvant endocrine therapy.”

The practice update cited five previous studies showing the ability of BCI to predict benefit from extending endocrine therapy: From 5 years of tamoxifen to 5 more years of tamoxifen; from 5 years of tamoxifen to 5 years of an aromatase inhibitor, and from 5 years of an AI to another 5 years of a drug from the same class. Most of the trials included patients who were node negative or had one to three positive nodes, so there is limited evidence supporting BCI in patients with more than three positive lymph nodes. The recommendation also applies only to postmenopausal women, as the trials included fewer premenopausal and perimenopausal women.

Several of the guideline authors reported conflicts of interest with numerous sources.

In an updated clinical practice guideline, the American Society of Clinical Oncology has named the Breast Cancer Index (BCI) as the only genomic test that should be used to guide extended endocrine therapy decisions for women with early-stage, hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. The update applies to women who are node negative or have one to three positive nodes treated with 5 years of endocrine therapy and no sign of recurrence.

The update was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. It also gives more specific details on how to apply other, previously recommended, genomic tests to guide treatment choices.

More than half of breast cancer deaths occur after 5 years of tamoxifen therapy. The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)- B14 trial, published in 2001, showed no benefit to extending tamoxifen therapy to 10 years, but other studies have produced mixed results.

Extended endocrine therapy may reduce the risk of recurrence, but significant side effects can impact quality of life, including osteoporosis, bone fractures, and joint pain. The uncertain benefits of extended endocrine therapy, combined with its side effects and impact on quality of life, has generated interest in genomic tests to identify patients most likely to benefit.

The BCI analyzes 11 genes from the tumor and delivers two results: the likelihood of recurrence 5-10 years after diagnosis, and whether a total of 10 years of endocrine therapy are likely to provide a survival benefit.

The 21-gene prognostic and predictive assay Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score, the 70-gene signature test Mammaprint, the 12-gene risk score EndoPredict, levels of Ki67 expression, and immunohistochemistry are also recommended for guiding decisions on endocrine therapy. The update included additional guidance on specific situations that each can be used. However, their usefulness for predicting recurrence at 5-10 years is unproven.

“The clinical decision to either extend or end adjuvant endocrine therapy after 5 years is a challenging decision for healthcare providers and their patients,” Mark Pegram, MD, said in a press release. He is chief medical consultant for breast oncology at Biotheranostics, a subsidiary of Hologic. “There is an extensive body of clinical evidence consistently proving the utility of BCI, and its addition to major oncology clinical guidelines like those from ASCO further underscores the test’s potential in clinical decision-making regarding extended adjuvant endocrine therapy.”

The practice update cited five previous studies showing the ability of BCI to predict benefit from extending endocrine therapy: From 5 years of tamoxifen to 5 more years of tamoxifen; from 5 years of tamoxifen to 5 years of an aromatase inhibitor, and from 5 years of an AI to another 5 years of a drug from the same class. Most of the trials included patients who were node negative or had one to three positive nodes, so there is limited evidence supporting BCI in patients with more than three positive lymph nodes. The recommendation also applies only to postmenopausal women, as the trials included fewer premenopausal and perimenopausal women.

Several of the guideline authors reported conflicts of interest with numerous sources.

In an updated clinical practice guideline, the American Society of Clinical Oncology has named the Breast Cancer Index (BCI) as the only genomic test that should be used to guide extended endocrine therapy decisions for women with early-stage, hormone receptor–positive breast cancer. The update applies to women who are node negative or have one to three positive nodes treated with 5 years of endocrine therapy and no sign of recurrence.

The update was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. It also gives more specific details on how to apply other, previously recommended, genomic tests to guide treatment choices.

More than half of breast cancer deaths occur after 5 years of tamoxifen therapy. The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP)- B14 trial, published in 2001, showed no benefit to extending tamoxifen therapy to 10 years, but other studies have produced mixed results.

Extended endocrine therapy may reduce the risk of recurrence, but significant side effects can impact quality of life, including osteoporosis, bone fractures, and joint pain. The uncertain benefits of extended endocrine therapy, combined with its side effects and impact on quality of life, has generated interest in genomic tests to identify patients most likely to benefit.

The BCI analyzes 11 genes from the tumor and delivers two results: the likelihood of recurrence 5-10 years after diagnosis, and whether a total of 10 years of endocrine therapy are likely to provide a survival benefit.

The 21-gene prognostic and predictive assay Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score, the 70-gene signature test Mammaprint, the 12-gene risk score EndoPredict, levels of Ki67 expression, and immunohistochemistry are also recommended for guiding decisions on endocrine therapy. The update included additional guidance on specific situations that each can be used. However, their usefulness for predicting recurrence at 5-10 years is unproven.

“The clinical decision to either extend or end adjuvant endocrine therapy after 5 years is a challenging decision for healthcare providers and their patients,” Mark Pegram, MD, said in a press release. He is chief medical consultant for breast oncology at Biotheranostics, a subsidiary of Hologic. “There is an extensive body of clinical evidence consistently proving the utility of BCI, and its addition to major oncology clinical guidelines like those from ASCO further underscores the test’s potential in clinical decision-making regarding extended adjuvant endocrine therapy.”

The practice update cited five previous studies showing the ability of BCI to predict benefit from extending endocrine therapy: From 5 years of tamoxifen to 5 more years of tamoxifen; from 5 years of tamoxifen to 5 years of an aromatase inhibitor, and from 5 years of an AI to another 5 years of a drug from the same class. Most of the trials included patients who were node negative or had one to three positive nodes, so there is limited evidence supporting BCI in patients with more than three positive lymph nodes. The recommendation also applies only to postmenopausal women, as the trials included fewer premenopausal and perimenopausal women.

Several of the guideline authors reported conflicts of interest with numerous sources.

I’m often in the position of caring for patients after they’ve stopped active cancer treatments, but before they’ve made the decision to enroll in hospice. They remain under my care until they feel emotionally ready, or until their care needs have escalated to the point in which hospice is unavoidable.

Jenny, a mom in her 50s with metastatic pancreatic cancer, stopped coming to the clinic. She lived about 40 minutes away from the clinic and was no longer receiving treatment. The car rides were painful and difficult for her. I held weekly video visits with her for 2 months before she eventually went to hospice and passed away. Before she died, she shared with me her sadness that her oncologist – who had taken care of her for 3 years – had “washed his hands of [me].” She rarely heard from him after their final conversation in the clinic when he informed her that she was no longer a candidate for further therapy. The sense of abandonment Jenny described was visceral and devastating. With her permission, I let her oncology team know how she felt and they reached out to her just 1 week before her death. After she died, her husband told me how meaningful it had been for the whole family to hear from Jenny’s oncologist who told them that she had done everything possible to fight her cancer and that “no stone was left unturned.” Her husband felt this final conversation provided Jenny with the closure she needed to pass away peacefully.

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

Switching gears from an all-out pursuit of active therapy to focusing on cancer symptoms is often a scary transition for patients and their families. The transition is often viewed as a movement away from hope and optimism to “giving up the fight.” Whether you agree with the warrior language or not, many patients still describe their journey in these terms and thus, experience enrollment in hospice as a sense of having failed.

The sense of failure can be compounded by feelings of abandonment by oncology providers when they are referred without much guidance or continuity through the hospice enrollment process. Unfortunately, the consequences of suboptimal hospice transitions can be damaging, especially for the mental health and well-being of the patient and their surviving loved ones. Hospice transitions seem to reside in an area of clinical practice that is overlooked or, in my experience they are considered an afterthought by many oncologists.

When managed poorly, hospice transitions can easily lead to patient and family harm, which is a claim supported by research. A qualitative study published in 2019 included 92 caregivers of patients with terminal cancer. The authors found three common pathways for end-of-life transitions – a frictionless transition in which the patient and family are well prepared in advance by their oncologist; a more turbulent transition in which patient and family had direct conversations with their oncologist about the incurability of the disease and the lack of efficacy of further treatments, but were given no guidance on prognosis; and a third type of transition marked by abrupt shifts toward end-of-life care occurring in extremis and typically in the hospital.

In the latter two groups, caregivers felt their loved ones died very quickly after stopping treatment, taking them by surprise and leaving them rushing to put end-of-life care plans in place without much support from their oncologists. In the last group, caregivers shared they received their first prognostic information from the hospital or ICU doctor caring for their actively dying loved one, leaving them with a sense of anger and betrayal toward their oncologist for allowing them to be so ill-prepared.

A Japanese survey published in 2018 in The Oncologist of families of cancer patients who had passed away under hospice care over a 2-year period (2012-2014), found that about one-quarter felt abandoned by oncologists. Several factors that were associated with feeling either more or less abandonment. Spouses of patients, patients aged less than 60 years, and patients whose oncologists informed them that there was “nothing more to do” felt more abandoned by oncologists; whereas families for whom the oncologist provided reassurance about the trajectory of care, recommended hospice, and engaged with a palliative care team felt less abandoned by oncologists. Families who felt more abandoned had higher levels of depression and grief when measured with standardized instruments.
 

‘Don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away’

Fortunately, there are a few low-resource interventions that can improve the quality of care-to-hospice transitions and prevent the sense of abandonment felt by many patients and families.

First, don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away. Designate a staffer in your office to contact hospice directly, ensure all medical records are faxed and received, and update the patient and family on this progress throughout the transition. Taking care of details like these ensures the patient enrolls in hospice in a timely manner and reduces the chance the patient, who is likely to be quite sick at this point, will end up in the hospital despite your best efforts to get hospice involved.

Make sure the patient and family understand that you are still their oncologist and still available to them. If they want to continue care with you, have them name you as the “non–hospice-attending physician” so that you can continue to bill for telemedicine and office visits using the terminal diagnosis (with a billing modifier). This does not mean that you will be expected to manage the patient’s hospice problem list or respond to hospice nurse calls at 2 a.m. – the hospice doctor will still do this. It just ensures that patients do not receive a bill if you continue to see them.

If ongoing office or video visits are too much for the patient and family, consider assigning a member of your team to call the patient and family on a weekly basis to check in and offer support. A small 2018 pilot study aimed at improving communication found that when caregivers of advanced cancer patients transitioning to hospice received weekly supportive phone calls by a member of their oncology team (typically a nurse or nurse practitioner), they felt emotionally supported, had good continuity of care throughout the hospice enrollment, and appreciated the ability to have closure with their oncology team. In other words, a sense of abandonment was prevented and the patient-provider relationship was actually deepened through the transition.

These suggestions are not rocket science – they are simple, obvious ways to try to restore patient-centeredness to a transition that for providers can seem routine, but for patients and families is often the first time they have confronted the reality that death is approaching. That reality is terrifying and overwhelming. Patients and caregivers need our support more during hospice transitions than at any other point during their cancer journey – except perhaps at diagnosis.

As with Jenny, my patient who felt abandoned, all it took was a single call by her oncology team to restore the trust and heal the sense of feeling forsaken by the people who cared for her for years. Sometimes, even just one more phone call can feel like a lot to a chronically overburdened provider – but what a difference a simple call can make.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I’m often in the position of caring for patients after they’ve stopped active cancer treatments, but before they’ve made the decision to enroll in hospice. They remain under my care until they feel emotionally ready, or until their care needs have escalated to the point in which hospice is unavoidable.

Jenny, a mom in her 50s with metastatic pancreatic cancer, stopped coming to the clinic. She lived about 40 minutes away from the clinic and was no longer receiving treatment. The car rides were painful and difficult for her. I held weekly video visits with her for 2 months before she eventually went to hospice and passed away. Before she died, she shared with me her sadness that her oncologist – who had taken care of her for 3 years – had “washed his hands of [me].” She rarely heard from him after their final conversation in the clinic when he informed her that she was no longer a candidate for further therapy. The sense of abandonment Jenny described was visceral and devastating. With her permission, I let her oncology team know how she felt and they reached out to her just 1 week before her death. After she died, her husband told me how meaningful it had been for the whole family to hear from Jenny’s oncologist who told them that she had done everything possible to fight her cancer and that “no stone was left unturned.” Her husband felt this final conversation provided Jenny with the closure she needed to pass away peacefully.

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

Switching gears from an all-out pursuit of active therapy to focusing on cancer symptoms is often a scary transition for patients and their families. The transition is often viewed as a movement away from hope and optimism to “giving up the fight.” Whether you agree with the warrior language or not, many patients still describe their journey in these terms and thus, experience enrollment in hospice as a sense of having failed.

The sense of failure can be compounded by feelings of abandonment by oncology providers when they are referred without much guidance or continuity through the hospice enrollment process. Unfortunately, the consequences of suboptimal hospice transitions can be damaging, especially for the mental health and well-being of the patient and their surviving loved ones. Hospice transitions seem to reside in an area of clinical practice that is overlooked or, in my experience they are considered an afterthought by many oncologists.

When managed poorly, hospice transitions can easily lead to patient and family harm, which is a claim supported by research. A qualitative study published in 2019 included 92 caregivers of patients with terminal cancer. The authors found three common pathways for end-of-life transitions – a frictionless transition in which the patient and family are well prepared in advance by their oncologist; a more turbulent transition in which patient and family had direct conversations with their oncologist about the incurability of the disease and the lack of efficacy of further treatments, but were given no guidance on prognosis; and a third type of transition marked by abrupt shifts toward end-of-life care occurring in extremis and typically in the hospital.

In the latter two groups, caregivers felt their loved ones died very quickly after stopping treatment, taking them by surprise and leaving them rushing to put end-of-life care plans in place without much support from their oncologists. In the last group, caregivers shared they received their first prognostic information from the hospital or ICU doctor caring for their actively dying loved one, leaving them with a sense of anger and betrayal toward their oncologist for allowing them to be so ill-prepared.

A Japanese survey published in 2018 in The Oncologist of families of cancer patients who had passed away under hospice care over a 2-year period (2012-2014), found that about one-quarter felt abandoned by oncologists. Several factors that were associated with feeling either more or less abandonment. Spouses of patients, patients aged less than 60 years, and patients whose oncologists informed them that there was “nothing more to do” felt more abandoned by oncologists; whereas families for whom the oncologist provided reassurance about the trajectory of care, recommended hospice, and engaged with a palliative care team felt less abandoned by oncologists. Families who felt more abandoned had higher levels of depression and grief when measured with standardized instruments.
 

‘Don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away’

Fortunately, there are a few low-resource interventions that can improve the quality of care-to-hospice transitions and prevent the sense of abandonment felt by many patients and families.

First, don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away. Designate a staffer in your office to contact hospice directly, ensure all medical records are faxed and received, and update the patient and family on this progress throughout the transition. Taking care of details like these ensures the patient enrolls in hospice in a timely manner and reduces the chance the patient, who is likely to be quite sick at this point, will end up in the hospital despite your best efforts to get hospice involved.

Make sure the patient and family understand that you are still their oncologist and still available to them. If they want to continue care with you, have them name you as the “non–hospice-attending physician” so that you can continue to bill for telemedicine and office visits using the terminal diagnosis (with a billing modifier). This does not mean that you will be expected to manage the patient’s hospice problem list or respond to hospice nurse calls at 2 a.m. – the hospice doctor will still do this. It just ensures that patients do not receive a bill if you continue to see them.

If ongoing office or video visits are too much for the patient and family, consider assigning a member of your team to call the patient and family on a weekly basis to check in and offer support. A small 2018 pilot study aimed at improving communication found that when caregivers of advanced cancer patients transitioning to hospice received weekly supportive phone calls by a member of their oncology team (typically a nurse or nurse practitioner), they felt emotionally supported, had good continuity of care throughout the hospice enrollment, and appreciated the ability to have closure with their oncology team. In other words, a sense of abandonment was prevented and the patient-provider relationship was actually deepened through the transition.

These suggestions are not rocket science – they are simple, obvious ways to try to restore patient-centeredness to a transition that for providers can seem routine, but for patients and families is often the first time they have confronted the reality that death is approaching. That reality is terrifying and overwhelming. Patients and caregivers need our support more during hospice transitions than at any other point during their cancer journey – except perhaps at diagnosis.

As with Jenny, my patient who felt abandoned, all it took was a single call by her oncology team to restore the trust and heal the sense of feeling forsaken by the people who cared for her for years. Sometimes, even just one more phone call can feel like a lot to a chronically overburdened provider – but what a difference a simple call can make.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

I’m often in the position of caring for patients after they’ve stopped active cancer treatments, but before they’ve made the decision to enroll in hospice. They remain under my care until they feel emotionally ready, or until their care needs have escalated to the point in which hospice is unavoidable.

Jenny, a mom in her 50s with metastatic pancreatic cancer, stopped coming to the clinic. She lived about 40 minutes away from the clinic and was no longer receiving treatment. The car rides were painful and difficult for her. I held weekly video visits with her for 2 months before she eventually went to hospice and passed away. Before she died, she shared with me her sadness that her oncologist – who had taken care of her for 3 years – had “washed his hands of [me].” She rarely heard from him after their final conversation in the clinic when he informed her that she was no longer a candidate for further therapy. The sense of abandonment Jenny described was visceral and devastating. With her permission, I let her oncology team know how she felt and they reached out to her just 1 week before her death. After she died, her husband told me how meaningful it had been for the whole family to hear from Jenny’s oncologist who told them that she had done everything possible to fight her cancer and that “no stone was left unturned.” Her husband felt this final conversation provided Jenny with the closure she needed to pass away peacefully.

Transitioning from active therapy to symptom management

Switching gears from an all-out pursuit of active therapy to focusing on cancer symptoms is often a scary transition for patients and their families. The transition is often viewed as a movement away from hope and optimism to “giving up the fight.” Whether you agree with the warrior language or not, many patients still describe their journey in these terms and thus, experience enrollment in hospice as a sense of having failed.

The sense of failure can be compounded by feelings of abandonment by oncology providers when they are referred without much guidance or continuity through the hospice enrollment process. Unfortunately, the consequences of suboptimal hospice transitions can be damaging, especially for the mental health and well-being of the patient and their surviving loved ones. Hospice transitions seem to reside in an area of clinical practice that is overlooked or, in my experience they are considered an afterthought by many oncologists.

When managed poorly, hospice transitions can easily lead to patient and family harm, which is a claim supported by research. A qualitative study published in 2019 included 92 caregivers of patients with terminal cancer. The authors found three common pathways for end-of-life transitions – a frictionless transition in which the patient and family are well prepared in advance by their oncologist; a more turbulent transition in which patient and family had direct conversations with their oncologist about the incurability of the disease and the lack of efficacy of further treatments, but were given no guidance on prognosis; and a third type of transition marked by abrupt shifts toward end-of-life care occurring in extremis and typically in the hospital.

In the latter two groups, caregivers felt their loved ones died very quickly after stopping treatment, taking them by surprise and leaving them rushing to put end-of-life care plans in place without much support from their oncologists. In the last group, caregivers shared they received their first prognostic information from the hospital or ICU doctor caring for their actively dying loved one, leaving them with a sense of anger and betrayal toward their oncologist for allowing them to be so ill-prepared.

A Japanese survey published in 2018 in The Oncologist of families of cancer patients who had passed away under hospice care over a 2-year period (2012-2014), found that about one-quarter felt abandoned by oncologists. Several factors that were associated with feeling either more or less abandonment. Spouses of patients, patients aged less than 60 years, and patients whose oncologists informed them that there was “nothing more to do” felt more abandoned by oncologists; whereas families for whom the oncologist provided reassurance about the trajectory of care, recommended hospice, and engaged with a palliative care team felt less abandoned by oncologists. Families who felt more abandoned had higher levels of depression and grief when measured with standardized instruments.
 

‘Don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away’

Fortunately, there are a few low-resource interventions that can improve the quality of care-to-hospice transitions and prevent the sense of abandonment felt by many patients and families.

First, don’t just put in the hospice order and walk away. Designate a staffer in your office to contact hospice directly, ensure all medical records are faxed and received, and update the patient and family on this progress throughout the transition. Taking care of details like these ensures the patient enrolls in hospice in a timely manner and reduces the chance the patient, who is likely to be quite sick at this point, will end up in the hospital despite your best efforts to get hospice involved.

Make sure the patient and family understand that you are still their oncologist and still available to them. If they want to continue care with you, have them name you as the “non–hospice-attending physician” so that you can continue to bill for telemedicine and office visits using the terminal diagnosis (with a billing modifier). This does not mean that you will be expected to manage the patient’s hospice problem list or respond to hospice nurse calls at 2 a.m. – the hospice doctor will still do this. It just ensures that patients do not receive a bill if you continue to see them.

If ongoing office or video visits are too much for the patient and family, consider assigning a member of your team to call the patient and family on a weekly basis to check in and offer support. A small 2018 pilot study aimed at improving communication found that when caregivers of advanced cancer patients transitioning to hospice received weekly supportive phone calls by a member of their oncology team (typically a nurse or nurse practitioner), they felt emotionally supported, had good continuity of care throughout the hospice enrollment, and appreciated the ability to have closure with their oncology team. In other words, a sense of abandonment was prevented and the patient-provider relationship was actually deepened through the transition.

These suggestions are not rocket science – they are simple, obvious ways to try to restore patient-centeredness to a transition that for providers can seem routine, but for patients and families is often the first time they have confronted the reality that death is approaching. That reality is terrifying and overwhelming. Patients and caregivers need our support more during hospice transitions than at any other point during their cancer journey – except perhaps at diagnosis.

As with Jenny, my patient who felt abandoned, all it took was a single call by her oncology team to restore the trust and heal the sense of feeling forsaken by the people who cared for her for years. Sometimes, even just one more phone call can feel like a lot to a chronically overburdened provider – but what a difference a simple call can make.

Ms. D’Ambruoso is a hospice and palliative care nurse practitioner for UCLA Health Cancer Care, Santa Monica, Calif.

More than one in seven patients with breast cancer saw their financial status deteriorate within the first years after their diagnosis, a new study found. Factors like disease severity and treatment type didn’t seem to have an impact on financial status.

The findings, presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, were unexpected. “We were surprised that we did not find that patients who received more aggressive therapies were more likely to experience worsening financial concerns,” said corresponding author and medical oncologist Kathryn J. Ruddy, MD, of the Mayo Clinici in Rochester, Minn.

The study was undertaken to understand the financial stress facing patients with breast cancer. The question was whether individual or disease factors, or both, were at play.

The study is based on results from the Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry, a prospective cohort of patient who were at Mayo Clinic Rochester. Participants answered questions about their finances at baseline and then again at annual follow-ups.

Researchers examined survey findings from 1,957 patients (mean age 58.5, 99.1% female, 95.4% White, 54.9% bachelor degree or higher) who answered questions at least twice from 2015-2020. The average time between diagnosis and the most recent follow-up was 25.6 months.

Of the 1,957 patients, 357 (18.2%) said their finances deteriorated as measured by a 1 point or higher decline on a 10-point scale.

There was no statistically significant link between deteriorating finances and age, race, employment status, stage of cancer at diagnosis, type of cancer, or treatment type. There was a slight link between deteriorating finances and reporting that they were in the category of “pay bills, no money for special things” near diagnosis.

Other research has suggested that breast cancer may not disrupt finances to a large extent, at least early on. Earlier in 2022, Stanford (Calif.) University researchers reported the results of a survey of 273 breast and gynecologic cancer patients who were surveyed about their finances at a mean of 3.4 years after diagnosis. While one-third said their cancer caused career changes, the study described overall financial toxicity as mild.

In regard to limitations, the subject population of the new study is overwhelmingly White, and the finances were self-reported by those who participated in the survey. Also, “because our participants were recruited at a tertiary medical center, there were relatively financially secure at baseline,” Dr. Ruddy said. “More financial hardship would be expected in a more financially diverse population.”

In an interview, Cathy Bradley, PhD, associate dean for research at the University of Colorado at Denver and deputy director of the University of Colorado Cancer Center, both in Aurora, praised the study as “an important start toward assessing financial burden in the clinic. Having more universal assessments in the clinic would remove stigma.”

She cautioned about interpreting a seemingly low number of patients whose financial situation worsened. “This was for a single site where there is a high rate of health insurance either through Medicare or Medicaid. There may be some selection bias as well given that Mayo may attract a wealthier patient population. Most women completed treatment and may not have been on long-term therapies.”

Moving forward, Dr. Ruddy said, “we hope to study cost of oncologic care in more geographically and financially diverse populations with breast cancer and other cancers.”

The study was funded by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and National Cancer Institute. The study authors and Dr. Ruddy report no relevant disclosures.

More than one in seven patients with breast cancer saw their financial status deteriorate within the first years after their diagnosis, a new study found. Factors like disease severity and treatment type didn’t seem to have an impact on financial status.

The findings, presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, were unexpected. “We were surprised that we did not find that patients who received more aggressive therapies were more likely to experience worsening financial concerns,” said corresponding author and medical oncologist Kathryn J. Ruddy, MD, of the Mayo Clinici in Rochester, Minn.

The study was undertaken to understand the financial stress facing patients with breast cancer. The question was whether individual or disease factors, or both, were at play.

The study is based on results from the Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry, a prospective cohort of patient who were at Mayo Clinic Rochester. Participants answered questions about their finances at baseline and then again at annual follow-ups.

Researchers examined survey findings from 1,957 patients (mean age 58.5, 99.1% female, 95.4% White, 54.9% bachelor degree or higher) who answered questions at least twice from 2015-2020. The average time between diagnosis and the most recent follow-up was 25.6 months.

Of the 1,957 patients, 357 (18.2%) said their finances deteriorated as measured by a 1 point or higher decline on a 10-point scale.

There was no statistically significant link between deteriorating finances and age, race, employment status, stage of cancer at diagnosis, type of cancer, or treatment type. There was a slight link between deteriorating finances and reporting that they were in the category of “pay bills, no money for special things” near diagnosis.

Other research has suggested that breast cancer may not disrupt finances to a large extent, at least early on. Earlier in 2022, Stanford (Calif.) University researchers reported the results of a survey of 273 breast and gynecologic cancer patients who were surveyed about their finances at a mean of 3.4 years after diagnosis. While one-third said their cancer caused career changes, the study described overall financial toxicity as mild.

In regard to limitations, the subject population of the new study is overwhelmingly White, and the finances were self-reported by those who participated in the survey. Also, “because our participants were recruited at a tertiary medical center, there were relatively financially secure at baseline,” Dr. Ruddy said. “More financial hardship would be expected in a more financially diverse population.”

In an interview, Cathy Bradley, PhD, associate dean for research at the University of Colorado at Denver and deputy director of the University of Colorado Cancer Center, both in Aurora, praised the study as “an important start toward assessing financial burden in the clinic. Having more universal assessments in the clinic would remove stigma.”

She cautioned about interpreting a seemingly low number of patients whose financial situation worsened. “This was for a single site where there is a high rate of health insurance either through Medicare or Medicaid. There may be some selection bias as well given that Mayo may attract a wealthier patient population. Most women completed treatment and may not have been on long-term therapies.”

Moving forward, Dr. Ruddy said, “we hope to study cost of oncologic care in more geographically and financially diverse populations with breast cancer and other cancers.”

The study was funded by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and National Cancer Institute. The study authors and Dr. Ruddy report no relevant disclosures.

More than one in seven patients with breast cancer saw their financial status deteriorate within the first years after their diagnosis, a new study found. Factors like disease severity and treatment type didn’t seem to have an impact on financial status.

The findings, presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, were unexpected. “We were surprised that we did not find that patients who received more aggressive therapies were more likely to experience worsening financial concerns,” said corresponding author and medical oncologist Kathryn J. Ruddy, MD, of the Mayo Clinici in Rochester, Minn.

The study was undertaken to understand the financial stress facing patients with breast cancer. The question was whether individual or disease factors, or both, were at play.

The study is based on results from the Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry, a prospective cohort of patient who were at Mayo Clinic Rochester. Participants answered questions about their finances at baseline and then again at annual follow-ups.

Researchers examined survey findings from 1,957 patients (mean age 58.5, 99.1% female, 95.4% White, 54.9% bachelor degree or higher) who answered questions at least twice from 2015-2020. The average time between diagnosis and the most recent follow-up was 25.6 months.

Of the 1,957 patients, 357 (18.2%) said their finances deteriorated as measured by a 1 point or higher decline on a 10-point scale.

There was no statistically significant link between deteriorating finances and age, race, employment status, stage of cancer at diagnosis, type of cancer, or treatment type. There was a slight link between deteriorating finances and reporting that they were in the category of “pay bills, no money for special things” near diagnosis.

Other research has suggested that breast cancer may not disrupt finances to a large extent, at least early on. Earlier in 2022, Stanford (Calif.) University researchers reported the results of a survey of 273 breast and gynecologic cancer patients who were surveyed about their finances at a mean of 3.4 years after diagnosis. While one-third said their cancer caused career changes, the study described overall financial toxicity as mild.

In regard to limitations, the subject population of the new study is overwhelmingly White, and the finances were self-reported by those who participated in the survey. Also, “because our participants were recruited at a tertiary medical center, there were relatively financially secure at baseline,” Dr. Ruddy said. “More financial hardship would be expected in a more financially diverse population.”

In an interview, Cathy Bradley, PhD, associate dean for research at the University of Colorado at Denver and deputy director of the University of Colorado Cancer Center, both in Aurora, praised the study as “an important start toward assessing financial burden in the clinic. Having more universal assessments in the clinic would remove stigma.”

She cautioned about interpreting a seemingly low number of patients whose financial situation worsened. “This was for a single site where there is a high rate of health insurance either through Medicare or Medicaid. There may be some selection bias as well given that Mayo may attract a wealthier patient population. Most women completed treatment and may not have been on long-term therapies.”

Moving forward, Dr. Ruddy said, “we hope to study cost of oncologic care in more geographically and financially diverse populations with breast cancer and other cancers.”

The study was funded by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and National Cancer Institute. The study authors and Dr. Ruddy report no relevant disclosures.

Researchers have demonstrated that diet supplementation with high-dose omega-3 fatty acids can lead to a decrease in potentially dangerous FOXA1 in benign breast tissue, potentially pointing the way toward the use of the pioneer transcription factor as a helpful biomarker for breast cancer researchers.

The findings were released at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

In the study, researchers who were led by Bruce F. Kimler, PhD, a radiation biologist and breast cancer researcher at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, examined benign breast tissue cells aspirated from 12 women (mean age, 53 years; 7 on low-dose hormone replacement) before and after 6 months of high-dose omega-3 fatty acid supplementation. After the supplementation, FOXA1 positive cells fell in 11 of 12 women (P = .019). “There was a robust linear relationship between stain positivity for FOXA1 and AGR2,” the researchers reported (P < .001).

Increased FOXA1 activity along with GRHL2) transcription factor can boost endocrine resistance, while omega-3 fatty acids can reduce it.

In an interview, Robert S. Chapkin, PhD, the Allen Endowed Chair in Nutrition and Chronic Disease Prevention at Texas A&M University, College Station, said it’s important to examine the value of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, and the understanding of biomarkers is crucial. “Omega 3 fatty acids are pleiotropic, dose dependent, and likely impact multiple signaling mechanisms in select cells types and cancer contexts. The key is to dissect out the highest impact targets and pursue them in the context of preclinical and clinical studies.”

However, he said, “in many cases, the lack of a mechanistic understanding detracts from the merit of the work.”

Studies like this are useful in the development of clinical trials to test the value of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids in breast cancer prevention trials, said Carol Fabian, MD, a breast medical oncologist with the University of Kansas Medical Center, and the study’s first author.

“They help us understand both what dose will be needed and biomarkers that will likely be helpful in predicting response. Early-phase trials with biomarker modulation as a primary endpoint are generally necessary to make sure you have the right dose for the target population prior to committing to a long-term cancer incidence study involving thousands of women and tens of millions of dollars,” she said.

What’s next? “This work was done on reserved specimens from a prior pilot trial,” Dr. Fabian said. “We need a placebo-controlled study to know for sure that omega-3 FA in a dose of about 3.2g daily, or about 2% of calories, modulates FOXA1 and/or AGR2 in postmenopausal women.”

Previously, she said, the researchers “found that high dose omega-3 administered to overweight peri- and postmenopausal high-risk women undergoing a 6-month weight loss intervention increased the number of systemic risk biomarkers which were favorably modulated compared to placebo despite the same median weight loss in each group [–10%],” Dr. Fabian said. “We want to duplicate that finding in a larger study as well as determine if omega-3 fatty acids can block tamoxifen-induced increases in AGR2 associated with endocrine resistance.”

The study was funded by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Morris Family Foundation, and the University of Kansas Cancer Center. The authors and Chapkin report no relevant disclosures.

Researchers have demonstrated that diet supplementation with high-dose omega-3 fatty acids can lead to a decrease in potentially dangerous FOXA1 in benign breast tissue, potentially pointing the way toward the use of the pioneer transcription factor as a helpful biomarker for breast cancer researchers.

The findings were released at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

In the study, researchers who were led by Bruce F. Kimler, PhD, a radiation biologist and breast cancer researcher at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, examined benign breast tissue cells aspirated from 12 women (mean age, 53 years; 7 on low-dose hormone replacement) before and after 6 months of high-dose omega-3 fatty acid supplementation. After the supplementation, FOXA1 positive cells fell in 11 of 12 women (P = .019). “There was a robust linear relationship between stain positivity for FOXA1 and AGR2,” the researchers reported (P < .001).

Increased FOXA1 activity along with GRHL2) transcription factor can boost endocrine resistance, while omega-3 fatty acids can reduce it.

In an interview, Robert S. Chapkin, PhD, the Allen Endowed Chair in Nutrition and Chronic Disease Prevention at Texas A&M University, College Station, said it’s important to examine the value of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, and the understanding of biomarkers is crucial. “Omega 3 fatty acids are pleiotropic, dose dependent, and likely impact multiple signaling mechanisms in select cells types and cancer contexts. The key is to dissect out the highest impact targets and pursue them in the context of preclinical and clinical studies.”

However, he said, “in many cases, the lack of a mechanistic understanding detracts from the merit of the work.”

Studies like this are useful in the development of clinical trials to test the value of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids in breast cancer prevention trials, said Carol Fabian, MD, a breast medical oncologist with the University of Kansas Medical Center, and the study’s first author.

“They help us understand both what dose will be needed and biomarkers that will likely be helpful in predicting response. Early-phase trials with biomarker modulation as a primary endpoint are generally necessary to make sure you have the right dose for the target population prior to committing to a long-term cancer incidence study involving thousands of women and tens of millions of dollars,” she said.

What’s next? “This work was done on reserved specimens from a prior pilot trial,” Dr. Fabian said. “We need a placebo-controlled study to know for sure that omega-3 FA in a dose of about 3.2g daily, or about 2% of calories, modulates FOXA1 and/or AGR2 in postmenopausal women.”

Previously, she said, the researchers “found that high dose omega-3 administered to overweight peri- and postmenopausal high-risk women undergoing a 6-month weight loss intervention increased the number of systemic risk biomarkers which were favorably modulated compared to placebo despite the same median weight loss in each group [–10%],” Dr. Fabian said. “We want to duplicate that finding in a larger study as well as determine if omega-3 fatty acids can block tamoxifen-induced increases in AGR2 associated with endocrine resistance.”

The study was funded by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Morris Family Foundation, and the University of Kansas Cancer Center. The authors and Chapkin report no relevant disclosures.

Researchers have demonstrated that diet supplementation with high-dose omega-3 fatty acids can lead to a decrease in potentially dangerous FOXA1 in benign breast tissue, potentially pointing the way toward the use of the pioneer transcription factor as a helpful biomarker for breast cancer researchers.

The findings were released at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

In the study, researchers who were led by Bruce F. Kimler, PhD, a radiation biologist and breast cancer researcher at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, examined benign breast tissue cells aspirated from 12 women (mean age, 53 years; 7 on low-dose hormone replacement) before and after 6 months of high-dose omega-3 fatty acid supplementation. After the supplementation, FOXA1 positive cells fell in 11 of 12 women (P = .019). “There was a robust linear relationship between stain positivity for FOXA1 and AGR2,” the researchers reported (P < .001).

Increased FOXA1 activity along with GRHL2) transcription factor can boost endocrine resistance, while omega-3 fatty acids can reduce it.

In an interview, Robert S. Chapkin, PhD, the Allen Endowed Chair in Nutrition and Chronic Disease Prevention at Texas A&M University, College Station, said it’s important to examine the value of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, and the understanding of biomarkers is crucial. “Omega 3 fatty acids are pleiotropic, dose dependent, and likely impact multiple signaling mechanisms in select cells types and cancer contexts. The key is to dissect out the highest impact targets and pursue them in the context of preclinical and clinical studies.”

However, he said, “in many cases, the lack of a mechanistic understanding detracts from the merit of the work.”

Studies like this are useful in the development of clinical trials to test the value of high-dose omega-3 fatty acids in breast cancer prevention trials, said Carol Fabian, MD, a breast medical oncologist with the University of Kansas Medical Center, and the study’s first author.

“They help us understand both what dose will be needed and biomarkers that will likely be helpful in predicting response. Early-phase trials with biomarker modulation as a primary endpoint are generally necessary to make sure you have the right dose for the target population prior to committing to a long-term cancer incidence study involving thousands of women and tens of millions of dollars,” she said.

What’s next? “This work was done on reserved specimens from a prior pilot trial,” Dr. Fabian said. “We need a placebo-controlled study to know for sure that omega-3 FA in a dose of about 3.2g daily, or about 2% of calories, modulates FOXA1 and/or AGR2 in postmenopausal women.”

Previously, she said, the researchers “found that high dose omega-3 administered to overweight peri- and postmenopausal high-risk women undergoing a 6-month weight loss intervention increased the number of systemic risk biomarkers which were favorably modulated compared to placebo despite the same median weight loss in each group [–10%],” Dr. Fabian said. “We want to duplicate that finding in a larger study as well as determine if omega-3 fatty acids can block tamoxifen-induced increases in AGR2 associated with endocrine resistance.”

The study was funded by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Morris Family Foundation, and the University of Kansas Cancer Center. The authors and Chapkin report no relevant disclosures.

Using MammoRisk, a software tool used to estimate an individual’s 5-year risk of developing breast cancer, is feasible in community practices, according to a recent study. The assessment is based on a patient’s clinical data and breast density, with or without a polygenic risk score (PRS). Adding the latter criterion to the model led to four out of 10 women being assigned a different risk category. Of note, three out of 10 women were changed to a higher risk category.

A multifaceted assessment

In France, biennial mammographic screening is recommended for women aged 50-74 years. A personalized risk assessment approach based not only on age, but also on various risk factors, is a promising strategy that is currently being studied for several types of cancer. These personalized screening approaches seek to contribute to early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer at an early and curable stage, as well as to decrease overall health costs for society.

Women aged 40 years or older, with no more than one first-degree relative with breast cancer diagnosed after the age of 40 years, were eligible for risk assessment using MammoRisk. Women previously identified as high risk were, therefore, not enrolled. MammoRisk is a machine learning–based tool that evaluates a patient’s risk with or without considering PRS. A PRS reflects the individual’s genetic risk of developing breast cancer. To calculate this risk, DNA was extracted from saliva samples for genotyping of 76 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Patients underwent a complete breast cancer assessment, including a questionnaire, mammogram with evaluation of breast density, collection of saliva sample, and consultations with a radiologist and a breast cancer specialist, the investigators said.
 

PRS influenced risk

Out of the 290 women who underwent breast cancer assessment between January 2019 and May 2021, 68% were eligible for risk assessment using MammoRisk (median age, 52 years). The others were not eligible because they were younger than 40 years of age, had a history of atypical hyperplasia, were directed to oncogenetic consultation, had a non-White origin, or were considered for Tyrer–Cuzick risk assessment.

Following risk assessment using MammoRisk without PRS, 16% of patients were classified as moderate risk, 53% as intermediate risk, 31% as high risk, and 0% as very high risk. The median risk score (estimated risk at 5 years) was 1.5.

When PRS was added to MammoRisk, 25% were classified as moderate risk, 33% as intermediate risk, 42% as high risk, and 0% as very high risk. Again, the median risk score was 1.5.

A total of 40% of patients were assigned a different risk category when PRS was added to MammoRisk. Importantly, 28% of patients changed from intermediate risk to moderate or high risk.

One author has received speaker honorarium from Predilife, the company commercializing MammoRisk. The others report no conflicts of interest.

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

Using MammoRisk, a software tool used to estimate an individual’s 5-year risk of developing breast cancer, is feasible in community practices, according to a recent study. The assessment is based on a patient’s clinical data and breast density, with or without a polygenic risk score (PRS). Adding the latter criterion to the model led to four out of 10 women being assigned a different risk category. Of note, three out of 10 women were changed to a higher risk category.

A multifaceted assessment

In France, biennial mammographic screening is recommended for women aged 50-74 years. A personalized risk assessment approach based not only on age, but also on various risk factors, is a promising strategy that is currently being studied for several types of cancer. These personalized screening approaches seek to contribute to early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer at an early and curable stage, as well as to decrease overall health costs for society.

Women aged 40 years or older, with no more than one first-degree relative with breast cancer diagnosed after the age of 40 years, were eligible for risk assessment using MammoRisk. Women previously identified as high risk were, therefore, not enrolled. MammoRisk is a machine learning–based tool that evaluates a patient’s risk with or without considering PRS. A PRS reflects the individual’s genetic risk of developing breast cancer. To calculate this risk, DNA was extracted from saliva samples for genotyping of 76 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Patients underwent a complete breast cancer assessment, including a questionnaire, mammogram with evaluation of breast density, collection of saliva sample, and consultations with a radiologist and a breast cancer specialist, the investigators said.
 

PRS influenced risk

Out of the 290 women who underwent breast cancer assessment between January 2019 and May 2021, 68% were eligible for risk assessment using MammoRisk (median age, 52 years). The others were not eligible because they were younger than 40 years of age, had a history of atypical hyperplasia, were directed to oncogenetic consultation, had a non-White origin, or were considered for Tyrer–Cuzick risk assessment.

Following risk assessment using MammoRisk without PRS, 16% of patients were classified as moderate risk, 53% as intermediate risk, 31% as high risk, and 0% as very high risk. The median risk score (estimated risk at 5 years) was 1.5.

When PRS was added to MammoRisk, 25% were classified as moderate risk, 33% as intermediate risk, 42% as high risk, and 0% as very high risk. Again, the median risk score was 1.5.

A total of 40% of patients were assigned a different risk category when PRS was added to MammoRisk. Importantly, 28% of patients changed from intermediate risk to moderate or high risk.

One author has received speaker honorarium from Predilife, the company commercializing MammoRisk. The others report no conflicts of interest.

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

Using MammoRisk, a software tool used to estimate an individual’s 5-year risk of developing breast cancer, is feasible in community practices, according to a recent study. The assessment is based on a patient’s clinical data and breast density, with or without a polygenic risk score (PRS). Adding the latter criterion to the model led to four out of 10 women being assigned a different risk category. Of note, three out of 10 women were changed to a higher risk category.

A multifaceted assessment

In France, biennial mammographic screening is recommended for women aged 50-74 years. A personalized risk assessment approach based not only on age, but also on various risk factors, is a promising strategy that is currently being studied for several types of cancer. These personalized screening approaches seek to contribute to early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer at an early and curable stage, as well as to decrease overall health costs for society.

Women aged 40 years or older, with no more than one first-degree relative with breast cancer diagnosed after the age of 40 years, were eligible for risk assessment using MammoRisk. Women previously identified as high risk were, therefore, not enrolled. MammoRisk is a machine learning–based tool that evaluates a patient’s risk with or without considering PRS. A PRS reflects the individual’s genetic risk of developing breast cancer. To calculate this risk, DNA was extracted from saliva samples for genotyping of 76 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Patients underwent a complete breast cancer assessment, including a questionnaire, mammogram with evaluation of breast density, collection of saliva sample, and consultations with a radiologist and a breast cancer specialist, the investigators said.
 

PRS influenced risk

Out of the 290 women who underwent breast cancer assessment between January 2019 and May 2021, 68% were eligible for risk assessment using MammoRisk (median age, 52 years). The others were not eligible because they were younger than 40 years of age, had a history of atypical hyperplasia, were directed to oncogenetic consultation, had a non-White origin, or were considered for Tyrer–Cuzick risk assessment.

Following risk assessment using MammoRisk without PRS, 16% of patients were classified as moderate risk, 53% as intermediate risk, 31% as high risk, and 0% as very high risk. The median risk score (estimated risk at 5 years) was 1.5.

When PRS was added to MammoRisk, 25% were classified as moderate risk, 33% as intermediate risk, 42% as high risk, and 0% as very high risk. Again, the median risk score was 1.5.

A total of 40% of patients were assigned a different risk category when PRS was added to MammoRisk. Importantly, 28% of patients changed from intermediate risk to moderate or high risk.

One author has received speaker honorarium from Predilife, the company commercializing MammoRisk. The others report no conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript of a video roundtable, which is available on Medscape.com, has been edited for clarity.

Hope S. Rugo, MD: Hello. I’m Hope Rugo, a breast medical oncologist from the University of California, San Francisco. I’m joined here by three of my friends and colleagues to discuss the toxicity of new agents in the treatment of breast cancer. Fatima, do you want to start by introducing yourself?

Fatima F. Cardoso, MD: Sure. Hello, everyone. I’m Fatima Cardoso, a breast medical oncologist in Lisbon, Portugal.

Dr. Rugo: Sheila.

Sheila Pettiford: Hi, I’m Sheila Pettiford. I am a metastatic [breast cancer] patient and have been for almost 8 years in April. I used to live in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, but moved to Delaware in the last couple of years during the pandemic. I’m happy to be here.

Dr. Rugo: Julia.

Julia Maués: Hi, everyone. I also am a person living with metastatic breast cancer. I was diagnosed in 2013, so it’s going to be 9 years, also in April.
 

Effective monitoring and management of side effects: A team effort

Dr. Rugo: We have an amazing group and an international representation, which is also really nice because we get different perspectives. What we’re going to talk about is important to providers and patients across the board. With the host of new agents for the treatment of breast cancer – most of which have really moved us forward in terms of having effective treatment options – we’ve also been faced with a lot of new toxicities or side effects that we haven’t seen before or that we might not have expected from the specific agent.

Those toxicities across the board include side effects that are quite familiar to us, like low blood counts, but we may not advise people well enough about other side effects such as mouth sores, inflammation of the lungs, immune toxicities, and skin toxicities.

Fatima, do you want to start and talk about how we can think about these toxicities and address them?

Dr. Cardoso: Sure. Thank you. From the health care provider point of view, what I would highlight is to educate. Educate before we start the treatment. It’s very important to inform the patient but in a balanced way, so we don’t overexaggerate certain types of side effects or underestimate certain types of side effects.

It’s very important because an informed patient will be attentive to the types of side effects that can happen. Also, teach the patient when it is a [cause for] alarm or something for which they might need to contact their health care team and when that’s not the case. I think this is one crucial topic.

The other one is to monitor. Find ways how to best communicate between the patient and the health care team but in a way that you can monitor, so you can act very early on. Most of these new side effects, if you act early on, will not become severe. It is very important to know about them and to act early on.

I believe there is something important that we don’t think about all the time, and that is prophylaxis. Do not be shy about using prophylactic measures, be it for the mouth sores, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, and other things that really impact the quality of life of patients. Those, to start, are my three major points of attention for health care professionals.

Dr. Rugo: I think that’s so incredibly important – the comments that you’ve made – and also that prevention and prophylaxis are so important. You don’t want to have a patient have diarrhea in the middle of the night and not have any antipropulsive agents at home. Just as a very straightforward example, it’s really important.

Also, the ability to know what you should be looking for and how you can manage it [is important]. There are many examples of times when, even with some education, providers may not have communicated well to the patient. Then the patient is surprised and unhappy with the situation and unable to manage it.
 

The importance of education

Sheila, your comments on this from the patient perspective are so important. How important is the education piece, and how do you manage the fear of side effects vs actually managing the side effects that might be caused by the treatment you’re taking?

Ms. Pettiford: Thank you for that question. I really think it’s a dance. It’s a dance between the patient and the health care team. Yes, education is absolutely important. However, the health care professionals have to establish a relationship of trust with the patient. My own circumstances were that – and I was very fortunate in that my oncologist, who I chose just by looking and not by a recommendation – I did find an oncologist who listened to me.

When it came time for me to deal with a new medication, the education she provided me was sufficient because of the fact that there was a lot of listening that had gone on prior to the new medicine being given to me. I trusted what I was hearing, and it felt like there was a balanced situation that came about from what I was being told. I could look it up, too.

There still is that part of the patient who will be participating in the process, as well. They can still look up things, and that’s one of the downfalls of the information age we are in. It is a dance. I just want to go back to that. There’s a dance between the patient and the health care providers.

Dr. Rugo: Julia, from the patient’s side, how do you balance the benefits you might get from a treatment versus the side effects and how best to manage them?

Ms. Maués: I think it’s interesting that when we talk with our doctors, and especially when we read about a certain treatment, the attention is focused on the very severe and unlikely side effects that a drug has. We don’t talk as much about the side effects that are most likely to happen and will affect us but may not be life threatening.

Especially for those of us with metastatic cancer who are going to ideally be on a drug for a very long time, we’re then faced with low-grade nausea for the rest of our lives. That’s not okay either, right? I think it’s important to talk about all of the levels of toxicities and everything that can be done to avoid this.
 

Communication is key

Ms. Pettiford: I just want to add something that Dr. Cardoso said about monitoring that is absolutely important. We’re in a day and time when it’s very difficult to get someone on the telephone, but we do have digital charts and other ways that monitoring can take place. I was at a large teaching university, and I had to go monthly for my treatments. Every month, there were questions that were asked about my life and my condition. I could always get in contact with somebody through the digital chart.

Dr. Rugo: That’s an incredibly important comment, Sheila, about communication and how patients can feel like they have someone to go to in real time who can help manage things. Fatima, I’m interested in your comment on that.

Also, just to go to the next step, which is that when we see data reported on clinical trials and how the agent we’ve added or substituted is better than the standard, the toxicity tables are side effects that occur in at least 10% or more patients and sometimes even 20%. Then they’re graded, where often the division is grade 3 or greater. That may not actually reflect much about what the individual patient experience is. How do we interpret these data? Communication and interpretation?

Dr. Cardoso: Absolutely. I always call attention that perhaps, since we focus so much on grade 3 and 4 [side effects], that is the reason why we don’t see in the usual reporting differences quality of life between treatments. Quality of life is affected also significantly by grade 2 side effects. Or, like Julia was mentioning, even grade 1, if they are persistent, will eventually affect your quality of life.

Sometimes, like I was saying, don’t underestimate – it’s a little bit like that. We focus on explaining, “Look, this new immunotherapy can give you all these different side effects.” But then we forget to say: “Oh, by the way, it may also give you some nausea.” Actually, the nausea will affect the patient’s quality of life. I think that’s why it is so important to balance the way we provide the information.

I would like also to take on what Sheila said that sometimes too much information is not very helpful. That’s why sometimes we have to go stepwise. The first time you’re about to start the treatment, advise [the patient] on the most frequent side effects. Later on, you have time to say: “Okay, by the way, this can also give a rare side effect. This is what you should look for. If you have it, please contact your health care team.”

I think the most difficult part, at least from my experience, is for patients to understand what is really a sign of a severe side effect and what is normal for that type of treatment. Some of the new ways of communicating, like using some patient-reported outcome (PRO) apps, actually help the patient by saying, “This that you are feeling is normal. It can wait for your next appointment. This that you are feeling, it’s better if you try to reach your health care team right away. Or, this is an urgent thing and go to the emergency room near you.”

For this kind of triage, there are now new apps that can help. I think this is the most difficult part because when you are a patient, you don’t know if what you are feeling is actually a sign of something very severe or if it’s normal for the type of treatment you are receiving.

Dr. Rugo: I think that’s so important, and these new PRO apps may help with this. Of course, nothing substitutes for talking in the end if you’re confused or it doesn’t fit into whatever’s in that paradigm. I think it’s important.
 

Best practices in focusing on the individual patient

Julia, what do you think the best way of educating the patient is when you’re going to start a new treatment? You might be newly diagnosed with cancer or you might have had cancer for a number of years. You’re going to start a new treatment. What’s the best way to know what to look for and how to manage it?

Ms. Maués: I think the key here is that everyone’s different, so have that conversation, the doctor and the patient, about what the best way [of education] is for that specific person. Do they want a flyer listing all of the side effects? Do they want a link to a video they can watch and understand? Do they want someone to come in and give an extra explanation about things? Everyone learns so differently, and I think it’s really hard to assume there’s one way that all patients will understand.

I think the PRO apps are great, and also another benefit is that you keep track of your side effects. Sometimes we don’t even remember well. When did you have nausea? Was it in the morning? Was it in the evening? Is it every day? If you track it with these apps, then you will have the data stored there in the form to answer those questions.

Dr. Cardoso: There was recently a publication – I found it quite interesting – from Lesley Fallowfield’s group saying that the majority of patients would better absorb the information if it is not just text, but if it somehow has a video component, an image, or an infographic that would help them memorize a little bit more information.

Dr. Rugo: There’s been a move toward trying to make videos because the amount of education that’s needed on the providers’ side from our nurses and advanced practice providers may be overwhelming, so things might get missed. The idea of having videos to get everybody on the same page is very popular right now for this reason, and Lesley’s work is really groundbreaking.

Sheila, what do you think is the best way to communicate information?

Ms. Pettiford: Well, I definitely think it’s important for the doctors to recognize, as Julia said, that everyone is different, and all their patients are different. They could come with the same exact subtype of whatever cancer they have – in this situation, breast cancer – and still have so many different reactions. It’s so important for everybody on the health care team to listen to what the patient says because the patient is the one who is living with the illness and knows their body, hopefully.

It’s just one of those things. It’s not a one-size-fits-all situation. You give the standards, but I think it’s important to offer various ways of communicating to a patient because some people are visual. Some people want an overwhelming amount of information so they can sort through it. Then, you have some people who just want the bullet points. Again, it is important not to try to do it as a one-size-fits-all type thing.

Dr. Rugo: Yes, that’s such a good point. I’m always struck by the fact that some patients are totally on top of it and listen to it all, and then other people, we just can’t get them to even call in regarding their side effects. In some ways, it’s frightening for people to call in with issues. Maybe they’re afraid they won’t get the treatment, or that it is related to their cancer progressing, too. Trying to meet people on their own level is a real challenge and an important one.

We talked about education for providers. Fatima, how should we be best educating for these new drugs and new side effects? So many different manifestations can occur, and as we talked about, they might be quite uncommon. We just want people to keep their ears up for any kind of unusual toxicity we see. We all know that the presentation of efficacy data is not adequate for education.

Dr. Cardoso: When we present a new treatment, we focus usually on efficacy, right? Then we say a few things about safety, particularly if there is a new or a severe side effect, but we don’t go through details on how to best manage this in clinical practice.

Anecdotally, I remember that I contacted you because I was going to start using a new treatment and you had some experience. I asked, “What about nausea and vomiting? What do you do for prophylaxis?” I couldn’t find it anywhere in the manuscripts or the presentations. I think we need to focus a little bit more on practical tips. If you are about to start this new treatment, what you should think about and not just the very severe and rare side effects?

Of course, as health care professionals, we need to keep this in our minds. For example, with immunotherapy, side effects can often occur even after stopping the treatment. For other types of new treatments, we need to gain knowledge about endocrinology, for example, which is something that oncologists wouldn’t have to deal with that often in the past. Now, new skills are needed.

It’s also what makes our profession so exciting. There’s always something new to learn, and I like to look at it from that perspective. It’s not boring at all. We are always learning new things.

Dr. Rugo: Indeed. Certainly, you and I have worked together on trying to encourage our pharmaceutical colleagues to publish these papers alongside their urgency of distributing the efficacy data and publishing the papers on efficacy, and also to do a nitty-gritty review of safety and talk about management strategies. I’m really pleased that there seems to be a little more focus on that earlier now in the drug process – although still not early enough – but it’s getting there. That’s a good thing.

Ms. Pettiford: Julia, you mentioned earlier how important it is for the individual patient’s quality of life to understand how these side effects can affect them. It really is one of those things in which we have to make personal decisions. What might be good for one person in terms of what happens with side effects, and their ability to function might not work with someone else.

If you are a person who’s dealing with metastatic disease who has children, a household, a dog, and a cat to take care of, what I can handle being that I’m a single person is not what they can handle. That’s all a part of the education piece. That’s all part of the teamwork. That’s all part of the communication process. It all comes into play.

Dr. Rugo: That’s such an incredibly important point. As we’re wrapping up, it would be great if everybody had some points to make that pulled together some of our conversation. Julia, do you want to start?

Ms. Maués: Yes, I was going to add specifically about the topic you were just discussing, with all that an oncologist’s team has to know and all the different areas of our health being affected by these new treatments. One tip for patients and their teams is that the other providers around the patients may not be as informed about the disease and the treatments they are on. Sometimes we patients end up getting information that isn’t up to date with the latest drugs and things like that.

When we do talk with someone about our issues, make sure they are informed about the new drugs. For example, we often have skin issues. There are dermatologists that work with cancer patients often, and they’re very informed about the side effects that come with these drugs. There are others who never see these sorts of issues and may assume it’s something completely different.

I usually just go to doctors that my oncologist’s team collaborates with and gets referrals from because they send their patients to these doctors often. These are doctors that see cancer patients. We’re a very unique group.

Dr. Rugo: That’s a really good point. I have the same thing. We all have a little stable of people we refer to for various issues that we can reach on speed dial.
 

The importance of diversity in clinical trials to obtain the most useful outcomes

Fatima, there’s recently been, appropriately so, more of a push to try and evaluate side effects by racial and ethnic subgroups. I think we’re still pretty crummy at it, but we are making some progress. How important is that to you when you think about patients and managing them?

Dr. Cardoso: I think this is quite important. One area of research that is underused, really, is all the new genomics and sequencing technologies to understand why people react differently to the same treatment. Why is it that for some people, either for ethnic or other reasons, you have a different metabolism or something else that justifies a very high rate of side effects from a certain treatment, whereas in other regions of the world this doesn’t happen?

Not to go into these new drugs, but when using a very old drug like a taxane, I found a difference in reaction between the Portuguese patients and the Belgian patients, the two countries where I’ve worked. I even found that the cause might be genetic because the Portuguese living in Belgium reacted differently than the Belgians themselves.

Maybe there is something in the genetics that justifies the type of side effects that you have. I make a plea also for us to dedicate research to understanding why certain side effects are related to race and others are related to maybe some other types of genetic alterations that will lead to an increased side effect.

Dr. Rugo: Sheila, comments?

Ms. Pettiford: That is just excellent. It’s excellent to even consider it because it is so obvious. To me, it’s an obvious situation because there are things that are underneath the skin that we don’t understand. We have to take that into consideration when we are dealing with all these wonderful – I call them miracle – drugs that have come about in the last 20 years.

There still is much more to be done, and I try to participate in any type of organization that’s encouraging diversity in clinical trials because you need to have people of all different ethnicities in order for us to get to these answers. It’s fascinating that you found this out, doctor.
 

The patient-centered dosing initiative

Ms. Maués: I have the pleasure of being a member of a patient-led initiative called the Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative (PCDI). We are highlighting the discussion around dosages of drugs, especially in the metastatic setting. Metastatic breast cancer is what we’re focusing on, although it could apply to any type of cancer. We are advised by a number of wonderful, world-renowned physicians, Dr. Rugo being one of them. Anne Loeser, the leader of our group, has spoken at ASCO about this topic of dosage. What we’re seeing is that the dosage determination for oncology drugs is still done in the same way it used to be done decades ago and mostly with the curative intent of early-stage disease — metastatic cancer patients back then really didn’t live long at all. What we’re seeing right now is people with metastatic breast cancer that are able to, in some cases, live a long life managing their disease.

Patients are put on doses that are too high for them to be able to manage the side effects, and then they end up having to go off the drug, which means they have lost one of the tools in their toolbox. So, what we like to say about dosing is that, for metastatic cancer patients, it’s a marathon and not a sprint. If we throw all the poison at the patient from the very beginning, they won’t be able to take this for a very long time. And in the metastatic setting, the goal is to stay on each therapy for as long as possible. If we burn one of the cards early on, you have to move on to the next one. This is finite because at some point, there are not enough drugs that can help a particular patient. The PCDI is really getting a lot of visibility with the FDA and experts. People are talking more about dosages, and the FDA is now providing guidance for pharmaceutical companies to study different dosages in the clinical trials from the very beginning. This initiative is almost 3 years old, and we have made a tremendous impact since then.

Dr. Rugo: I think this is an incredibly important area moving forward, and thankfully, there’s so much interest now in not only promoting diversity, enrollment in trials, and education to promote diversity but also in looking at differences in efficacy and side effects.

I’ll just thank everybody for your contributions and amazing perspectives in this incredibly important area. As we move forward with better agents, we need to also make sure we’re understanding what the side effects are, managing them, and hearing the voices of our patients. Thanks very much.

Ms. Pettiford: Thank you so much.

Dr. Cardoso: Thank you.

Ms. Maués: Thank you.
 

Editor’s note: Our panelists would like to highlight these points:

• The patient and the health care team must build trust with each other. 
• African Americans have historical reasons for not trusting the health care industry. Much outreach is still needed. 
• Inform and educate before the start of treatment and during the treatment.
• Be balanced and do not underestimate common side effects or overestimate rare ones. Adapt the amount and the detail of the information to the wishes of the individual patient. Offer various methods of delivery (e.g., videos, pamphlets, fact sheets).
• Patients will research their condition and treatments online. Instead of trying to stop this, help them find the best sources.
• Patients will connect with others in the patient community and learn from each other’s experiences. Keep in mind that everyone is different, and decisions should always be made together with the medical team.
• Monitor patients regularly, especially during the first few treatment cycles.
• Use different forms of communication between the patient and health care providers (e.g., apps, digital charts, oncology nurses/nurse navigators, responsive oncologists, different forms of telemedicine), but don’t forget to speak directly with the patient.
• The use of new PRO apps can be very useful to help patients differentiate between urgent and nonurgent signs and symptoms.
• As much as possible, use preventive/prophylactic measures, namely for nausea, vomiting, diarrhea/constipation, and mucositis.
• Be aware of late side effects, especially with immunotherapy.
• Don’t forget that grade 1-2 side effects can substantially impact quality of life, particularly if they are persistent.
• Consider quality-of-life issues for each patient. What is acceptable for one patient may not be for another.
• Learn how to manage new and specific side effects (e.g., endocrine, skin related, pneumonitis).
• Keep an open dialogue about treatment and side effects. Things can change, and there are different ways to address issues such as medications for side effects and dosing changes.
• Listen to your patient and respond in a timely fashion.
• Ethnicity and genetics should be studied as a factor for individual side effects. Standard industry dosages of a new anticancer medication might not be as effective in one ethnic group as another due to the lack of diversity in clinical trials.
• Medications with hard-to-manage or dangerous side effects may be counterproductive regardless of effectiveness.
• Cancer treatment varies vastly depending on region and type of treatment facility. There are many unmet needs in rural areas because of lack of oncology personnel, finances, transportation, etc.

Dr. Rugo is a professor in the department of medicine, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center; director, Breast Oncology and Clinical Trials Education, Cancer Infusion Services, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco. Dr. Cardoso is director, breast unit, Champalimaud Clinical Centre, Lisbon. Financial disclosures for both Dr. Rugo and Dr. Cardoso are available on Medscape.com, where this article first appeared. Julia Maués is a patient in Washington. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Sheila Pettiford is a patient in Middletown, Del. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This transcript of a video roundtable, which is available on Medscape.com, has been edited for clarity.

Hope S. Rugo, MD: Hello. I’m Hope Rugo, a breast medical oncologist from the University of California, San Francisco. I’m joined here by three of my friends and colleagues to discuss the toxicity of new agents in the treatment of breast cancer. Fatima, do you want to start by introducing yourself?

Fatima F. Cardoso, MD: Sure. Hello, everyone. I’m Fatima Cardoso, a breast medical oncologist in Lisbon, Portugal.

Dr. Rugo: Sheila.

Sheila Pettiford: Hi, I’m Sheila Pettiford. I am a metastatic [breast cancer] patient and have been for almost 8 years in April. I used to live in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, but moved to Delaware in the last couple of years during the pandemic. I’m happy to be here.

Dr. Rugo: Julia.

Julia Maués: Hi, everyone. I also am a person living with metastatic breast cancer. I was diagnosed in 2013, so it’s going to be 9 years, also in April.
 

Effective monitoring and management of side effects: A team effort

Dr. Rugo: We have an amazing group and an international representation, which is also really nice because we get different perspectives. What we’re going to talk about is important to providers and patients across the board. With the host of new agents for the treatment of breast cancer – most of which have really moved us forward in terms of having effective treatment options – we’ve also been faced with a lot of new toxicities or side effects that we haven’t seen before or that we might not have expected from the specific agent.

Those toxicities across the board include side effects that are quite familiar to us, like low blood counts, but we may not advise people well enough about other side effects such as mouth sores, inflammation of the lungs, immune toxicities, and skin toxicities.

Fatima, do you want to start and talk about how we can think about these toxicities and address them?

Dr. Cardoso: Sure. Thank you. From the health care provider point of view, what I would highlight is to educate. Educate before we start the treatment. It’s very important to inform the patient but in a balanced way, so we don’t overexaggerate certain types of side effects or underestimate certain types of side effects.

It’s very important because an informed patient will be attentive to the types of side effects that can happen. Also, teach the patient when it is a [cause for] alarm or something for which they might need to contact their health care team and when that’s not the case. I think this is one crucial topic.

The other one is to monitor. Find ways how to best communicate between the patient and the health care team but in a way that you can monitor, so you can act very early on. Most of these new side effects, if you act early on, will not become severe. It is very important to know about them and to act early on.

I believe there is something important that we don’t think about all the time, and that is prophylaxis. Do not be shy about using prophylactic measures, be it for the mouth sores, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, and other things that really impact the quality of life of patients. Those, to start, are my three major points of attention for health care professionals.

Dr. Rugo: I think that’s so incredibly important – the comments that you’ve made – and also that prevention and prophylaxis are so important. You don’t want to have a patient have diarrhea in the middle of the night and not have any antipropulsive agents at home. Just as a very straightforward example, it’s really important.

Also, the ability to know what you should be looking for and how you can manage it [is important]. There are many examples of times when, even with some education, providers may not have communicated well to the patient. Then the patient is surprised and unhappy with the situation and unable to manage it.
 

The importance of education

Sheila, your comments on this from the patient perspective are so important. How important is the education piece, and how do you manage the fear of side effects vs actually managing the side effects that might be caused by the treatment you’re taking?

Ms. Pettiford: Thank you for that question. I really think it’s a dance. It’s a dance between the patient and the health care team. Yes, education is absolutely important. However, the health care professionals have to establish a relationship of trust with the patient. My own circumstances were that – and I was very fortunate in that my oncologist, who I chose just by looking and not by a recommendation – I did find an oncologist who listened to me.

When it came time for me to deal with a new medication, the education she provided me was sufficient because of the fact that there was a lot of listening that had gone on prior to the new medicine being given to me. I trusted what I was hearing, and it felt like there was a balanced situation that came about from what I was being told. I could look it up, too.

There still is that part of the patient who will be participating in the process, as well. They can still look up things, and that’s one of the downfalls of the information age we are in. It is a dance. I just want to go back to that. There’s a dance between the patient and the health care providers.

Dr. Rugo: Julia, from the patient’s side, how do you balance the benefits you might get from a treatment versus the side effects and how best to manage them?

Ms. Maués: I think it’s interesting that when we talk with our doctors, and especially when we read about a certain treatment, the attention is focused on the very severe and unlikely side effects that a drug has. We don’t talk as much about the side effects that are most likely to happen and will affect us but may not be life threatening.

Especially for those of us with metastatic cancer who are going to ideally be on a drug for a very long time, we’re then faced with low-grade nausea for the rest of our lives. That’s not okay either, right? I think it’s important to talk about all of the levels of toxicities and everything that can be done to avoid this.
 

Communication is key

Ms. Pettiford: I just want to add something that Dr. Cardoso said about monitoring that is absolutely important. We’re in a day and time when it’s very difficult to get someone on the telephone, but we do have digital charts and other ways that monitoring can take place. I was at a large teaching university, and I had to go monthly for my treatments. Every month, there were questions that were asked about my life and my condition. I could always get in contact with somebody through the digital chart.

Dr. Rugo: That’s an incredibly important comment, Sheila, about communication and how patients can feel like they have someone to go to in real time who can help manage things. Fatima, I’m interested in your comment on that.

Also, just to go to the next step, which is that when we see data reported on clinical trials and how the agent we’ve added or substituted is better than the standard, the toxicity tables are side effects that occur in at least 10% or more patients and sometimes even 20%. Then they’re graded, where often the division is grade 3 or greater. That may not actually reflect much about what the individual patient experience is. How do we interpret these data? Communication and interpretation?

Dr. Cardoso: Absolutely. I always call attention that perhaps, since we focus so much on grade 3 and 4 [side effects], that is the reason why we don’t see in the usual reporting differences quality of life between treatments. Quality of life is affected also significantly by grade 2 side effects. Or, like Julia was mentioning, even grade 1, if they are persistent, will eventually affect your quality of life.

Sometimes, like I was saying, don’t underestimate – it’s a little bit like that. We focus on explaining, “Look, this new immunotherapy can give you all these different side effects.” But then we forget to say: “Oh, by the way, it may also give you some nausea.” Actually, the nausea will affect the patient’s quality of life. I think that’s why it is so important to balance the way we provide the information.

I would like also to take on what Sheila said that sometimes too much information is not very helpful. That’s why sometimes we have to go stepwise. The first time you’re about to start the treatment, advise [the patient] on the most frequent side effects. Later on, you have time to say: “Okay, by the way, this can also give a rare side effect. This is what you should look for. If you have it, please contact your health care team.”

I think the most difficult part, at least from my experience, is for patients to understand what is really a sign of a severe side effect and what is normal for that type of treatment. Some of the new ways of communicating, like using some patient-reported outcome (PRO) apps, actually help the patient by saying, “This that you are feeling is normal. It can wait for your next appointment. This that you are feeling, it’s better if you try to reach your health care team right away. Or, this is an urgent thing and go to the emergency room near you.”

For this kind of triage, there are now new apps that can help. I think this is the most difficult part because when you are a patient, you don’t know if what you are feeling is actually a sign of something very severe or if it’s normal for the type of treatment you are receiving.

Dr. Rugo: I think that’s so important, and these new PRO apps may help with this. Of course, nothing substitutes for talking in the end if you’re confused or it doesn’t fit into whatever’s in that paradigm. I think it’s important.
 

Best practices in focusing on the individual patient

Julia, what do you think the best way of educating the patient is when you’re going to start a new treatment? You might be newly diagnosed with cancer or you might have had cancer for a number of years. You’re going to start a new treatment. What’s the best way to know what to look for and how to manage it?

Ms. Maués: I think the key here is that everyone’s different, so have that conversation, the doctor and the patient, about what the best way [of education] is for that specific person. Do they want a flyer listing all of the side effects? Do they want a link to a video they can watch and understand? Do they want someone to come in and give an extra explanation about things? Everyone learns so differently, and I think it’s really hard to assume there’s one way that all patients will understand.

I think the PRO apps are great, and also another benefit is that you keep track of your side effects. Sometimes we don’t even remember well. When did you have nausea? Was it in the morning? Was it in the evening? Is it every day? If you track it with these apps, then you will have the data stored there in the form to answer those questions.

Dr. Cardoso: There was recently a publication – I found it quite interesting – from Lesley Fallowfield’s group saying that the majority of patients would better absorb the information if it is not just text, but if it somehow has a video component, an image, or an infographic that would help them memorize a little bit more information.

Dr. Rugo: There’s been a move toward trying to make videos because the amount of education that’s needed on the providers’ side from our nurses and advanced practice providers may be overwhelming, so things might get missed. The idea of having videos to get everybody on the same page is very popular right now for this reason, and Lesley’s work is really groundbreaking.

Sheila, what do you think is the best way to communicate information?

Ms. Pettiford: Well, I definitely think it’s important for the doctors to recognize, as Julia said, that everyone is different, and all their patients are different. They could come with the same exact subtype of whatever cancer they have – in this situation, breast cancer – and still have so many different reactions. It’s so important for everybody on the health care team to listen to what the patient says because the patient is the one who is living with the illness and knows their body, hopefully.

It’s just one of those things. It’s not a one-size-fits-all situation. You give the standards, but I think it’s important to offer various ways of communicating to a patient because some people are visual. Some people want an overwhelming amount of information so they can sort through it. Then, you have some people who just want the bullet points. Again, it is important not to try to do it as a one-size-fits-all type thing.

Dr. Rugo: Yes, that’s such a good point. I’m always struck by the fact that some patients are totally on top of it and listen to it all, and then other people, we just can’t get them to even call in regarding their side effects. In some ways, it’s frightening for people to call in with issues. Maybe they’re afraid they won’t get the treatment, or that it is related to their cancer progressing, too. Trying to meet people on their own level is a real challenge and an important one.

We talked about education for providers. Fatima, how should we be best educating for these new drugs and new side effects? So many different manifestations can occur, and as we talked about, they might be quite uncommon. We just want people to keep their ears up for any kind of unusual toxicity we see. We all know that the presentation of efficacy data is not adequate for education.

Dr. Cardoso: When we present a new treatment, we focus usually on efficacy, right? Then we say a few things about safety, particularly if there is a new or a severe side effect, but we don’t go through details on how to best manage this in clinical practice.

Anecdotally, I remember that I contacted you because I was going to start using a new treatment and you had some experience. I asked, “What about nausea and vomiting? What do you do for prophylaxis?” I couldn’t find it anywhere in the manuscripts or the presentations. I think we need to focus a little bit more on practical tips. If you are about to start this new treatment, what you should think about and not just the very severe and rare side effects?

Of course, as health care professionals, we need to keep this in our minds. For example, with immunotherapy, side effects can often occur even after stopping the treatment. For other types of new treatments, we need to gain knowledge about endocrinology, for example, which is something that oncologists wouldn’t have to deal with that often in the past. Now, new skills are needed.

It’s also what makes our profession so exciting. There’s always something new to learn, and I like to look at it from that perspective. It’s not boring at all. We are always learning new things.

Dr. Rugo: Indeed. Certainly, you and I have worked together on trying to encourage our pharmaceutical colleagues to publish these papers alongside their urgency of distributing the efficacy data and publishing the papers on efficacy, and also to do a nitty-gritty review of safety and talk about management strategies. I’m really pleased that there seems to be a little more focus on that earlier now in the drug process – although still not early enough – but it’s getting there. That’s a good thing.

Ms. Pettiford: Julia, you mentioned earlier how important it is for the individual patient’s quality of life to understand how these side effects can affect them. It really is one of those things in which we have to make personal decisions. What might be good for one person in terms of what happens with side effects, and their ability to function might not work with someone else.

If you are a person who’s dealing with metastatic disease who has children, a household, a dog, and a cat to take care of, what I can handle being that I’m a single person is not what they can handle. That’s all a part of the education piece. That’s all part of the teamwork. That’s all part of the communication process. It all comes into play.

Dr. Rugo: That’s such an incredibly important point. As we’re wrapping up, it would be great if everybody had some points to make that pulled together some of our conversation. Julia, do you want to start?

Ms. Maués: Yes, I was going to add specifically about the topic you were just discussing, with all that an oncologist’s team has to know and all the different areas of our health being affected by these new treatments. One tip for patients and their teams is that the other providers around the patients may not be as informed about the disease and the treatments they are on. Sometimes we patients end up getting information that isn’t up to date with the latest drugs and things like that.

When we do talk with someone about our issues, make sure they are informed about the new drugs. For example, we often have skin issues. There are dermatologists that work with cancer patients often, and they’re very informed about the side effects that come with these drugs. There are others who never see these sorts of issues and may assume it’s something completely different.

I usually just go to doctors that my oncologist’s team collaborates with and gets referrals from because they send their patients to these doctors often. These are doctors that see cancer patients. We’re a very unique group.

Dr. Rugo: That’s a really good point. I have the same thing. We all have a little stable of people we refer to for various issues that we can reach on speed dial.
 

The importance of diversity in clinical trials to obtain the most useful outcomes

Fatima, there’s recently been, appropriately so, more of a push to try and evaluate side effects by racial and ethnic subgroups. I think we’re still pretty crummy at it, but we are making some progress. How important is that to you when you think about patients and managing them?

Dr. Cardoso: I think this is quite important. One area of research that is underused, really, is all the new genomics and sequencing technologies to understand why people react differently to the same treatment. Why is it that for some people, either for ethnic or other reasons, you have a different metabolism or something else that justifies a very high rate of side effects from a certain treatment, whereas in other regions of the world this doesn’t happen?

Not to go into these new drugs, but when using a very old drug like a taxane, I found a difference in reaction between the Portuguese patients and the Belgian patients, the two countries where I’ve worked. I even found that the cause might be genetic because the Portuguese living in Belgium reacted differently than the Belgians themselves.

Maybe there is something in the genetics that justifies the type of side effects that you have. I make a plea also for us to dedicate research to understanding why certain side effects are related to race and others are related to maybe some other types of genetic alterations that will lead to an increased side effect.

Dr. Rugo: Sheila, comments?

Ms. Pettiford: That is just excellent. It’s excellent to even consider it because it is so obvious. To me, it’s an obvious situation because there are things that are underneath the skin that we don’t understand. We have to take that into consideration when we are dealing with all these wonderful – I call them miracle – drugs that have come about in the last 20 years.

There still is much more to be done, and I try to participate in any type of organization that’s encouraging diversity in clinical trials because you need to have people of all different ethnicities in order for us to get to these answers. It’s fascinating that you found this out, doctor.
 

The patient-centered dosing initiative

Ms. Maués: I have the pleasure of being a member of a patient-led initiative called the Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative (PCDI). We are highlighting the discussion around dosages of drugs, especially in the metastatic setting. Metastatic breast cancer is what we’re focusing on, although it could apply to any type of cancer. We are advised by a number of wonderful, world-renowned physicians, Dr. Rugo being one of them. Anne Loeser, the leader of our group, has spoken at ASCO about this topic of dosage. What we’re seeing is that the dosage determination for oncology drugs is still done in the same way it used to be done decades ago and mostly with the curative intent of early-stage disease — metastatic cancer patients back then really didn’t live long at all. What we’re seeing right now is people with metastatic breast cancer that are able to, in some cases, live a long life managing their disease.

Patients are put on doses that are too high for them to be able to manage the side effects, and then they end up having to go off the drug, which means they have lost one of the tools in their toolbox. So, what we like to say about dosing is that, for metastatic cancer patients, it’s a marathon and not a sprint. If we throw all the poison at the patient from the very beginning, they won’t be able to take this for a very long time. And in the metastatic setting, the goal is to stay on each therapy for as long as possible. If we burn one of the cards early on, you have to move on to the next one. This is finite because at some point, there are not enough drugs that can help a particular patient. The PCDI is really getting a lot of visibility with the FDA and experts. People are talking more about dosages, and the FDA is now providing guidance for pharmaceutical companies to study different dosages in the clinical trials from the very beginning. This initiative is almost 3 years old, and we have made a tremendous impact since then.

Dr. Rugo: I think this is an incredibly important area moving forward, and thankfully, there’s so much interest now in not only promoting diversity, enrollment in trials, and education to promote diversity but also in looking at differences in efficacy and side effects.

I’ll just thank everybody for your contributions and amazing perspectives in this incredibly important area. As we move forward with better agents, we need to also make sure we’re understanding what the side effects are, managing them, and hearing the voices of our patients. Thanks very much.

Ms. Pettiford: Thank you so much.

Dr. Cardoso: Thank you.

Ms. Maués: Thank you.
 

Editor’s note: Our panelists would like to highlight these points:

• The patient and the health care team must build trust with each other. 
• African Americans have historical reasons for not trusting the health care industry. Much outreach is still needed. 
• Inform and educate before the start of treatment and during the treatment.
• Be balanced and do not underestimate common side effects or overestimate rare ones. Adapt the amount and the detail of the information to the wishes of the individual patient. Offer various methods of delivery (e.g., videos, pamphlets, fact sheets).
• Patients will research their condition and treatments online. Instead of trying to stop this, help them find the best sources.
• Patients will connect with others in the patient community and learn from each other’s experiences. Keep in mind that everyone is different, and decisions should always be made together with the medical team.
• Monitor patients regularly, especially during the first few treatment cycles.
• Use different forms of communication between the patient and health care providers (e.g., apps, digital charts, oncology nurses/nurse navigators, responsive oncologists, different forms of telemedicine), but don’t forget to speak directly with the patient.
• The use of new PRO apps can be very useful to help patients differentiate between urgent and nonurgent signs and symptoms.
• As much as possible, use preventive/prophylactic measures, namely for nausea, vomiting, diarrhea/constipation, and mucositis.
• Be aware of late side effects, especially with immunotherapy.
• Don’t forget that grade 1-2 side effects can substantially impact quality of life, particularly if they are persistent.
• Consider quality-of-life issues for each patient. What is acceptable for one patient may not be for another.
• Learn how to manage new and specific side effects (e.g., endocrine, skin related, pneumonitis).
• Keep an open dialogue about treatment and side effects. Things can change, and there are different ways to address issues such as medications for side effects and dosing changes.
• Listen to your patient and respond in a timely fashion.
• Ethnicity and genetics should be studied as a factor for individual side effects. Standard industry dosages of a new anticancer medication might not be as effective in one ethnic group as another due to the lack of diversity in clinical trials.
• Medications with hard-to-manage or dangerous side effects may be counterproductive regardless of effectiveness.
• Cancer treatment varies vastly depending on region and type of treatment facility. There are many unmet needs in rural areas because of lack of oncology personnel, finances, transportation, etc.

Dr. Rugo is a professor in the department of medicine, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center; director, Breast Oncology and Clinical Trials Education, Cancer Infusion Services, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco. Dr. Cardoso is director, breast unit, Champalimaud Clinical Centre, Lisbon. Financial disclosures for both Dr. Rugo and Dr. Cardoso are available on Medscape.com, where this article first appeared. Julia Maués is a patient in Washington. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Sheila Pettiford is a patient in Middletown, Del. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This transcript of a video roundtable, which is available on Medscape.com, has been edited for clarity.

Hope S. Rugo, MD: Hello. I’m Hope Rugo, a breast medical oncologist from the University of California, San Francisco. I’m joined here by three of my friends and colleagues to discuss the toxicity of new agents in the treatment of breast cancer. Fatima, do you want to start by introducing yourself?

Fatima F. Cardoso, MD: Sure. Hello, everyone. I’m Fatima Cardoso, a breast medical oncologist in Lisbon, Portugal.

Dr. Rugo: Sheila.

Sheila Pettiford: Hi, I’m Sheila Pettiford. I am a metastatic [breast cancer] patient and have been for almost 8 years in April. I used to live in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, but moved to Delaware in the last couple of years during the pandemic. I’m happy to be here.

Dr. Rugo: Julia.

Julia Maués: Hi, everyone. I also am a person living with metastatic breast cancer. I was diagnosed in 2013, so it’s going to be 9 years, also in April.
 

Effective monitoring and management of side effects: A team effort

Dr. Rugo: We have an amazing group and an international representation, which is also really nice because we get different perspectives. What we’re going to talk about is important to providers and patients across the board. With the host of new agents for the treatment of breast cancer – most of which have really moved us forward in terms of having effective treatment options – we’ve also been faced with a lot of new toxicities or side effects that we haven’t seen before or that we might not have expected from the specific agent.

Those toxicities across the board include side effects that are quite familiar to us, like low blood counts, but we may not advise people well enough about other side effects such as mouth sores, inflammation of the lungs, immune toxicities, and skin toxicities.

Fatima, do you want to start and talk about how we can think about these toxicities and address them?

Dr. Cardoso: Sure. Thank you. From the health care provider point of view, what I would highlight is to educate. Educate before we start the treatment. It’s very important to inform the patient but in a balanced way, so we don’t overexaggerate certain types of side effects or underestimate certain types of side effects.

It’s very important because an informed patient will be attentive to the types of side effects that can happen. Also, teach the patient when it is a [cause for] alarm or something for which they might need to contact their health care team and when that’s not the case. I think this is one crucial topic.

The other one is to monitor. Find ways how to best communicate between the patient and the health care team but in a way that you can monitor, so you can act very early on. Most of these new side effects, if you act early on, will not become severe. It is very important to know about them and to act early on.

I believe there is something important that we don’t think about all the time, and that is prophylaxis. Do not be shy about using prophylactic measures, be it for the mouth sores, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, and other things that really impact the quality of life of patients. Those, to start, are my three major points of attention for health care professionals.

Dr. Rugo: I think that’s so incredibly important – the comments that you’ve made – and also that prevention and prophylaxis are so important. You don’t want to have a patient have diarrhea in the middle of the night and not have any antipropulsive agents at home. Just as a very straightforward example, it’s really important.

Also, the ability to know what you should be looking for and how you can manage it [is important]. There are many examples of times when, even with some education, providers may not have communicated well to the patient. Then the patient is surprised and unhappy with the situation and unable to manage it.
 

The importance of education

Sheila, your comments on this from the patient perspective are so important. How important is the education piece, and how do you manage the fear of side effects vs actually managing the side effects that might be caused by the treatment you’re taking?

Ms. Pettiford: Thank you for that question. I really think it’s a dance. It’s a dance between the patient and the health care team. Yes, education is absolutely important. However, the health care professionals have to establish a relationship of trust with the patient. My own circumstances were that – and I was very fortunate in that my oncologist, who I chose just by looking and not by a recommendation – I did find an oncologist who listened to me.

When it came time for me to deal with a new medication, the education she provided me was sufficient because of the fact that there was a lot of listening that had gone on prior to the new medicine being given to me. I trusted what I was hearing, and it felt like there was a balanced situation that came about from what I was being told. I could look it up, too.

There still is that part of the patient who will be participating in the process, as well. They can still look up things, and that’s one of the downfalls of the information age we are in. It is a dance. I just want to go back to that. There’s a dance between the patient and the health care providers.

Dr. Rugo: Julia, from the patient’s side, how do you balance the benefits you might get from a treatment versus the side effects and how best to manage them?

Ms. Maués: I think it’s interesting that when we talk with our doctors, and especially when we read about a certain treatment, the attention is focused on the very severe and unlikely side effects that a drug has. We don’t talk as much about the side effects that are most likely to happen and will affect us but may not be life threatening.

Especially for those of us with metastatic cancer who are going to ideally be on a drug for a very long time, we’re then faced with low-grade nausea for the rest of our lives. That’s not okay either, right? I think it’s important to talk about all of the levels of toxicities and everything that can be done to avoid this.
 

Communication is key

Ms. Pettiford: I just want to add something that Dr. Cardoso said about monitoring that is absolutely important. We’re in a day and time when it’s very difficult to get someone on the telephone, but we do have digital charts and other ways that monitoring can take place. I was at a large teaching university, and I had to go monthly for my treatments. Every month, there were questions that were asked about my life and my condition. I could always get in contact with somebody through the digital chart.

Dr. Rugo: That’s an incredibly important comment, Sheila, about communication and how patients can feel like they have someone to go to in real time who can help manage things. Fatima, I’m interested in your comment on that.

Also, just to go to the next step, which is that when we see data reported on clinical trials and how the agent we’ve added or substituted is better than the standard, the toxicity tables are side effects that occur in at least 10% or more patients and sometimes even 20%. Then they’re graded, where often the division is grade 3 or greater. That may not actually reflect much about what the individual patient experience is. How do we interpret these data? Communication and interpretation?

Dr. Cardoso: Absolutely. I always call attention that perhaps, since we focus so much on grade 3 and 4 [side effects], that is the reason why we don’t see in the usual reporting differences quality of life between treatments. Quality of life is affected also significantly by grade 2 side effects. Or, like Julia was mentioning, even grade 1, if they are persistent, will eventually affect your quality of life.

Sometimes, like I was saying, don’t underestimate – it’s a little bit like that. We focus on explaining, “Look, this new immunotherapy can give you all these different side effects.” But then we forget to say: “Oh, by the way, it may also give you some nausea.” Actually, the nausea will affect the patient’s quality of life. I think that’s why it is so important to balance the way we provide the information.

I would like also to take on what Sheila said that sometimes too much information is not very helpful. That’s why sometimes we have to go stepwise. The first time you’re about to start the treatment, advise [the patient] on the most frequent side effects. Later on, you have time to say: “Okay, by the way, this can also give a rare side effect. This is what you should look for. If you have it, please contact your health care team.”

I think the most difficult part, at least from my experience, is for patients to understand what is really a sign of a severe side effect and what is normal for that type of treatment. Some of the new ways of communicating, like using some patient-reported outcome (PRO) apps, actually help the patient by saying, “This that you are feeling is normal. It can wait for your next appointment. This that you are feeling, it’s better if you try to reach your health care team right away. Or, this is an urgent thing and go to the emergency room near you.”

For this kind of triage, there are now new apps that can help. I think this is the most difficult part because when you are a patient, you don’t know if what you are feeling is actually a sign of something very severe or if it’s normal for the type of treatment you are receiving.

Dr. Rugo: I think that’s so important, and these new PRO apps may help with this. Of course, nothing substitutes for talking in the end if you’re confused or it doesn’t fit into whatever’s in that paradigm. I think it’s important.
 

Best practices in focusing on the individual patient

Julia, what do you think the best way of educating the patient is when you’re going to start a new treatment? You might be newly diagnosed with cancer or you might have had cancer for a number of years. You’re going to start a new treatment. What’s the best way to know what to look for and how to manage it?

Ms. Maués: I think the key here is that everyone’s different, so have that conversation, the doctor and the patient, about what the best way [of education] is for that specific person. Do they want a flyer listing all of the side effects? Do they want a link to a video they can watch and understand? Do they want someone to come in and give an extra explanation about things? Everyone learns so differently, and I think it’s really hard to assume there’s one way that all patients will understand.

I think the PRO apps are great, and also another benefit is that you keep track of your side effects. Sometimes we don’t even remember well. When did you have nausea? Was it in the morning? Was it in the evening? Is it every day? If you track it with these apps, then you will have the data stored there in the form to answer those questions.

Dr. Cardoso: There was recently a publication – I found it quite interesting – from Lesley Fallowfield’s group saying that the majority of patients would better absorb the information if it is not just text, but if it somehow has a video component, an image, or an infographic that would help them memorize a little bit more information.

Dr. Rugo: There’s been a move toward trying to make videos because the amount of education that’s needed on the providers’ side from our nurses and advanced practice providers may be overwhelming, so things might get missed. The idea of having videos to get everybody on the same page is very popular right now for this reason, and Lesley’s work is really groundbreaking.

Sheila, what do you think is the best way to communicate information?

Ms. Pettiford: Well, I definitely think it’s important for the doctors to recognize, as Julia said, that everyone is different, and all their patients are different. They could come with the same exact subtype of whatever cancer they have – in this situation, breast cancer – and still have so many different reactions. It’s so important for everybody on the health care team to listen to what the patient says because the patient is the one who is living with the illness and knows their body, hopefully.

It’s just one of those things. It’s not a one-size-fits-all situation. You give the standards, but I think it’s important to offer various ways of communicating to a patient because some people are visual. Some people want an overwhelming amount of information so they can sort through it. Then, you have some people who just want the bullet points. Again, it is important not to try to do it as a one-size-fits-all type thing.

Dr. Rugo: Yes, that’s such a good point. I’m always struck by the fact that some patients are totally on top of it and listen to it all, and then other people, we just can’t get them to even call in regarding their side effects. In some ways, it’s frightening for people to call in with issues. Maybe they’re afraid they won’t get the treatment, or that it is related to their cancer progressing, too. Trying to meet people on their own level is a real challenge and an important one.

We talked about education for providers. Fatima, how should we be best educating for these new drugs and new side effects? So many different manifestations can occur, and as we talked about, they might be quite uncommon. We just want people to keep their ears up for any kind of unusual toxicity we see. We all know that the presentation of efficacy data is not adequate for education.

Dr. Cardoso: When we present a new treatment, we focus usually on efficacy, right? Then we say a few things about safety, particularly if there is a new or a severe side effect, but we don’t go through details on how to best manage this in clinical practice.

Anecdotally, I remember that I contacted you because I was going to start using a new treatment and you had some experience. I asked, “What about nausea and vomiting? What do you do for prophylaxis?” I couldn’t find it anywhere in the manuscripts or the presentations. I think we need to focus a little bit more on practical tips. If you are about to start this new treatment, what you should think about and not just the very severe and rare side effects?

Of course, as health care professionals, we need to keep this in our minds. For example, with immunotherapy, side effects can often occur even after stopping the treatment. For other types of new treatments, we need to gain knowledge about endocrinology, for example, which is something that oncologists wouldn’t have to deal with that often in the past. Now, new skills are needed.

It’s also what makes our profession so exciting. There’s always something new to learn, and I like to look at it from that perspective. It’s not boring at all. We are always learning new things.

Dr. Rugo: Indeed. Certainly, you and I have worked together on trying to encourage our pharmaceutical colleagues to publish these papers alongside their urgency of distributing the efficacy data and publishing the papers on efficacy, and also to do a nitty-gritty review of safety and talk about management strategies. I’m really pleased that there seems to be a little more focus on that earlier now in the drug process – although still not early enough – but it’s getting there. That’s a good thing.

Ms. Pettiford: Julia, you mentioned earlier how important it is for the individual patient’s quality of life to understand how these side effects can affect them. It really is one of those things in which we have to make personal decisions. What might be good for one person in terms of what happens with side effects, and their ability to function might not work with someone else.

If you are a person who’s dealing with metastatic disease who has children, a household, a dog, and a cat to take care of, what I can handle being that I’m a single person is not what they can handle. That’s all a part of the education piece. That’s all part of the teamwork. That’s all part of the communication process. It all comes into play.

Dr. Rugo: That’s such an incredibly important point. As we’re wrapping up, it would be great if everybody had some points to make that pulled together some of our conversation. Julia, do you want to start?

Ms. Maués: Yes, I was going to add specifically about the topic you were just discussing, with all that an oncologist’s team has to know and all the different areas of our health being affected by these new treatments. One tip for patients and their teams is that the other providers around the patients may not be as informed about the disease and the treatments they are on. Sometimes we patients end up getting information that isn’t up to date with the latest drugs and things like that.

When we do talk with someone about our issues, make sure they are informed about the new drugs. For example, we often have skin issues. There are dermatologists that work with cancer patients often, and they’re very informed about the side effects that come with these drugs. There are others who never see these sorts of issues and may assume it’s something completely different.

I usually just go to doctors that my oncologist’s team collaborates with and gets referrals from because they send their patients to these doctors often. These are doctors that see cancer patients. We’re a very unique group.

Dr. Rugo: That’s a really good point. I have the same thing. We all have a little stable of people we refer to for various issues that we can reach on speed dial.
 

The importance of diversity in clinical trials to obtain the most useful outcomes

Fatima, there’s recently been, appropriately so, more of a push to try and evaluate side effects by racial and ethnic subgroups. I think we’re still pretty crummy at it, but we are making some progress. How important is that to you when you think about patients and managing them?

Dr. Cardoso: I think this is quite important. One area of research that is underused, really, is all the new genomics and sequencing technologies to understand why people react differently to the same treatment. Why is it that for some people, either for ethnic or other reasons, you have a different metabolism or something else that justifies a very high rate of side effects from a certain treatment, whereas in other regions of the world this doesn’t happen?

Not to go into these new drugs, but when using a very old drug like a taxane, I found a difference in reaction between the Portuguese patients and the Belgian patients, the two countries where I’ve worked. I even found that the cause might be genetic because the Portuguese living in Belgium reacted differently than the Belgians themselves.

Maybe there is something in the genetics that justifies the type of side effects that you have. I make a plea also for us to dedicate research to understanding why certain side effects are related to race and others are related to maybe some other types of genetic alterations that will lead to an increased side effect.

Dr. Rugo: Sheila, comments?

Ms. Pettiford: That is just excellent. It’s excellent to even consider it because it is so obvious. To me, it’s an obvious situation because there are things that are underneath the skin that we don’t understand. We have to take that into consideration when we are dealing with all these wonderful – I call them miracle – drugs that have come about in the last 20 years.

There still is much more to be done, and I try to participate in any type of organization that’s encouraging diversity in clinical trials because you need to have people of all different ethnicities in order for us to get to these answers. It’s fascinating that you found this out, doctor.
 

The patient-centered dosing initiative

Ms. Maués: I have the pleasure of being a member of a patient-led initiative called the Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative (PCDI). We are highlighting the discussion around dosages of drugs, especially in the metastatic setting. Metastatic breast cancer is what we’re focusing on, although it could apply to any type of cancer. We are advised by a number of wonderful, world-renowned physicians, Dr. Rugo being one of them. Anne Loeser, the leader of our group, has spoken at ASCO about this topic of dosage. What we’re seeing is that the dosage determination for oncology drugs is still done in the same way it used to be done decades ago and mostly with the curative intent of early-stage disease — metastatic cancer patients back then really didn’t live long at all. What we’re seeing right now is people with metastatic breast cancer that are able to, in some cases, live a long life managing their disease.

Patients are put on doses that are too high for them to be able to manage the side effects, and then they end up having to go off the drug, which means they have lost one of the tools in their toolbox. So, what we like to say about dosing is that, for metastatic cancer patients, it’s a marathon and not a sprint. If we throw all the poison at the patient from the very beginning, they won’t be able to take this for a very long time. And in the metastatic setting, the goal is to stay on each therapy for as long as possible. If we burn one of the cards early on, you have to move on to the next one. This is finite because at some point, there are not enough drugs that can help a particular patient. The PCDI is really getting a lot of visibility with the FDA and experts. People are talking more about dosages, and the FDA is now providing guidance for pharmaceutical companies to study different dosages in the clinical trials from the very beginning. This initiative is almost 3 years old, and we have made a tremendous impact since then.

Dr. Rugo: I think this is an incredibly important area moving forward, and thankfully, there’s so much interest now in not only promoting diversity, enrollment in trials, and education to promote diversity but also in looking at differences in efficacy and side effects.

I’ll just thank everybody for your contributions and amazing perspectives in this incredibly important area. As we move forward with better agents, we need to also make sure we’re understanding what the side effects are, managing them, and hearing the voices of our patients. Thanks very much.

Ms. Pettiford: Thank you so much.

Dr. Cardoso: Thank you.

Ms. Maués: Thank you.
 

Editor’s note: Our panelists would like to highlight these points:

• The patient and the health care team must build trust with each other. 
• African Americans have historical reasons for not trusting the health care industry. Much outreach is still needed. 
• Inform and educate before the start of treatment and during the treatment.
• Be balanced and do not underestimate common side effects or overestimate rare ones. Adapt the amount and the detail of the information to the wishes of the individual patient. Offer various methods of delivery (e.g., videos, pamphlets, fact sheets).
• Patients will research their condition and treatments online. Instead of trying to stop this, help them find the best sources.
• Patients will connect with others in the patient community and learn from each other’s experiences. Keep in mind that everyone is different, and decisions should always be made together with the medical team.
• Monitor patients regularly, especially during the first few treatment cycles.
• Use different forms of communication between the patient and health care providers (e.g., apps, digital charts, oncology nurses/nurse navigators, responsive oncologists, different forms of telemedicine), but don’t forget to speak directly with the patient.
• The use of new PRO apps can be very useful to help patients differentiate between urgent and nonurgent signs and symptoms.
• As much as possible, use preventive/prophylactic measures, namely for nausea, vomiting, diarrhea/constipation, and mucositis.
• Be aware of late side effects, especially with immunotherapy.
• Don’t forget that grade 1-2 side effects can substantially impact quality of life, particularly if they are persistent.
• Consider quality-of-life issues for each patient. What is acceptable for one patient may not be for another.
• Learn how to manage new and specific side effects (e.g., endocrine, skin related, pneumonitis).
• Keep an open dialogue about treatment and side effects. Things can change, and there are different ways to address issues such as medications for side effects and dosing changes.
• Listen to your patient and respond in a timely fashion.
• Ethnicity and genetics should be studied as a factor for individual side effects. Standard industry dosages of a new anticancer medication might not be as effective in one ethnic group as another due to the lack of diversity in clinical trials.
• Medications with hard-to-manage or dangerous side effects may be counterproductive regardless of effectiveness.
• Cancer treatment varies vastly depending on region and type of treatment facility. There are many unmet needs in rural areas because of lack of oncology personnel, finances, transportation, etc.

Dr. Rugo is a professor in the department of medicine, University of California San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center; director, Breast Oncology and Clinical Trials Education, Cancer Infusion Services, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco. Dr. Cardoso is director, breast unit, Champalimaud Clinical Centre, Lisbon. Financial disclosures for both Dr. Rugo and Dr. Cardoso are available on Medscape.com, where this article first appeared. Julia Maués is a patient in Washington. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Sheila Pettiford is a patient in Middletown, Del. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

People with higher (above the median) consumption of artificial sweeteners – especially aspartame and acesulfame-potassium (acesulfame-K) – had a 13% higher risk of overall cancer over 8 years than those who did not consume these sweeteners.

Higher consumption of aspartame was associated with a 22% increased risk of breast cancer and a 15% increased risk of obesity-related cancer, compared with not consuming any of these sweeteners.*

BigRedCurlyGuy/Thinkstock

These findings from the Nutri-Santé population-based observational study in France were published online March 24, 2022, in PLoS Medicine.

“Our findings do not support the use of artificial sweeteners as safe alternatives for sugar in foods or beverages and provide important and novel information to address the controversies about their potential adverse health effect,” Charlotte Debras, of the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) and Sorbonne Paris Nord University, and colleagues wrote.

“Results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (n = 102,865) suggest that artificial sweeteners found in many food and beverage brands worldwide may be associated with increased cancer risk, in line with several experimental in vivo/in vitro studies. These findings provide novel information for the re-evaluation of these food additives by health agencies,” they wrote.

Commenting to the U.K. Science Media Center, Duane Mellor, PhD, registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow, Aston (England) University, said: “This study does not prove or even suggest that we should go back to sugar and turn our backs on artificial sweeteners or diet drinks.  

“It does, however, suggest that artificial sweeteners are not a perfect replacement for sugar, they come with their own potential risks, as does sugar. The ideal answer is probably to move away from both, however, that may be unappealing to many who like a little sweetness in their life, so ditching the regular or diet soft drink (soda) for water may not be a well-received health message.”
 

Important analysis, interpret with caution

“I think that this is an important analysis, but the results need to be interpreted with caution,” another expert, John L. Sievenpiper, MD, PhD, associate professor, departments of nutritional sciences and medicine, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Large observational studies like this one that assess the exposure to low and no calorie sweeteners with obesity-related chronic diseases are at risk of reverse causality,” he explained. This is “a caveat that is well recognized by investigators in this field ... and guideline and policy makers.”

Reverse causality is a possibility because “it is likely that many high consumers of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (of which aspartame and acesulfame-K are the most common) will be consuming these sweeteners as a weight-loss strategy,” he added, “as opposed to these sweeteners causing obesity and its complications (including cancers).”

His team recently published a Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group–commissioned systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials (JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5[3]:e222092). Their findings “suggest that over the moderate term [low- and no-calorie sweetened beverages] are a viable alternative to water as a replacement strategy in adults with overweight or obesity who are at risk for or have diabetes,” states one of two syntheses (the other is in press in Diabetes Care) for the update of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guidelines coming in the fall of 2022. 

“The bottom line” for the current study, according to Dr. Sievenpiper, “is that it is difficult to disentangle the signals for low- and no-calorie sweeteners from obesity itself and the signals for the sugars and calories that they are replacing/displacing in this analysis. Substitution analyses would be useful to address some of these concerns.”
 

Conflicting results

Recent epidemiologic and animal studies about a possible link between artificial sweeteners and risk of cancer have had conflicting results, and information about specific types of sweeteners and consumption of artificially sweetened foods as well as beverages is lacking, Ms. Debras and colleagues wrote.

They aimed to investigate the associations between intakes of artificial sweeteners (total and the most common ones – aspartame, acesulfame-K, and sucralose) and cancer risk (overall risk and most frequent types – breast, prostate, and obesity-related cancers) in the ongoing NutriNet-Santé study.

“Obesity-related cancers are cancers for which obesity is involved in their etiology as one of the risk (or protective) factors, as recognized by the World Cancer Research Fund (independently of participant BMI [body mass index] status): colorectal, stomach, liver, mouth, pharynx, larynx, esophageal, breast (with opposite associations pre- and post menopause), ovarian, endometrial, and prostate cancers,” the researchers explained.

According to a recent study , “obesity increases the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women but, conversely, it appears to be protective in premenopausal women,” Dr. Sievenpiper noted.

The ongoing NutriNet-Santé study was initiated in 2009 to investigate associations between nutrition and health in the French population. Participants aged 18 and older with Internet access enroll voluntarily and self-report medical history and sociodemographic, diet, lifestyle, and health data.

The current cohort included 102,865 adults who enrolled in 2009-2021.

Consumption of artificial sweeteners was determined from repeated 24-hour dietary records that included brand names of processed foods.

At enrollment, participants were an average age of 42 years and 79% were women. They had a mean BMI of 24 kg/m2. On average, they had 5.6 dietary records.

Most participants did not consume artificial sweeteners (63%); those who did were classified as lower consumers (18.5%) or higher consumers (18.5%).

Aspartame was the most common artificial sweetener (58% of intake), followed by acesulfame-K (29%) and sucralose (10%), and these were mostly in soft drinks (53%), table-top sweeteners (29%), and yogurt/cottage cheese (8%). 

During a median 7.7-year follow-up, 3,358 incident cancers – 982 breast, 403 prostate, and 2023 obesity-related cancers – were diagnosed in participants who were a mean age of 60.

Compared with nonconsumers, higher consumers of artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of overall cancer (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.25; P-trend = .002), after adjusting for age, sex, education, physical activity, smoking, BMI, height, weight gain during follow-up, diabetes, family history of cancer, number of 24-hour dietary records, baseline caloric intake, and consumption of alcohol, sodium, saturated fatty acids, fiber, sugar, fruit and vegetables, whole-grain foods, and dairy products.

Participants who were higher consumers of aspartame had an increased risk of overall cancer (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .002), as did higher consumers of acesulfame-K (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .007), compared with nonconsumers, after adjusting for the multiple variables. 

Higher consumers of aspartame had a higher risk of breast cancer (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.48; P = .036) and obesity-related cancers (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.32; P = .026) than nonconsumers.

Higher consumers of total artificial sweeteners had a higher risk of obesity-related cancers than nonconsumers (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00-1.28; P = .036).

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include potential selection bias, residual confounding, and reverse causality, though sensitivity analyses were performed to address these concerns.

The NutriNet-Santé study was supported by several French public institutions. Ms. Debras was supported by a grant from the French National Cancer Institute. This project has received funding from the European Research Council, the French National Cancer Institute, the French Ministry of Health, and the IdEx Université de Paris. Dr. Sievenpiper has reported receiving funding from the Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, the Nutrition Trialists Fund at the University of Toronto, and the International Sweeteners Association.

Correction, 3/31: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that there was a 22% increased risk of overall cancer, rather than breast cancer. 

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Only about 1 in 7 new cancer drugs approved in the U.S. displace existing standards of care, a new analysis shows.

Of more than 200 agents evaluated, most (42%) received approval as second-, third-, or later-line therapies.

“While there is justified enthusiasm for the high volume of new cancer drug approvals in oncology and malignant hematology, these approvals must be evaluated in the context of their use,” the authors note in a report published online March 15 in JAMA Network Open. Later-line drugs may, for instance, “benefit patients with few alternatives but also add to cost of care and further delay palliative and comfort services” compared to first-line therapies, which may alter “the treatment paradigm for a certain indication.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves several new cancer drugs each month, but it’s not clear how many transform the treatment landscape.

To investigate, David Benjamin, MD, with the Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California, Irvine, and colleagues evaluated all 207 cancer drugs approved in the U.S. between May 1, 2016 and May 31, 2021.

The researchers found that only 28 drugs (14%) displaced the prior first-line standard of care for an indication.

Examples of these cancer drugs include alectinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase rearrangement–positive metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), osimertinib for epidermal growth factor receptor exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution NSCLC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, and cabozantinib for advanced kidney cancer.

A total of 32 drugs (15%) were approved as first-line alternatives or new drugs. These drugs were approved for use in the first-line setting but did not necessarily replace the standard of care at the time of approval or were first-of-their-class therapies.

Examples of these drug approvals include apalutamide for nonmetastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer, tepotinib for metastatic MET exon 14-skipping NSCLC, and avapritinib for unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor with platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha exon 18 variant, including D842V variant.

A total of 61 drugs (29%) were approved as add-on therapies for use in combination with a previously approved therapy or in the adjuvant or maintenance settings. These drugs “can only increase the cost of care,” the study team says.

Most new approvals (n = 86) were for use in second-, third- or later-line settings, often for patients for whom other treatment options had been exhausted.

The authors highlight disparities among approvals based on tumor type. Lung-related tumors received the most approvals (n = 37), followed by genitourinary tumors (n = 28), leukemia (n = 25), lymphoma (n = 22), breast cancer (n = 19), and gastrointestinal cancers (n = 14).

The authors note that cancer drugs considered new standards of care or approved as first-line setting alternatives could “provide market competition and work to lower cancer drug prices.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures.

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

Older adults are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions because of changes in physiology, clearance, and reserves. Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.^1-3

Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
 

Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects

A cluster randomized trial¹ at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.

The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
 

Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices

A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues² is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
 

Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication

A secondary analysis³ of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues² evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.

In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.

Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.

2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.

3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.

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

Older adults are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions because of changes in physiology, clearance, and reserves. Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.^1-3

Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
 

Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects

A cluster randomized trial¹ at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.

The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
 

Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices

A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues² is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
 

Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication

A secondary analysis³ of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues² evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.

In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.

Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.

2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.

3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.

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

Older adults are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions because of changes in physiology, clearance, and reserves. Age-related changes that potentiate adverse drug reactions include alterations in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. As such, older patients often require adjustments in medications to optimize safety and use. Medication adjustment is especially important for older patients on complex medication regimens for multiple conditions, such as those undergoing cancer treatment. Three recent high-quality randomized trials evaluated the use of geriatric assessment (GA) in older adults with cancer.^1-3

Interdisciplinary GA can identify aging-related conditions associated with poor outcomes in older patients with cancer (e.g., toxic effects of chemotherapy) and provide recommendations aimed at improving health outcomes. The results of these trials suggest that interdisciplinary GA can improve care outcomes and oncologists’ communication for older adults with cancer, and should be considered an emerging standard of care.
 

Geriatric assessment and chemotherapy-related toxic effects

A cluster randomized trial¹ at City of Hope National Medical Center conducted between August 2015 and February 2019 enrolled 613 participants and randomly assigned them to receive a GA-guided intervention or usual standard of care in a 2-to-1 ratio. Participants were eligible for the study if they were aged ≥65 years; had a diagnosis of solid malignant neoplasm of any stage; were starting a new chemotherapy regimen; and were fluent in English, Spanish, or Chinese.

The intervention included a GA at baseline followed by assessments focused on six common areas: sleep problems, problems with eating and feeding, incontinence, confusion, evidence of falls, and skin breakdown. An interdisciplinary team (oncologist, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, physical therapist, occupational therapist, social worker, and nutritionist) performed the assessment and developed a plan of care. Interventions were multifactorial and could include referral to specialists; recommendations for medication changes; symptom management; nutritional intervention with diet recommendations and supplementation; and interventions targeting social, spiritual, and functional well-being. Follow-up by a nurse practitioner continued until completion of chemotherapy or 6 months after starting chemotherapy, whichever was earlier.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects using National Cancer Institute criteria, and secondary outcomes were advance directive completion, emergency room visits and unplanned hospitalizations, and survival up to 12 months. Results showed a 10% absolute reduction in the incidence of grade 3 or higher toxic effects (P = .02), with a number needed to treat of 10. Advance directive completion also increased by 15%, but no differences were observed for other outcomes. This study offers high-quality evidence that a GA-based intervention can reduce toxic effects of chemotherapy regimens for older adults with cancer.
 

Geriatric assessment in community oncology practices

A recent study by Supriya G. Mohile, MD, and colleagues² is the first nationwide multicenter clinical trial to demonstrate the effects of GA and GA-guided management. This study was conducted in 40 oncology practices from the University of Rochester National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program network. Centers were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care (362 patients treated by 68 oncologists in the intervention group and 371 patients treated by 91 oncologists in the usual-care group). Eligibility criteria were age ≥70 years; impairment in at least one GA domain other than polypharmacy; incurable advanced solid tumor or lymphoma with a plan to start new cancer treatment with a high risk for toxic effects within 4 weeks; and English language fluency. Both study groups underwent a baseline GA that assessed patients’ physical performance, functional status, comorbidity, cognition, nutrition, social support, polypharmacy, and psychological status. For the intervention group, a summary and management recommendations were provided to the treating oncologists.

The primary outcome was grade 3 or higher toxic effects within 3 months of starting a new regimen; secondary outcomes included treatment intensity and survival and GA outcomes within 3 months. A smaller proportion of patients in the intervention group experienced toxicity (51% vs. 71%), with an absolute risk reduction of 20%. Patients in the intervention group also had fewer falls and a greater reduction in medications used; there were no other differences in secondary outcomes. This study offers very strong and generalizable evidence that incorporating GA in the care of older adults with cancer at risk for toxicity can reduce toxicity as well as improve other outcomes, such as falls and polypharmacy.
 

Geriatric assessment and oncologist-patient communication

A secondary analysis³ of data from Dr. Mohile and colleagues² evaluated the effect of GA-guided recommendations on oncologist-patient communication regarding comorbidities. Patients (n = 541) included in this analysis were 76.6 years of age on average and had 3.2 (standard deviation, 1.9) comorbid conditions. All patients underwent GA, but only oncologists in the intervention arm received GA-based recommendations. Clinical encounters between oncologist and patient immediately following the GA were audio recorded and analyzed to examine communication between oncologists and participants as it relates to chronic comorbid conditions.

In the intervention arm, more discussions regarding comorbidities took place, and more participants’ concerns about comorbidities were acknowledged. More importantly, participants in the intervention group were 2.4 times more likely to have their concerns about comorbidities addressed through referral or education, compared with the usual-care group (P = .004). Moreover, 41% of oncologists in the intervention arm modified dosage or cancer treatment schedule because of concern about tolerability or comorbidities. This study demonstrates beneficial effects of GA in increasing communication and perhaps consideration of comorbidities of older adults when planning cancer treatment.

Dr. Hung is professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. He disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

References

1. Li D et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:e214158.

2. Mohile SG et al. Lancet. 2021;398:1894-1904.

3. Kleckner AS et al. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022;18:e9-19.

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