Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

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

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

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

TOPLINE:

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with bone mineral density, predicts the risk for major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures in patients with cancer, but FRAX without bone mineral density slightly overestimates these risks, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Cancer-specific guidelines recommend using FRAX to assess fracture risk, but its applicability in patients with cancer remains unclear.
• This retrospective cohort study included 9877 patients with cancer (mean age, 67.1 years) and 45,875 matched control individuals without cancer (mean age, 66.2 years). All participants had dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.
• Researchers collected data on bone mineral density and fractures. The 10-year probabilities of major osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures were calculated using FRAX, and the observed 10-year probabilities of these fractures were compared with FRAX-derived probabilities.
• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a shorter mean follow-up duration (8.5 vs 7.6 years), a slightly higher mean body mass index, and a higher percentage of parental hip fractures (7.0% vs 8.2%); additionally, patients with cancer were more likely to have secondary causes of osteoporosis (10% vs 38.4%) and less likely to receive osteoporosis medication (9.9% vs 4.2%).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with individuals without cancer, patients with cancer had a significantly higher incidence rate of major fractures (12.9 vs 14.5 per 1000 person-years) and hip fractures (3.5 vs 4.2 per 1000 person-years).
• FRAX with bone mineral density exhibited excellent calibration for predicting major osteoporotic fractures (slope, 1.03) and hip fractures (0.97) in patients with cancer, regardless of the site of cancer diagnosis. FRAX without bone mineral density, however, underestimated the risk for both major (0.87) and hip fractures (0.72).
• In patients with cancer, FRAX with bone mineral density findings were associated with incident major osteoporotic fractures (hazard ratio [HR] per SD, 1.84) and hip fractures (HR per SD, 3.61).
• When models were adjusted for FRAX with bone mineral density, patients with cancer had an increased risk for both major osteoporotic fractures (HR, 1.17) and hip fractures (HR, 1.30). No difference was found in the risk for fracture between patients with and individuals without cancer when the models were adjusted for FRAX without bone mineral density, even when considering osteoporosis medication use.

IN PRACTICE:

“This retrospective cohort study demonstrates that individuals with cancer are at higher risk of fracture than individuals without cancer and that FRAX, particularly with BMD [bone mineral density], may accurately predict fracture risk in this population. These results, along with the known mortality risk of osteoporotic fractures among cancer survivors, further emphasize the clinical importance of closing the current osteoporosis care gap among cancer survivors,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Carrie Ye, MD, MPH, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, was published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

This study cohort included a selected group of cancer survivors who were referred for DXA scans and may not represent the general cancer population. The cohort consisted predominantly of women, limiting the generalizability to men with cancer. Given the heterogeneity of the population, the findings may not be applicable to all cancer subgroups. Information on cancer stage or the presence of bone metastases at the time of fracture risk assessment was lacking, which could have affected the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by the CancerCare Manitoba Foundation. Three authors reported having ties with various sources, including two who received grants from various organizations.
 

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

Cancer is becoming more common in younger generations. Data show that people under 50 are experiencing higher rates of cancer than any generation before them. As a genetic counselor, I hoped these upward trends in early-onset malignancies would slow with a better understanding of risk factors and prevention strategies. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. Recent findings from the American Cancer Society reveal that the incidence of at least 17 of 34 cancer types is rising among GenX and Millennials. 

These statistics are alarming. I appreciate how easy it is for patients to get lost in the headlines about cancer, which may shape how they approach their healthcare. Each year, millions of Americans miss critical cancer screenings, with many citing fear of a positive test result as a leading reason. Others believe, despite the statistics, that cancer is not something they need to worry about until they are older. And then, of course, getting screened is not as easy as it should be. 

In my work, I meet with people from both younger and older generations who have either faced cancer themselves or witnessed a loved one experience the disease. One of the most common sentiments I hear from these patients is the desire to catch cancer earlier. My answer is always this: The first and most important step everyone can take is understanding their risk. 

For some, knowing they are at increased risk for cancer means starting screenings earlier — sometimes as early as age 25 — or getting screened with a more sensitive test. 

This proactive approach is the right one. Early detection can dramatically increase survival rates, sometimes by up to eightfold, depending on the type of cancer. It also significantly reduces the burden of total and cancer-specific healthcare costs. While screening may carry some potential risks, clinicians can minimize these risks by adhering to evidence-based guidelines, such as those from the American Cancer Society, and ensuring there is appropriate discussion of treatment options when a diagnosis is made.
 

Normalizing Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening 

A detailed cancer risk assessment and education about signs and symptoms should be part of every preventive care visit, regardless of someone’s age. Further, that cancer risk assessment should lead to clear recommendations and support for taking the next steps. 

This is where care advocacy and patient navigation come in. Care advocacy can improve outcomes at every stage of the cancer journey, from increasing screening rates to improving quality of life for survivors. I’ve seen first-hand how care advocates help patients overcome hurdles like long wait times for appointments they need, making both screening and diagnostic care easier to access. 

Now, with the finalization of a new rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers can bill for oncology navigation services that occur under their supervision. This formal recognition of care navigation affirms the value of these services not just clinically but financially as well. It will be through methods like care navigation, targeted outreach, and engaging educational resources — built into and covered by health plans — that patients will feel more in control over their health and have tools to help minimize the effects of cancer on the rest of their lives. 

These services benefit healthcare providers as well. Care navigation supports clinical care teams, from primary care providers to oncologists, by ensuring patients are seen before their cancer progresses to a more advanced stage. And even if patients follow screening recommendations for the rest of their lives and never get a positive result, they’ve still gained something invaluable: peace of mind, knowing they’ve taken an active role in their health. 
 

Fighting Fear With Routine

Treating cancer as a normal part of young people’s healthcare means helping them envision the disease as a condition that can be treated, much like a diagnosis of diabetes or high cholesterol. This mindset shift means quickly following up on a concerning symptom or screening result and reducing the time to start treatment if needed. And with treatment options and success rates for some cancers being better than ever, survivorship support must be built into every treatment plan from the start. Before treatment begins, healthcare providers should make time to talk about sometimes-overlooked key topics, such as reproductive options for people whose fertility may be affected by their cancer treatment, about plans for returning to work during or after treatment, and finding the right mental health support. 

Where we can’t prevent cancer, both primary care providers and oncologists can work together to help patients receive the right diagnosis and treatment as quickly as possible. Knowing insurance coverage has a direct effect on how early cancer is caught, for example, younger people need support in understanding and accessing benefits and resources that may be available through their existing healthcare channels, like some employer-sponsored health plans. Even if getting treated for cancer is inevitable for some, taking immediate action to get screened when it’s appropriate is the best thing we can do to lessen the impact of these rising cancer incidences across the country. At the end of the day, being afraid of cancer doesn’t decrease the chances of getting sick or dying from it. Proactive screening and early detection do. 
 

Brockman, Genetic Counselor, Color Health, Buffalo, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer is becoming more common in younger generations. Data show that people under 50 are experiencing higher rates of cancer than any generation before them. As a genetic counselor, I hoped these upward trends in early-onset malignancies would slow with a better understanding of risk factors and prevention strategies. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. Recent findings from the American Cancer Society reveal that the incidence of at least 17 of 34 cancer types is rising among GenX and Millennials. 

These statistics are alarming. I appreciate how easy it is for patients to get lost in the headlines about cancer, which may shape how they approach their healthcare. Each year, millions of Americans miss critical cancer screenings, with many citing fear of a positive test result as a leading reason. Others believe, despite the statistics, that cancer is not something they need to worry about until they are older. And then, of course, getting screened is not as easy as it should be. 

In my work, I meet with people from both younger and older generations who have either faced cancer themselves or witnessed a loved one experience the disease. One of the most common sentiments I hear from these patients is the desire to catch cancer earlier. My answer is always this: The first and most important step everyone can take is understanding their risk. 

For some, knowing they are at increased risk for cancer means starting screenings earlier — sometimes as early as age 25 — or getting screened with a more sensitive test. 

This proactive approach is the right one. Early detection can dramatically increase survival rates, sometimes by up to eightfold, depending on the type of cancer. It also significantly reduces the burden of total and cancer-specific healthcare costs. While screening may carry some potential risks, clinicians can minimize these risks by adhering to evidence-based guidelines, such as those from the American Cancer Society, and ensuring there is appropriate discussion of treatment options when a diagnosis is made.
 

Normalizing Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening 

A detailed cancer risk assessment and education about signs and symptoms should be part of every preventive care visit, regardless of someone’s age. Further, that cancer risk assessment should lead to clear recommendations and support for taking the next steps. 

This is where care advocacy and patient navigation come in. Care advocacy can improve outcomes at every stage of the cancer journey, from increasing screening rates to improving quality of life for survivors. I’ve seen first-hand how care advocates help patients overcome hurdles like long wait times for appointments they need, making both screening and diagnostic care easier to access. 

Now, with the finalization of a new rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers can bill for oncology navigation services that occur under their supervision. This formal recognition of care navigation affirms the value of these services not just clinically but financially as well. It will be through methods like care navigation, targeted outreach, and engaging educational resources — built into and covered by health plans — that patients will feel more in control over their health and have tools to help minimize the effects of cancer on the rest of their lives. 

These services benefit healthcare providers as well. Care navigation supports clinical care teams, from primary care providers to oncologists, by ensuring patients are seen before their cancer progresses to a more advanced stage. And even if patients follow screening recommendations for the rest of their lives and never get a positive result, they’ve still gained something invaluable: peace of mind, knowing they’ve taken an active role in their health. 
 

Fighting Fear With Routine

Treating cancer as a normal part of young people’s healthcare means helping them envision the disease as a condition that can be treated, much like a diagnosis of diabetes or high cholesterol. This mindset shift means quickly following up on a concerning symptom or screening result and reducing the time to start treatment if needed. And with treatment options and success rates for some cancers being better than ever, survivorship support must be built into every treatment plan from the start. Before treatment begins, healthcare providers should make time to talk about sometimes-overlooked key topics, such as reproductive options for people whose fertility may be affected by their cancer treatment, about plans for returning to work during or after treatment, and finding the right mental health support. 

Where we can’t prevent cancer, both primary care providers and oncologists can work together to help patients receive the right diagnosis and treatment as quickly as possible. Knowing insurance coverage has a direct effect on how early cancer is caught, for example, younger people need support in understanding and accessing benefits and resources that may be available through their existing healthcare channels, like some employer-sponsored health plans. Even if getting treated for cancer is inevitable for some, taking immediate action to get screened when it’s appropriate is the best thing we can do to lessen the impact of these rising cancer incidences across the country. At the end of the day, being afraid of cancer doesn’t decrease the chances of getting sick or dying from it. Proactive screening and early detection do. 
 

Brockman, Genetic Counselor, Color Health, Buffalo, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cancer is becoming more common in younger generations. Data show that people under 50 are experiencing higher rates of cancer than any generation before them. As a genetic counselor, I hoped these upward trends in early-onset malignancies would slow with a better understanding of risk factors and prevention strategies. Unfortunately, the opposite is happening. Recent findings from the American Cancer Society reveal that the incidence of at least 17 of 34 cancer types is rising among GenX and Millennials. 

These statistics are alarming. I appreciate how easy it is for patients to get lost in the headlines about cancer, which may shape how they approach their healthcare. Each year, millions of Americans miss critical cancer screenings, with many citing fear of a positive test result as a leading reason. Others believe, despite the statistics, that cancer is not something they need to worry about until they are older. And then, of course, getting screened is not as easy as it should be. 

In my work, I meet with people from both younger and older generations who have either faced cancer themselves or witnessed a loved one experience the disease. One of the most common sentiments I hear from these patients is the desire to catch cancer earlier. My answer is always this: The first and most important step everyone can take is understanding their risk. 

For some, knowing they are at increased risk for cancer means starting screenings earlier — sometimes as early as age 25 — or getting screened with a more sensitive test. 

This proactive approach is the right one. Early detection can dramatically increase survival rates, sometimes by up to eightfold, depending on the type of cancer. It also significantly reduces the burden of total and cancer-specific healthcare costs. While screening may carry some potential risks, clinicians can minimize these risks by adhering to evidence-based guidelines, such as those from the American Cancer Society, and ensuring there is appropriate discussion of treatment options when a diagnosis is made.
 

Normalizing Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening 

A detailed cancer risk assessment and education about signs and symptoms should be part of every preventive care visit, regardless of someone’s age. Further, that cancer risk assessment should lead to clear recommendations and support for taking the next steps. 

This is where care advocacy and patient navigation come in. Care advocacy can improve outcomes at every stage of the cancer journey, from increasing screening rates to improving quality of life for survivors. I’ve seen first-hand how care advocates help patients overcome hurdles like long wait times for appointments they need, making both screening and diagnostic care easier to access. 

Now, with the finalization of a new rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers can bill for oncology navigation services that occur under their supervision. This formal recognition of care navigation affirms the value of these services not just clinically but financially as well. It will be through methods like care navigation, targeted outreach, and engaging educational resources — built into and covered by health plans — that patients will feel more in control over their health and have tools to help minimize the effects of cancer on the rest of their lives. 

These services benefit healthcare providers as well. Care navigation supports clinical care teams, from primary care providers to oncologists, by ensuring patients are seen before their cancer progresses to a more advanced stage. And even if patients follow screening recommendations for the rest of their lives and never get a positive result, they’ve still gained something invaluable: peace of mind, knowing they’ve taken an active role in their health. 
 

Fighting Fear With Routine

Treating cancer as a normal part of young people’s healthcare means helping them envision the disease as a condition that can be treated, much like a diagnosis of diabetes or high cholesterol. This mindset shift means quickly following up on a concerning symptom or screening result and reducing the time to start treatment if needed. And with treatment options and success rates for some cancers being better than ever, survivorship support must be built into every treatment plan from the start. Before treatment begins, healthcare providers should make time to talk about sometimes-overlooked key topics, such as reproductive options for people whose fertility may be affected by their cancer treatment, about plans for returning to work during or after treatment, and finding the right mental health support. 

Where we can’t prevent cancer, both primary care providers and oncologists can work together to help patients receive the right diagnosis and treatment as quickly as possible. Knowing insurance coverage has a direct effect on how early cancer is caught, for example, younger people need support in understanding and accessing benefits and resources that may be available through their existing healthcare channels, like some employer-sponsored health plans. Even if getting treated for cancer is inevitable for some, taking immediate action to get screened when it’s appropriate is the best thing we can do to lessen the impact of these rising cancer incidences across the country. At the end of the day, being afraid of cancer doesn’t decrease the chances of getting sick or dying from it. Proactive screening and early detection do. 
 

Brockman, Genetic Counselor, Color Health, Buffalo, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Fantine Giap, MD, sat across from a 21-year-old with a rare sarcoma at the base of her skull. 

Despite the large tumor, nestled in a sensitive area, the Boston-based radiation oncologist could envision a bright future for her patient. 

She and the other members of the patient’s care team had an impressive cancer-fighting arsenal at her fingertips. The team had recommended surgery, followed by proton therapy — a sophisticated tool able to deliver concentrated, razor-focused radiation to the once apple-sized growth, while sparing the fragile brain stem, optic nerve, and spinal cord. 

Surgery went as planned. But as the days and weeks wore on and insurance prior authorization for the proton therapy never came, the tumor roared back, leading to more surgeries and more complications. Ultimately, the young woman needed a tracheostomy and a feeding tube. 

By the time insurance said yes, more than 1 year from her initial visit, the future the team had envisioned seemed out of reach. 

“Unfortunately for this patient, it went from a potentially curable situation to a likely not curable situation,” recalled Dr. Giap, a clinician at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “I wanted to cry every day that she waited.’’ 

While a stark example, such insurance delays are not uncommon, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

The study of 206 denials in radiation oncology concluded that more than two-thirds were ultimately approved on appeal without changes, but often these approvals came only after costly delays that potentially compromised patient care.

Other studies have found that number to be even higher, with more than 86% of prior authorization requests ultimately approved with few changes.

‘’It gives you the idea that this entire process might be a little futile — that it’s just wasting people’s time,’’ said Fumiko Chino, MD, coauthor on the JAMA study and now an assistant professor in radiation oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. ‘’The problem is cancer doesn’t wait for bureaucracy.’’
 

Barriers at Every Step

As Dr. Chino and her study coauthors explained, advancements like intensity-modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery have allowed a new generation of specialists to treat previously untreatable cancers in ways that maximize tumor-killing power while minimizing collateral damage. But these tools require sophisticated planning, imaging, simulations and execution — all of which are subject to increased insurance scrutiny.

‘’We face barriers pretty much every step of the way for every patient,’’ said Dr. Chino.

To investigate how such barriers impact care, Dr. Chino and colleagues at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center — where she worked until July — looked at 206 cases in which payers denied prior authorization for radiation therapy from November 1, 2021 to December 8, 2022. 

The team found that 62% were ultimately approved without any change to technique or dose, while 28% were authorized, but with lower doses or less sophisticated techniques. Four people, however, never got authorization at all — three abandoned treatment altogether, and one sought treatment at another institution.

Treatment delays ranged from 1 day to 49 days. Eighty-three patients died.

Would some of them have lived if it weren’t for prior authorization?

Dr. Chino cannot say for sure, but did note that certain cancers, like cervical cancer, can grow so quickly that every day of delayed treatment makes them harder to control. 

Patients with metastatic or late-stage cancers are often denied more aggressive treatments by insurers who, in essence, “assume that they are going to die from their disease anyway,” Dr. Chino said. 

She views this as tragically shortsighted.

‘’There’s actually a strong body of evidence to show that if you treat even metastatic stage IV diseases aggressively, you can prolong not just quality of life but also quantity,’’ she said. 

In cases where the cancer is more localized and insurance mandates lower doses or cheaper techniques, the consequences can be equally heartbreaking.

‘’It’s like saying instead of taking an extra-strength Tylenol you can only have a baby aspirin,’’ she said. ‘’Their pain is less likely to be controlled, their disease is less likely to be controlled, and they are more likely to need retreatment.’’

Prior authorization delays can also significantly stress patients at the most vulnerable point of their lives.

In another recent study, Dr. Chino found that 69% of patients with cancer reported prior authorization-related delays in care, with one-third waiting a month or longer. One in five never got the care their doctors recommended, and 20% reported spending more than 11 hours on the phone haggling with their insurance companies. 

Most patients rated the process as ‘’bad’’ or ‘’horrible,’’ and said it fueled anxiety.

Such delays can be hard on clinicians and the healthcare system too. 

One 2022 study found that a typical academic radiation oncology practice spent about a half-million dollars per year seeking insurance preauthorization. Nationally, that number exceeds $40 million.

Then there is the burnout factor. 

Dr. Giap, an early-career physician who specializes in rare, aggressive sarcomas, works at an institution that helped pioneer proton therapy. She says it pains her to tell a desperate patient, like the 21-year-old, who has traveled to her from out of state that they have to wait. 

‘’Knowing that the majority of the cases are ultimately approved and that this wait is often unnecessary makes it even tougher,’’ she said.

Dr. Chino, a breast cancer specialist, has taken to warning patients before the alarming insurance letter arrives in the mail that their insurance may delay authorizing their care. But she tells patients that she will do everything she can to fight for them and develops a back-up plan to pivot to quickly, if needed.

‘’No one goes into medicine to spend their time talking to insurance companies,’’ said Dr. Chino.

The national trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), did not return repeated requests for an interview for this story. But their official position, as stated on their website, is that “prior authorization is one of many tools health insurance providers use to promote safe, timely, evidence-based, affordable, and efficient care.”

Both Dr. Giap and Dr. Chino believe that prior authorization was developed with good intentions: to save healthcare costs and rein in treatments that don’t necessarily benefit patients. 

But, in their specialty, the burden has proliferated to a point that Dr. Chino characterizes as ‘’unconscionable.’’

She believes that policy changes like the proposed Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act — which would require real-time decisions for procedures that are routinely approved — could go a long way in improving patient care.

Meanwhile, Dr. Giap said, more research and professional guidelines are necessary to bolster insurance company confidence in newer technologies, particularly for rare cancers.

Her patient ultimately got her proton therapy and is ‘’doing relatively well, all things considered.’’

But not all the stories end like this.

Dr. Chino will never forget a patient with a cancer growing so rapidly she could see it protruding through her chest wall. She called for an urgent PET scan to see where else in the body the cancer might be brewing and rushed the planning process for radiation therapy, both of which faced prior authorization barriers. That scan — which ultimately showed the cancer had spread — was delayed for months.*

If the team had had those imaging results upfront, she said, they would have recommended a completely different course of treatment.

And her patient might be alive today.

‘’Unfortunately,” Dr. Chino said, “the people with the very worst prior authorization stories aren’t here anymore to tell you about them.”

*Correction,  10/4/24: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that Dr. Chino called for surgery for her patient. She actually called for a PET scan and an urgent radiation start.

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

Fantine Giap, MD, sat across from a 21-year-old with a rare sarcoma at the base of her skull. 

Despite the large tumor, nestled in a sensitive area, the Boston-based radiation oncologist could envision a bright future for her patient. 

She and the other members of the patient’s care team had an impressive cancer-fighting arsenal at her fingertips. The team had recommended surgery, followed by proton therapy — a sophisticated tool able to deliver concentrated, razor-focused radiation to the once apple-sized growth, while sparing the fragile brain stem, optic nerve, and spinal cord. 

Surgery went as planned. But as the days and weeks wore on and insurance prior authorization for the proton therapy never came, the tumor roared back, leading to more surgeries and more complications. Ultimately, the young woman needed a tracheostomy and a feeding tube. 

By the time insurance said yes, more than 1 year from her initial visit, the future the team had envisioned seemed out of reach. 

“Unfortunately for this patient, it went from a potentially curable situation to a likely not curable situation,” recalled Dr. Giap, a clinician at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “I wanted to cry every day that she waited.’’ 

While a stark example, such insurance delays are not uncommon, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

The study of 206 denials in radiation oncology concluded that more than two-thirds were ultimately approved on appeal without changes, but often these approvals came only after costly delays that potentially compromised patient care.

Other studies have found that number to be even higher, with more than 86% of prior authorization requests ultimately approved with few changes.

‘’It gives you the idea that this entire process might be a little futile — that it’s just wasting people’s time,’’ said Fumiko Chino, MD, coauthor on the JAMA study and now an assistant professor in radiation oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. ‘’The problem is cancer doesn’t wait for bureaucracy.’’
 

Barriers at Every Step

As Dr. Chino and her study coauthors explained, advancements like intensity-modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery have allowed a new generation of specialists to treat previously untreatable cancers in ways that maximize tumor-killing power while minimizing collateral damage. But these tools require sophisticated planning, imaging, simulations and execution — all of which are subject to increased insurance scrutiny.

‘’We face barriers pretty much every step of the way for every patient,’’ said Dr. Chino.

To investigate how such barriers impact care, Dr. Chino and colleagues at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center — where she worked until July — looked at 206 cases in which payers denied prior authorization for radiation therapy from November 1, 2021 to December 8, 2022. 

The team found that 62% were ultimately approved without any change to technique or dose, while 28% were authorized, but with lower doses or less sophisticated techniques. Four people, however, never got authorization at all — three abandoned treatment altogether, and one sought treatment at another institution.

Treatment delays ranged from 1 day to 49 days. Eighty-three patients died.

Would some of them have lived if it weren’t for prior authorization?

Dr. Chino cannot say for sure, but did note that certain cancers, like cervical cancer, can grow so quickly that every day of delayed treatment makes them harder to control. 

Patients with metastatic or late-stage cancers are often denied more aggressive treatments by insurers who, in essence, “assume that they are going to die from their disease anyway,” Dr. Chino said. 

She views this as tragically shortsighted.

‘’There’s actually a strong body of evidence to show that if you treat even metastatic stage IV diseases aggressively, you can prolong not just quality of life but also quantity,’’ she said. 

In cases where the cancer is more localized and insurance mandates lower doses or cheaper techniques, the consequences can be equally heartbreaking.

‘’It’s like saying instead of taking an extra-strength Tylenol you can only have a baby aspirin,’’ she said. ‘’Their pain is less likely to be controlled, their disease is less likely to be controlled, and they are more likely to need retreatment.’’

Prior authorization delays can also significantly stress patients at the most vulnerable point of their lives.

In another recent study, Dr. Chino found that 69% of patients with cancer reported prior authorization-related delays in care, with one-third waiting a month or longer. One in five never got the care their doctors recommended, and 20% reported spending more than 11 hours on the phone haggling with their insurance companies. 

Most patients rated the process as ‘’bad’’ or ‘’horrible,’’ and said it fueled anxiety.

Such delays can be hard on clinicians and the healthcare system too. 

One 2022 study found that a typical academic radiation oncology practice spent about a half-million dollars per year seeking insurance preauthorization. Nationally, that number exceeds $40 million.

Then there is the burnout factor. 

Dr. Giap, an early-career physician who specializes in rare, aggressive sarcomas, works at an institution that helped pioneer proton therapy. She says it pains her to tell a desperate patient, like the 21-year-old, who has traveled to her from out of state that they have to wait. 

‘’Knowing that the majority of the cases are ultimately approved and that this wait is often unnecessary makes it even tougher,’’ she said.

Dr. Chino, a breast cancer specialist, has taken to warning patients before the alarming insurance letter arrives in the mail that their insurance may delay authorizing their care. But she tells patients that she will do everything she can to fight for them and develops a back-up plan to pivot to quickly, if needed.

‘’No one goes into medicine to spend their time talking to insurance companies,’’ said Dr. Chino.

The national trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), did not return repeated requests for an interview for this story. But their official position, as stated on their website, is that “prior authorization is one of many tools health insurance providers use to promote safe, timely, evidence-based, affordable, and efficient care.”

Both Dr. Giap and Dr. Chino believe that prior authorization was developed with good intentions: to save healthcare costs and rein in treatments that don’t necessarily benefit patients. 

But, in their specialty, the burden has proliferated to a point that Dr. Chino characterizes as ‘’unconscionable.’’

She believes that policy changes like the proposed Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act — which would require real-time decisions for procedures that are routinely approved — could go a long way in improving patient care.

Meanwhile, Dr. Giap said, more research and professional guidelines are necessary to bolster insurance company confidence in newer technologies, particularly for rare cancers.

Her patient ultimately got her proton therapy and is ‘’doing relatively well, all things considered.’’

But not all the stories end like this.

Dr. Chino will never forget a patient with a cancer growing so rapidly she could see it protruding through her chest wall. She called for an urgent PET scan to see where else in the body the cancer might be brewing and rushed the planning process for radiation therapy, both of which faced prior authorization barriers. That scan — which ultimately showed the cancer had spread — was delayed for months.*

If the team had had those imaging results upfront, she said, they would have recommended a completely different course of treatment.

And her patient might be alive today.

‘’Unfortunately,” Dr. Chino said, “the people with the very worst prior authorization stories aren’t here anymore to tell you about them.”

*Correction,  10/4/24: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that Dr. Chino called for surgery for her patient. She actually called for a PET scan and an urgent radiation start.

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

Fantine Giap, MD, sat across from a 21-year-old with a rare sarcoma at the base of her skull. 

Despite the large tumor, nestled in a sensitive area, the Boston-based radiation oncologist could envision a bright future for her patient. 

She and the other members of the patient’s care team had an impressive cancer-fighting arsenal at her fingertips. The team had recommended surgery, followed by proton therapy — a sophisticated tool able to deliver concentrated, razor-focused radiation to the once apple-sized growth, while sparing the fragile brain stem, optic nerve, and spinal cord. 

Surgery went as planned. But as the days and weeks wore on and insurance prior authorization for the proton therapy never came, the tumor roared back, leading to more surgeries and more complications. Ultimately, the young woman needed a tracheostomy and a feeding tube. 

By the time insurance said yes, more than 1 year from her initial visit, the future the team had envisioned seemed out of reach. 

“Unfortunately for this patient, it went from a potentially curable situation to a likely not curable situation,” recalled Dr. Giap, a clinician at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “I wanted to cry every day that she waited.’’ 

While a stark example, such insurance delays are not uncommon, according to new research published in JAMA Network Open.

The study of 206 denials in radiation oncology concluded that more than two-thirds were ultimately approved on appeal without changes, but often these approvals came only after costly delays that potentially compromised patient care.

Other studies have found that number to be even higher, with more than 86% of prior authorization requests ultimately approved with few changes.

‘’It gives you the idea that this entire process might be a little futile — that it’s just wasting people’s time,’’ said Fumiko Chino, MD, coauthor on the JAMA study and now an assistant professor in radiation oncology at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. ‘’The problem is cancer doesn’t wait for bureaucracy.’’
 

Barriers at Every Step

As Dr. Chino and her study coauthors explained, advancements like intensity-modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery have allowed a new generation of specialists to treat previously untreatable cancers in ways that maximize tumor-killing power while minimizing collateral damage. But these tools require sophisticated planning, imaging, simulations and execution — all of which are subject to increased insurance scrutiny.

‘’We face barriers pretty much every step of the way for every patient,’’ said Dr. Chino.

To investigate how such barriers impact care, Dr. Chino and colleagues at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center — where she worked until July — looked at 206 cases in which payers denied prior authorization for radiation therapy from November 1, 2021 to December 8, 2022. 

The team found that 62% were ultimately approved without any change to technique or dose, while 28% were authorized, but with lower doses or less sophisticated techniques. Four people, however, never got authorization at all — three abandoned treatment altogether, and one sought treatment at another institution.

Treatment delays ranged from 1 day to 49 days. Eighty-three patients died.

Would some of them have lived if it weren’t for prior authorization?

Dr. Chino cannot say for sure, but did note that certain cancers, like cervical cancer, can grow so quickly that every day of delayed treatment makes them harder to control. 

Patients with metastatic or late-stage cancers are often denied more aggressive treatments by insurers who, in essence, “assume that they are going to die from their disease anyway,” Dr. Chino said. 

She views this as tragically shortsighted.

‘’There’s actually a strong body of evidence to show that if you treat even metastatic stage IV diseases aggressively, you can prolong not just quality of life but also quantity,’’ she said. 

In cases where the cancer is more localized and insurance mandates lower doses or cheaper techniques, the consequences can be equally heartbreaking.

‘’It’s like saying instead of taking an extra-strength Tylenol you can only have a baby aspirin,’’ she said. ‘’Their pain is less likely to be controlled, their disease is less likely to be controlled, and they are more likely to need retreatment.’’

Prior authorization delays can also significantly stress patients at the most vulnerable point of their lives.

In another recent study, Dr. Chino found that 69% of patients with cancer reported prior authorization-related delays in care, with one-third waiting a month or longer. One in five never got the care their doctors recommended, and 20% reported spending more than 11 hours on the phone haggling with their insurance companies. 

Most patients rated the process as ‘’bad’’ or ‘’horrible,’’ and said it fueled anxiety.

Such delays can be hard on clinicians and the healthcare system too. 

One 2022 study found that a typical academic radiation oncology practice spent about a half-million dollars per year seeking insurance preauthorization. Nationally, that number exceeds $40 million.

Then there is the burnout factor. 

Dr. Giap, an early-career physician who specializes in rare, aggressive sarcomas, works at an institution that helped pioneer proton therapy. She says it pains her to tell a desperate patient, like the 21-year-old, who has traveled to her from out of state that they have to wait. 

‘’Knowing that the majority of the cases are ultimately approved and that this wait is often unnecessary makes it even tougher,’’ she said.

Dr. Chino, a breast cancer specialist, has taken to warning patients before the alarming insurance letter arrives in the mail that their insurance may delay authorizing their care. But she tells patients that she will do everything she can to fight for them and develops a back-up plan to pivot to quickly, if needed.

‘’No one goes into medicine to spend their time talking to insurance companies,’’ said Dr. Chino.

The national trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), did not return repeated requests for an interview for this story. But their official position, as stated on their website, is that “prior authorization is one of many tools health insurance providers use to promote safe, timely, evidence-based, affordable, and efficient care.”

Both Dr. Giap and Dr. Chino believe that prior authorization was developed with good intentions: to save healthcare costs and rein in treatments that don’t necessarily benefit patients. 

But, in their specialty, the burden has proliferated to a point that Dr. Chino characterizes as ‘’unconscionable.’’

She believes that policy changes like the proposed Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act — which would require real-time decisions for procedures that are routinely approved — could go a long way in improving patient care.

Meanwhile, Dr. Giap said, more research and professional guidelines are necessary to bolster insurance company confidence in newer technologies, particularly for rare cancers.

Her patient ultimately got her proton therapy and is ‘’doing relatively well, all things considered.’’

But not all the stories end like this.

Dr. Chino will never forget a patient with a cancer growing so rapidly she could see it protruding through her chest wall. She called for an urgent PET scan to see where else in the body the cancer might be brewing and rushed the planning process for radiation therapy, both of which faced prior authorization barriers. That scan — which ultimately showed the cancer had spread — was delayed for months.*

If the team had had those imaging results upfront, she said, they would have recommended a completely different course of treatment.

And her patient might be alive today.

‘’Unfortunately,” Dr. Chino said, “the people with the very worst prior authorization stories aren’t here anymore to tell you about them.”

*Correction,  10/4/24: An earlier version of this article erroneously stated that Dr. Chino called for surgery for her patient. She actually called for a PET scan and an urgent radiation start.

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

Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years. 

Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.

Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression. 

These antiobesity drugs could even have a place in cancer care.

While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.

The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects. 

The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. 

Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.

“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. 

Why GLP-1s in Cancer?

GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar. 

These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer. 

Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.

In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.

Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.

Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma. 

But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.

Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population. 

Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m² (range, 23-50 kg/m²).

From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy. 

In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer. 

Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population. 

“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.

It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.

Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.

However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound. 

As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk). 

These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.

Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said

Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions. 

Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.

Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer. 

“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”

The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer. 

But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said. 

Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.

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

Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years. 

Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.

Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression. 

These antiobesity drugs could even have a place in cancer care.

While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.

The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects. 

The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. 

Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.

“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. 

Why GLP-1s in Cancer?

GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar. 

These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer. 

Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.

In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.

Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.

Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma. 

But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.

Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population. 

Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m² (range, 23-50 kg/m²).

From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy. 

In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer. 

Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population. 

“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.

It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.

Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.

However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound. 

As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk). 

These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.

Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said

Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions. 

Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.

Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer. 

“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”

The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer. 

But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said. 

Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.

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

Demand for new weight loss drugs has surged over the past few years. 

Led by the antiobesity drugs semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), these popular medications — more commonly known as glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — have become game changers for shedding excess pounds.

Aside from obesity indications, both drugs have been approved to treat type 2 diabetes under different brand names and have a growing list of other potential benefits, such as reducing inflammation and depression. 

These antiobesity drugs could even have a place in cancer care.

While there’s limited data to support the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss in cancer, some oncologists have begun carefully integrating the antiobesity agents into care and studying their effects in this patient population.

The reason: Research suggests that obesity can reduce the effectiveness of cancer therapies, especially in patients with breast cancer, and can increase the risk for treatment-related side effects. 

The idea is that managing patients’ weight will improve their cancer outcomes, explained Lajos Pusztai, MD, PhD, a breast cancer specialist and professor of medicine at Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut. 

Although Dr. Pusztai and his oncology peers at Yale don’t yet use GPL-1 agonists, Neil Iyengar, MD, and colleagues have begun doing so to help some patients with breast cancer manage their weight. Dr. Iyengar estimates that a few hundred — almost 40% — of his patients are on the antiobesity drugs.

“For a patient who has really tried to reduce their weight and who is in the obese range, that’s where I think the use of these medications can be considered,” said Dr. Iyengar, a breast cancer oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. 

Why GLP-1s in Cancer?

GLP-1 is a hormone that the small intestine releases after eating. GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking GLP-1 to trigger the release of insulin and reduce the production of glucagon — two processes that help regulate blood sugar. 

These agents, such as Wegovy (or Ozempic when prescribed for diabetes), also slow gastric emptying and can make people feel fuller longer. 

Zebound (or Mounjaro for type 2 diabetes) is considered a dual GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, which may enhance its weight loss benefits.

In practice, however, these drugs can increase nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, so Dr. Iyengar typically has patients use them afterwards, during maintenance treatment.

Oncologists don’t prescribe the drugs themselves but instead refer patients to endocrinologists or weight management centers that then write the prescriptions. Taking these drugs involves weekly subcutaneous injections patients can administer themselves.

Endocrinologist Emily Gallagher, MD, PhD, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, estimates she has prescribed the antiobesity drugs to a few hundred patients with cancer and, like Dr. Iyengar, uses the drugs during maintenance treatment with hormone therapy for breast cancer. She also has used these agents in patients with prostate and endometrial cancers and has found the drugs can help counter steroid weight gain in multiple myeloma. 

But, to date, the evidence for using GPL-1 agonists in cancer remains limited and the practice has not yet become widespread.

Research largely comes down to a few small retrospective studies in patients with breast cancer receiving aromatase inhibitors. Although no safety issues have emerged so far, these initial reports suggest that the drugs lead to significantly less weight loss in patients with cancer compared to the general population. 

Dr. Iyengar led one recent study, presented at the 2024 annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in which he and his team assessed outcomes in 75 women with breast cancer who received a GLP-1 agonist. Almost 80% of patients had diabetes, and 60% received hormone therapy, most commonly an aromatase inhibitor. Patients’ median body mass index (BMI) at baseline was 34 kg/m² (range, 23-50 kg/m²).

From baseline, patients lost 6.2 kg, on average, or about 5% of their total body weight, 12 months after initiating GLP-1 therapy. 

In contrast, phase 3 trials show much higher mean weight loss — about two times — in patients without cancer. 

Another recent study also reported modest weight loss results in patients with breast cancer undergoing endocrine therapy. The researchers reported that, at 12 months, Wegovy led to 4.34% reduction in BMI, compared with a 14% change reported in the general population. Zebound, however, was associated with a 2.31% BMI increase overall — though some patients did experience a decrease — compared with a 15% reduction in the general population. 

“These findings indicate a substantially reduced weight loss efficacy in breast cancer patients on endocrine therapy compared to the general population,” the authors concluded.

It’s unclear why the drugs appear to not work as well in patients with cancer. It’s possible that hormone therapy or metabolic changes interfere with their effectiveness, given that some cancer therapies lead to weight gain. Steroids and hormone therapies, for instance, often increase appetite, and some treatments can slow patients’ metabolism or lead to fatigue, which can make it harder to exercise.

Patients with cancer may need a higher dose of GLP-1 agonists to achieve similar weight loss to the general population, Dr. Iyengar noted.

However, Dr. Gallagher said, in her own experience, she hasn’t found the drugs to be less effective in patients with cancer, especially the newer agents, like Wegovy and Zepbound. 

As for safety, Wegovy and Zepbound both carry a black box warning for thyroid C-cell tumors, including medullary thyroid carcinoma. (Recent research, however, has found that GLP-1 agonists do not increase thyroid cancer risk). 

These antiobesity agents are also contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma and in patients who have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, which is associated with medullary thyroid carcinoma.

Dr. Gallagher hasn’t seen any secondary tumors — thyroid or otherwise — in her patients with cancer, but she follows the labeling contraindications. Dr. Iyengar also noted that more recent and larger data sets have shown no impact on this risk, which may not actually exist, he said

Dr. Gallagher remains cautious about using GPL-1 agonists in patients who have had bariatric surgery because these agents can compound the slower gastric emptying and intestinal transit from surgery, potentially leading to gastrointestinal obstructions. 

Looking ahead, GPL-1 manufacturers are interested in adding cancer indications to the drug labeling. Both Dr. Iyengar and Dr. Gallagher said their institutions are in talks with companies to participate in large, multicenter, global phase 3 trials.

Dr. Iyengar welcomes the efforts, not only to test the effectiveness of GPL-1 agonists in oncology but also to “nail down” their safety in cancer. 

“I don’t think that there’s mechanistically anything that’s particularly worrisome,” and current observations suggest that these drugs are likely to be safe, Dr. Iyengar said. Even so, “GLP-1 agonists do a lot of things that we don’t fully understand yet.”

The bigger challenge, Dr. Iyengar noted, is that companies will have to show a sizable benefit to using these drugs in patients with cancer to get the Food and Drug Administration’s approval. And to move the needle on cancer-specific outcomes, these antiobesity drugs will need to demonstrate significant, durable weight loss in patients with cancer. 

But if these drugs can do that, “I think it’s going to be one of the biggest advances in medicine and oncology given the obesity and cancer epidemic,” Dr. Iyengar said. 

Dr. Iyengar has adviser and/or researcher ties with companies that make or are developing GPL-1 agonists, including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Gilead, and Pfizer. Dr. Gallagher is a consultant for Novartis, Flare Therapeutics, Reactive Biosciences, and Seagen.

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

TOPLINE:

Medicare Advantage plans had lower adjusted total resource use than traditional Medicare for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, with no difference in 18-month survival between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
• The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
• Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
• Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
• The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
• Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
• There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Medicare Advantage plans had lower adjusted total resource use than traditional Medicare for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, with no difference in 18-month survival between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
• The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
• Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
• Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
• The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
• Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
• There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Medicare Advantage plans had lower adjusted total resource use than traditional Medicare for patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, with no difference in 18-month survival between the two groups.

METHODOLOGY:

• Private Medicare Advantage plans enroll more than half of the Medicare population, but it is unknown if or how the cost restrictions they impose affect chemotherapy, which accounts for a large portion of cancer care costs.
• Researchers conducted a cohort study using national Medicare data from January 2015 to December 2019 to look at Medicare Advantage enrollment and treatment patterns for patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.
• The study included 96,501 Medicare Advantage enrollees and 206,274 traditional Medicare beneficiaries who initiated chemotherapy between January 2016 and December 2019 (mean age, ~73 years; ~56% women; Hispanic individuals, 15% and 8%; Black individuals, 15% and 8%; and White individuals, 75% and 86%, respectively).
• Resource use and care quality were measured during a 6-month period following chemotherapy initiation, and survival days were measured 18 months after beginning chemotherapy.
• Resource use measures included hospital inpatient services, outpatient care, prescription drugs, hospice services, and chemotherapy services. Quality measures included chemotherapy-related emergency visits and hospital admissions, as well as avoidable emergency visits and preventable hospitalizations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Medicare Advantage plans had lower resource use than traditional Medicare per enrollee with cancer undergoing chemotherapy ($8718 lower; 95% CI, $8343-$9094).
• The lower resource use was largely caused by fewer chemotherapy visits and less expensive chemotherapy per visit in Medicare Advantage plans ($5032 lower; 95% CI, $4772-$5293).
• Medicare Advantage enrollees had 2.5 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related emergency department visits and 0.7 percentage points fewer chemotherapy-related hospitalizations than traditional Medicare beneficiaries.
• There was no clinically meaningful difference in survival between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare beneficiaries during the 18 months following chemotherapy initiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our new finding is that MA [Medicare Advantage] plans had lower resource use than TM [traditional Medicare] among enrollees with cancer undergoing chemotherapy — a serious condition managed by specialists and requiring expensive treatments. This suggests that MA’s cost advantages over TM are not limited to conditions for which low-cost primary care management can avoid costly services,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yamini Kalidindi, PhD, McDermott+ Consulting, Washington, DC. It was published online on September 20, 2024, in JAMA Network Open (doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34707), with a commentary.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings may be affected by unobserved patient characteristics despite the use of inverse-probability weighting. The exclusion of Medicare Advantage enrollees in contracts with incomplete encounter data limits the generalizability of the results. The study does not apply to beneficiaries without Part D drug coverage. Quality measures were limited to those available from claims and encounter data, lacking information on patients’ cancer stage. The 18-month measure of survival might not adequately capture survival differences associated with early-stage cancers. The study did not measure whether patient care followed recommended guidelines.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, The Commonwealth Fund, Arnold Ventures, the National Cancer Institute, the Department of Defense, and the National Institute of Health Care Management. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

Despite the “remarkable progress” in cancer research and care, cancer remains “an ongoing public health challenge,” which requires significant attention and funding, according to the Cancer Progress Report 2024 from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The AACR’s 216-page report — an annual endeavor now in its 14th year — focused on the “tremendous” strides made in cancer care, prevention, and early detection and highlighted areas where more research and attention are warranted. 

One key area is funding. For the first time since 2016, federal funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) decreased in the past year. The cuts followed nearly a decade of funding increases that saw the NIH budget expand by nearly $15 billion, and that allowed for a “rapid pace and broad scope” of advances in cancer, AACR’s chief executive officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said during a press briefing.

These recent cuts “threaten to curtail the medical progress seen in recent years and stymie future advancements,” said Dr. Foti, who called on Congress to commit to funding cancer research at significant and consistent levels to “maintain the momentum of progress against cancer.”
 

Inside the Report: Big Progress

Overall, advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment have helped catch more cancers earlier and save lives. 

According to the AACR report, the age-adjusted overall cancer death rate in the United States fell by 33% between 1991 and 2021, meaning about 4.1 million cancer deaths were averted. The overall cancer death rate for children and adolescents has declined by 24% in the past 2 decades. The 5-year relative survival rate for children diagnosed with cancer in the US has improved from 58% for those diagnosed in the mid-1970s to 85% for those diagnosed between 2013 and 2019.

The past fiscal year has seen many new approvals for cancer drugs, diagnostics, and screening tests. From July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 15 new anticancer therapeutics, as well as 15 new indications for previously approved agents, one new imaging agent, several artificial intelligence (AI) tools to improve early cancer detection and diagnosis, and two minimally invasive tests for assessing inherited cancer risk or early cancer detection, according to the report.

“Cancer diagnostics are becoming more sophisticated,” AACR president Patricia M. LoRusso, DO, PhD, said during the briefing. “New technologies, such as spatial transcriptomics, are helping us study tumors at a cellular level, and helping to unveil things that we did not initially even begin to understand or think of. AI-based approaches are beginning to transform cancer detection, diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and treatment response monitoring.” 

The report also highlights the significant progress in many childhood and adolescent/young adult cancers, Dr. LoRusso noted. These include FDA approvals for two new molecularly targeted therapeutics: tovorafenib for children with certain types of brain tumor and repotrectinib for children with a wide array of cancer types that have a specific genetic alteration known as NTRK gene fusion. It also includes an expanded approval for eflornithine to reduce the risk for relapse in children with high-risk neuroblastoma.

“Decades — decades — of basic research discoveries, have led to these clinical breakthroughs,” she stressed. “These gains against cancer are because of the rapid progress in our ability to decode the cancer genome, which has opened new and innovative avenues for drug development.”
 

The Gaps

Even with progress in cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment, cancer remains a significant issue.

“In 2024, it is estimated that more than 2 million new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in the United States. More than 611,000 people will die from the disease,” according to the report.

The 2024 report shows that incidence rates for some cancers are increasing in the United States, including vaccine-preventable cancers such as human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated oral cancers and, in young adults, cervical cancers. A recent analysis also found that overall cervical cancer incidence among women aged 30-34 years increased by 2.5% a year between 2012 and 2019.

Furthermore, despite clear evidence demonstrating that the HPV vaccine reduces cervical cancer incidence, uptake has remained poor, with only 38.6% of US children and adolescents aged 9-17 years receiving at least one dose of the vaccine in 2022.

Early-onset cancers are also increasing. Rates of breast, colorectal, and other cancers are on the rise in adults younger than 50 years, the report noted.

The report also pointed to data that 40% of all cancer cases in the United States can be attributed to preventable factors, such as smoking, excess body weight, and alcohol. However, our understanding of these risk factors has improved. Excessive levels of alcohol consumption have, for instance, been shown to increase the risk for six different types of cancer: certain types of head and neck cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and breast, colorectal, liver, and stomach cancers.

Financial toxicity remains prevalent as well.

The report explains that financial hardship following a cancer diagnosis is widespread, and the effects can last for years. In fact, more than 40% of patients can spend their entire life savings within the first 2 years of cancer treatment. Among adult survivors of childhood cancers, 20.7% had trouble paying their medical bills, 29.9% said they had been sent to debt collection for unpaid bills, 14.1% had forgone medical care, and 26.8% could not afford nutritious meals.

For young cancer survivors, the lifetime costs associated with a diagnosis of cancer are substantial, reaching an average of $259,324 per person.

On a global level, it is estimated that from 2020 to 2050, the cumulative economic burden of cancer will be $25.2 trillion.
 

The Path Forward

Despite these challenges, Dr. LoRusso said, “it is unquestionable that we are in a time of unparalleled opportunities in cancer research.

“I am excited about what the future holds for cancer research, and especially for patient care,” she said. 

However, funding commitments are needed to avoid impeding this momentum and losing a “talented and creative young workforce” that has brought new ideas and new technologies to the table.

Continued robust funding will help “to markedly improve cancer care, increase cancer survivorship, spur economic growth, and maintain the United States’ position as the global leader in science and medical research,” she added.

The AACR report specifically calls on Congress to:

• Appropriate at least $51.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the base budget of the NIH and at least $7.934 billion for the NCI.
• Provide $3.6 billion in dedicated funding for Cancer Moonshot activities through fiscal year 2026 in addition to other funding, consistent with the President’s fiscal year 2025 budget.
• Appropriate at least $472.4 million in fiscal year 2025 for the CDC’s Division of Cancer Prevention to support comprehensive cancer control, central cancer registries, and screening and awareness programs for specific cancers.
• Allocate $55 million in funding for the Oncology Center of Excellence at FDA in fiscal year 2025 to provide regulators with the staff and tools necessary to conduct expedited review of cancer-related medical products.

By working together with Congress and other stakeholders, “we will be able to accelerate the pace of progress and make major strides toward the lifesaving goal of preventing and curing all cancers at the earliest possible time,” Dr. Foti said. “I believe if we do that ... one day we will win this war on cancer.”

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

To the Editor:

Histopathologic analysis of debulk specimens in Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) may augment identification of high-risk factors in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), which may warrant tumor upstaging.¹ Intratumor location has not been studied when looking at these high-risk factors. Herein, we report 4 cSCCs initially categorized as well differentiated that were reclassified as moderate to poorly differentiated on analysis of debulk specimens obtained via shave removal.

An 80-year-old man (patient 1) presented with a tender 2-cm erythematous plaque with dried hemorrhagic crusting on the frontal scalp. He had a history of nonmelanoma skin cancers. A biopsy revealed a ­well-differentiated cSCC, which was upgraded from a T2a tumor to T2b during MMS due to galea involvement. Debulk analysis revealed moderate to poorly differentiated cSCC, with the least-differentiated cells at the deep margin (Figure 1A). Given T2b staging, baseline imaging and radiation therapy were recommended.

To the Editor:

Histopathologic analysis of debulk specimens in Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) may augment identification of high-risk factors in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), which may warrant tumor upstaging.¹ Intratumor location has not been studied when looking at these high-risk factors. Herein, we report 4 cSCCs initially categorized as well differentiated that were reclassified as moderate to poorly differentiated on analysis of debulk specimens obtained via shave removal.

An 80-year-old man (patient 1) presented with a tender 2-cm erythematous plaque with dried hemorrhagic crusting on the frontal scalp. He had a history of nonmelanoma skin cancers. A biopsy revealed a ­well-differentiated cSCC, which was upgraded from a T2a tumor to T2b during MMS due to galea involvement. Debulk analysis revealed moderate to poorly differentiated cSCC, with the least-differentiated cells at the deep margin (Figure 1A). Given T2b staging, baseline imaging and radiation therapy were recommended.

To the Editor:

Histopathologic analysis of debulk specimens in Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) may augment identification of high-risk factors in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), which may warrant tumor upstaging.¹ Intratumor location has not been studied when looking at these high-risk factors. Herein, we report 4 cSCCs initially categorized as well differentiated that were reclassified as moderate to poorly differentiated on analysis of debulk specimens obtained via shave removal.

An 80-year-old man (patient 1) presented with a tender 2-cm erythematous plaque with dried hemorrhagic crusting on the frontal scalp. He had a history of nonmelanoma skin cancers. A biopsy revealed a ­well-differentiated cSCC, which was upgraded from a T2a tumor to T2b during MMS due to galea involvement. Debulk analysis revealed moderate to poorly differentiated cSCC, with the least-differentiated cells at the deep margin (Figure 1A). Given T2b staging, baseline imaging and radiation therapy were recommended.

To the Editor:

Mutations of the BRAF protein kinase gene are implicated in a variety of malignancies.¹BRAF mutations in malignancies cause the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway to become constitutively active, which results in unchecked cellular proliferation,^2,3 making the BRAF mutation an attractive target for inhibition with pharmacologic agents to potentially halt cancer growth.⁴ Vemurafenib—the first selective BRAF inhibitor used in clinical practice—initially was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2011. The approval of dabrafenib followed in 2013 and most recently encorafenib in 2018.⁵

Although targeted treatment of BRAF-mutated malignancies with BRAF inhibitors has become common, it often is associated with cutaneous adverse events (AEs), such as rash, pruritus, photosensitivity, actinic keratosis, and verrucous keratosis. Some reports demonstrate these events in up to 95% of patients undergoing BRAF inhibitor treatment.⁶ In several cases the eruption of verrucous keratoses is among the most common cutaneous AEs seen among patients receiving BRAF inhibitor treatment.^5-7

In general, lesions can appear days to months after therapy is initiated and may resolve after switching to dual therapy with a MEK inhibitor or with complete cessation of BRAF inhibitor therapy.^5,7,8 One case of spontaneous resolution of vemurafenib-associated panniculitis during ongoing BRAF inhibitor therapy has been reported⁹; however, spontaneous resolution of cutaneous AEs is uncommon. Herein, we describe verrucous keratoses in a patient undergoing treatment with encorafenib that resolved spontaneously despite ongoing BRAF inhibitor therapy.

A 61-year-old woman presented to the emergency department with pain in the right lower quadrant. Computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis revealed a large ovarian mass. Subsequent bloodwork revealed elevated carcinoembryonic antigen levels. The patient underwent a hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, omentectomy, right hemicolectomy with ileotransverse side-to-side anastomosis, right pelvic lymph node reduction, and complete cytoreduction. Histopathology revealed an adenocarcinoma of the cecum with tumor invasion into the visceral peritoneum and metastases to the left ovary, fallopian tube, and omentum. A BRAF V600E mutation was detected.

Two months after the initial presentation, the patient started her first cycle of chemotherapy with a combination of folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin. She completed 11 cycles of this regimen, then was switched to capecitabine and oxaliplatin for an additional 2 cycles due to insurance concerns. At the end of treatment, there was no evidence of disease on CT, thus the patient was followed with observation. However, she presented 10 months later to the emergency department with abdominal pain, and CT revealed new lesions in the liver that were concerning for potential metastases. She started oral encorafenib 300 mg/d and intravenous cetuximab 500 mg weekly; after 1 week, encorafenib was reduced to 150 mg/d due to nausea and loss of appetite. Within 2 weeks of starting treatment, the patient reported the relatively abrupt appearance of more than 50 small papules across the shoulders and back (Figure 1A). She was referred to dermatology, and shave biopsies of 2 lesions—one from the left anterior thigh, the other from the right posterior shoulder—revealed verrucous keratosis pathology (Figure 2). At this time, encorafenib was increased again to 300 mg/d as the patient had been tolerating the reduced dose. She continued to report the appearance of new lesions for the next 3 months, after which the lesions were stable for approximately 2 months. By 2.5 months after initiation of therapy, the patient had ­undergone CT demonstrating resolution of the liver lesions. At 5 months of therapy, the patient reported a stable to slightly reduced number of skin lesions but had begun to experience worsening joint pain, and the dosage of encorafenib was reduced to 225 mg/d. At 7 months of therapy, the dosage was further reduced to 150 mg/d due to persistent arthralgia. A follow-up examination at 10 months of therapy showed improvement in the number and size of the verrucous keratoses, and near resolution was seen by 14 months after the initial onset of the lesions (Figure 1B). At 20 months after initial onset, only 1 remaining verrucous keratosis was identified on physical examination and biopsy. The patient had continued a regimen of encorafenib 150 mg/d and weekly intravenous 500 mg cetuximab up to this point. Over the entire time period that the patient was seen, up to 12 lesions located in high-friction areas had become irritated and were treated with cryotherapy, but this contributed only minorly to the patient’s overall presentation.

To the Editor:

Mutations of the BRAF protein kinase gene are implicated in a variety of malignancies.¹BRAF mutations in malignancies cause the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway to become constitutively active, which results in unchecked cellular proliferation,^2,3 making the BRAF mutation an attractive target for inhibition with pharmacologic agents to potentially halt cancer growth.⁴ Vemurafenib—the first selective BRAF inhibitor used in clinical practice—initially was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2011. The approval of dabrafenib followed in 2013 and most recently encorafenib in 2018.⁵

Although targeted treatment of BRAF-mutated malignancies with BRAF inhibitors has become common, it often is associated with cutaneous adverse events (AEs), such as rash, pruritus, photosensitivity, actinic keratosis, and verrucous keratosis. Some reports demonstrate these events in up to 95% of patients undergoing BRAF inhibitor treatment.⁶ In several cases the eruption of verrucous keratoses is among the most common cutaneous AEs seen among patients receiving BRAF inhibitor treatment.^5-7

In general, lesions can appear days to months after therapy is initiated and may resolve after switching to dual therapy with a MEK inhibitor or with complete cessation of BRAF inhibitor therapy.^5,7,8 One case of spontaneous resolution of vemurafenib-associated panniculitis during ongoing BRAF inhibitor therapy has been reported⁹; however, spontaneous resolution of cutaneous AEs is uncommon. Herein, we describe verrucous keratoses in a patient undergoing treatment with encorafenib that resolved spontaneously despite ongoing BRAF inhibitor therapy.

A 61-year-old woman presented to the emergency department with pain in the right lower quadrant. Computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis revealed a large ovarian mass. Subsequent bloodwork revealed elevated carcinoembryonic antigen levels. The patient underwent a hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, omentectomy, right hemicolectomy with ileotransverse side-to-side anastomosis, right pelvic lymph node reduction, and complete cytoreduction. Histopathology revealed an adenocarcinoma of the cecum with tumor invasion into the visceral peritoneum and metastases to the left ovary, fallopian tube, and omentum. A BRAF V600E mutation was detected.

Two months after the initial presentation, the patient started her first cycle of chemotherapy with a combination of folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin. She completed 11 cycles of this regimen, then was switched to capecitabine and oxaliplatin for an additional 2 cycles due to insurance concerns. At the end of treatment, there was no evidence of disease on CT, thus the patient was followed with observation. However, she presented 10 months later to the emergency department with abdominal pain, and CT revealed new lesions in the liver that were concerning for potential metastases. She started oral encorafenib 300 mg/d and intravenous cetuximab 500 mg weekly; after 1 week, encorafenib was reduced to 150 mg/d due to nausea and loss of appetite. Within 2 weeks of starting treatment, the patient reported the relatively abrupt appearance of more than 50 small papules across the shoulders and back (Figure 1A). She was referred to dermatology, and shave biopsies of 2 lesions—one from the left anterior thigh, the other from the right posterior shoulder—revealed verrucous keratosis pathology (Figure 2). At this time, encorafenib was increased again to 300 mg/d as the patient had been tolerating the reduced dose. She continued to report the appearance of new lesions for the next 3 months, after which the lesions were stable for approximately 2 months. By 2.5 months after initiation of therapy, the patient had ­undergone CT demonstrating resolution of the liver lesions. At 5 months of therapy, the patient reported a stable to slightly reduced number of skin lesions but had begun to experience worsening joint pain, and the dosage of encorafenib was reduced to 225 mg/d. At 7 months of therapy, the dosage was further reduced to 150 mg/d due to persistent arthralgia. A follow-up examination at 10 months of therapy showed improvement in the number and size of the verrucous keratoses, and near resolution was seen by 14 months after the initial onset of the lesions (Figure 1B). At 20 months after initial onset, only 1 remaining verrucous keratosis was identified on physical examination and biopsy. The patient had continued a regimen of encorafenib 150 mg/d and weekly intravenous 500 mg cetuximab up to this point. Over the entire time period that the patient was seen, up to 12 lesions located in high-friction areas had become irritated and were treated with cryotherapy, but this contributed only minorly to the patient’s overall presentation.

To the Editor:

Mutations of the BRAF protein kinase gene are implicated in a variety of malignancies.¹BRAF mutations in malignancies cause the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway to become constitutively active, which results in unchecked cellular proliferation,^2,3 making the BRAF mutation an attractive target for inhibition with pharmacologic agents to potentially halt cancer growth.⁴ Vemurafenib—the first selective BRAF inhibitor used in clinical practice—initially was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2011. The approval of dabrafenib followed in 2013 and most recently encorafenib in 2018.⁵

Although targeted treatment of BRAF-mutated malignancies with BRAF inhibitors has become common, it often is associated with cutaneous adverse events (AEs), such as rash, pruritus, photosensitivity, actinic keratosis, and verrucous keratosis. Some reports demonstrate these events in up to 95% of patients undergoing BRAF inhibitor treatment.⁶ In several cases the eruption of verrucous keratoses is among the most common cutaneous AEs seen among patients receiving BRAF inhibitor treatment.^5-7

In general, lesions can appear days to months after therapy is initiated and may resolve after switching to dual therapy with a MEK inhibitor or with complete cessation of BRAF inhibitor therapy.^5,7,8 One case of spontaneous resolution of vemurafenib-associated panniculitis during ongoing BRAF inhibitor therapy has been reported⁹; however, spontaneous resolution of cutaneous AEs is uncommon. Herein, we describe verrucous keratoses in a patient undergoing treatment with encorafenib that resolved spontaneously despite ongoing BRAF inhibitor therapy.

A 61-year-old woman presented to the emergency department with pain in the right lower quadrant. Computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis revealed a large ovarian mass. Subsequent bloodwork revealed elevated carcinoembryonic antigen levels. The patient underwent a hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, omentectomy, right hemicolectomy with ileotransverse side-to-side anastomosis, right pelvic lymph node reduction, and complete cytoreduction. Histopathology revealed an adenocarcinoma of the cecum with tumor invasion into the visceral peritoneum and metastases to the left ovary, fallopian tube, and omentum. A BRAF V600E mutation was detected.

Two months after the initial presentation, the patient started her first cycle of chemotherapy with a combination of folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin. She completed 11 cycles of this regimen, then was switched to capecitabine and oxaliplatin for an additional 2 cycles due to insurance concerns. At the end of treatment, there was no evidence of disease on CT, thus the patient was followed with observation. However, she presented 10 months later to the emergency department with abdominal pain, and CT revealed new lesions in the liver that were concerning for potential metastases. She started oral encorafenib 300 mg/d and intravenous cetuximab 500 mg weekly; after 1 week, encorafenib was reduced to 150 mg/d due to nausea and loss of appetite. Within 2 weeks of starting treatment, the patient reported the relatively abrupt appearance of more than 50 small papules across the shoulders and back (Figure 1A). She was referred to dermatology, and shave biopsies of 2 lesions—one from the left anterior thigh, the other from the right posterior shoulder—revealed verrucous keratosis pathology (Figure 2). At this time, encorafenib was increased again to 300 mg/d as the patient had been tolerating the reduced dose. She continued to report the appearance of new lesions for the next 3 months, after which the lesions were stable for approximately 2 months. By 2.5 months after initiation of therapy, the patient had ­undergone CT demonstrating resolution of the liver lesions. At 5 months of therapy, the patient reported a stable to slightly reduced number of skin lesions but had begun to experience worsening joint pain, and the dosage of encorafenib was reduced to 225 mg/d. At 7 months of therapy, the dosage was further reduced to 150 mg/d due to persistent arthralgia. A follow-up examination at 10 months of therapy showed improvement in the number and size of the verrucous keratoses, and near resolution was seen by 14 months after the initial onset of the lesions (Figure 1B). At 20 months after initial onset, only 1 remaining verrucous keratosis was identified on physical examination and biopsy. The patient had continued a regimen of encorafenib 150 mg/d and weekly intravenous 500 mg cetuximab up to this point. Over the entire time period that the patient was seen, up to 12 lesions located in high-friction areas had become irritated and were treated with cryotherapy, but this contributed only minorly to the patient’s overall presentation.

Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.

Pesticide exposure has been associated with cancers such as colorectal cancer, lung cancer, leukemia (in children and adults), lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer. But these studies primarily have focused on specific groups of individuals with known exposure to certain pesticides or cancer types, thus offering a limited perspective.

A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.

A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
 

Calculating Cancer Risk

Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:

• Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
• Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
• Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019

Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.

The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
 

Midwest Most Affected

While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.

The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
 

Pesticides vs Smoking

The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.

The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.

This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
 

Expanding Scope of Research

Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.

The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.

Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
 

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

Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.

Pesticide exposure has been associated with cancers such as colorectal cancer, lung cancer, leukemia (in children and adults), lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer. But these studies primarily have focused on specific groups of individuals with known exposure to certain pesticides or cancer types, thus offering a limited perspective.

A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.

A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
 

Calculating Cancer Risk

Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:

• Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
• Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
• Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019

Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.

The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
 

Midwest Most Affected

While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.

The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
 

Pesticides vs Smoking

The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.

The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.

This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
 

Expanding Scope of Research

Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.

The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.

Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
 

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

Pesticides have transformed modern agriculture by boosting production yields and helping alleviate food insecurity amid rapid global population growth. However, from a public health perspective, exposure to pesticides has been linked to numerous harmful effects, including neurologic disorders like Parkinson’s disease, weakened immune function, and an increased risk for cancer.

Pesticide exposure has been associated with cancers such as colorectal cancer, lung cancer, leukemia (in children and adults), lymphoma, and pancreatic cancer. But these studies primarily have focused on specific groups of individuals with known exposure to certain pesticides or cancer types, thus offering a limited perspective.

A comprehensive assessment of how pesticide use affects cancer risk across a broader population has yet to be conducted.

A recent population-level study aimed to address this gap by evaluating cancer risks in the US population using a model that accounts for pesticide use and adjusts for various factors. The goal was to identify regional disparities in exposure and contribute to the development of public health policies that protect populations from potential harm.
 

Calculating Cancer Risk

Researchers developed a model using several data sources to estimate the additional cancer risk from agricultural pesticide use. Key data included:

• Pesticide use data from the US Geological Survey in 2019, which covered 69 agricultural pesticides across 3143 counties
• Cancer incidence rates per 100,000 people, which were collected between 2015 and 2019 by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; these data covered various cancers, including bladder, colorectal, leukemia, lung, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and pancreatic cancers
• Covariates, including smoking prevalence, the Social Vulnerability Index, agricultural land use, and total US population in 2019

Pesticide use profile patterns were developed using latent class analysis, a statistical method used to identify homogeneous subgroups within a heterogeneous population. A generalized linear model then estimated how these pesticide use patterns and the covariates affected cancer incidence.

The model highlighted regions with the highest and lowest “additional” cancer risks linked to pesticide exposure, calculating the estimated increase in cancer cases per year that resulted from variations in agricultural pesticide use.
 

Midwest Most Affected

While this model doesn’t establish causality or assess individual risk, it reveals regional trends in the association between pesticide use patterns and cancer incidence from a population-based perspective.

The Midwest, known for its high corn production, emerged as the region most affected by pesticide use. Compared with regions with the lowest risk, the Midwest faced an additional 154,541 cancer cases annually across all types. For colorectal and pancreatic cancers, the yearly increases were 20,927 and 3835 cases, respectively. Similar trends were observed for leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
 

Pesticides vs Smoking

The researchers also estimated the additional cancer risk related to smoking, using the same model. They found that pesticides contributed to a higher risk for cancer than smoking in several cases.

The most significant difference was observed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, where pesticides were linked to 154.1% more cases than smoking. For all cancers combined, as well as bladder cancer and leukemia, the increases were moderate: 18.7%, 19.3%, and 21.0%, respectively.

This result highlights the importance of considering pesticide exposure alongside smoking when studying cancer risks.
 

Expanding Scope of Research

Some limitations of this study should be noted. Certain counties lacked complete data, and there was heterogeneity in the size and population of the counties studied. The research also did not account for seasonal and migrant workers, who are likely to be heavily exposed. In addition, the data used in the study were not independently validated, and they could not be used to assess individual risk.

The effect of pesticides on human health is a vast and critical field of research, often focusing on a limited range of pesticides or specific cancers. This study stands out by taking a broader, more holistic approach, aiming to highlight regional inequalities and identify less-studied pesticides that could be future research priorities.

Given the significant public health impact, the authors encouraged the authorities to share these findings with the most vulnerable communities to raise awareness.
 

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

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and mosaic chromosomal alterations (mCAs) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, and CHIP is associated with increased mortality in patients with colon cancer, according to the authors of new research.

These findings, drawn from almost 11,000 patients in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, add further evidence that CHIP and mCA drive solid tumor risk, alongside known associations with hematologic malignancies, reported lead author Pinkal Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine and clinical director of molecular aging at Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and colleagues.
 

How This Study Differs From Others of Breast Cancer Risk Factors

“The independent effect of CHIP and mCA on risk and mortality from solid tumors has not been elucidated due to lack of detailed data on mortality outcomes and risk factors,” the investigators wrote in Cancer, although some previous studies have suggested a link.

In particular, the investigators highlighted a 2022 UK Biobank study, which reported an association between CHIP and lung cancer and a borderline association with breast cancer that did not quite reach statistical significance.

But the UK Biobank study was confined to a UK population, Dr. Desai noted in an interview, and the data were less detailed than those in the present investigation.

“In terms of risk, the part that was lacking in previous studies was a comprehensive assessment of risk factors that increase risk for all these cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “For example, for breast cancer, we had very detailed data on [participants’] Gail risk score, which is known to impact breast cancer risk. We also had mammogram data and colonoscopy data.”

In an accompanying editorial, Koichi Takahashi, MD, PhD , and Nehali Shah, BS, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, pointed out the same UK Biobank findings, then noted that CHIP has also been linked with worse overall survival in unselected cancer patients. Still, they wrote, “the impact of CH on cancer risk and mortality remains controversial due to conflicting data and context‐dependent effects,” necessitating studies like this one by Dr. Desai and colleagues.
 

How Was the Relationship Between CHIP, MCA, and Solid Tumor Risk Assessed?

To explore possible associations between CHIP, mCA, and solid tumors, the investigators analyzed whole genome sequencing data from 10,866 women in the WHI, a multi-study program that began in 1992 and involved 161,808 women in both observational and clinical trial cohorts.

In 2002, the first big data release from the WHI suggested that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increased breast cancer risk, leading to widespread reduction in HRT use.

More recent reports continue to shape our understanding of these risks, suggesting differences across cancer types. For breast cancer, the WHI data suggested that HRT-associated risk was largely driven by formulations involving progesterone and estrogen, whereas estrogen-only formulations, now more common, are generally considered to present an acceptable risk profile for suitable patients.

The new study accounted for this potential HRT-associated risk, including by adjusting for patients who received HRT, type of HRT received, and duration of HRT received. According to Desai, this approach is commonly used when analyzing data from the WHI, nullifying concerns about the potentially deleterious effects of the hormones used in the study.

“Our question was not ‘does HRT cause cancer?’ ” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “But HRT can be linked to breast cancer risk and has a potential to be a confounder, and hence the above methodology.

“So I can say that the confounding/effect modification that HRT would have contributed to in the relationship between exposure (CH and mCA) and outcome (cancer) is well adjusted for as described above. This is standard in WHI analyses,” she continued.

“Every Women’s Health Initiative analysis that comes out — not just for our study — uses a standard method ... where you account for hormonal therapy,” Dr. Desai added, again noting that many other potential risk factors were considered, enabling a “detailed, robust” analysis.

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah agreed. “A notable strength of this study is its adjustment for many confounding factors,” they wrote. “The cohort’s well‐annotated data on other known cancer risk factors allowed for a robust assessment of CH’s independent risk.”
 

How Do Findings Compare With Those of the UK Biobank Study?

CHIP was associated with a 30% increased risk for breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.64; P = .02), strengthening the borderline association reported by the UK Biobank study.

In contrast with the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with lung cancer risk, although this may have been caused by fewer cases of lung cancer and a lack of male patients, Dr. Desai suggested.

“The discrepancy between the studies lies in the risk of lung cancer, although the point estimate in the current study suggested a positive association,” wrote Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah.

As in the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Mortality analysis, however, which was not conducted in the UK Biobank study, offered a new insight: Patients with existing colorectal cancer and CHIP had a significantly higher mortality risk than those without CHIP. Before stage adjustment, risk for mortality among those with colorectal cancer and CHIP was fourfold higher than those without CHIP (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.41-6.62; P < .001). After stage adjustment, CHIP was still associated with a twofold higher mortality risk (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.32-4.72; P = .004).

The investigators’ first mCA analyses, which employed a cell fraction cutoff greater than 3%, were unfruitful. But raising the cell fraction threshold to 5% in an exploratory analysis showed that autosomal mCA was associated with a 39% increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83; P = .01). No such associations were found between mCA and colorectal or lung cancer, regardless of cell fraction threshold.

The original 3% cell fraction threshold was selected on the basis of previous studies reporting a link between mCA and hematologic malignancies at this cutoff, Dr. Desai said.

She and her colleagues said a higher 5% cutoff might be needed, as they suspected that the link between mCA and solid tumors may not be causal, requiring a higher mutation rate.
 

Why Do Results Differ Between These Types of Studies?

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah suggested that one possible limitation of the new study, and an obstacle to comparing results with the UK Biobank study and others like it, goes beyond population heterogeneity; incongruent findings could also be explained by differences in whole genome sequencing (WGS) technique.

“Although WGS allows sensitive detection of mCA through broad genomic coverage, it is less effective at detecting CHIP with low variant allele frequency (VAF) due to its relatively shallow depth (30x),” they wrote. “Consequently, the prevalence of mCA (18.8%) was much higher than that of CHIP (8.3%) in this cohort, contrasting with other studies using deeper sequencing.” As a result, the present study may have underestimated CHIP prevalence because of shallow sequencing depth.

“This inconsistency is a common challenge in CH population studies due to the lack of standardized methodologies and the frequent reliance on preexisting data not originally intended for CH detection,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said.

Even so, despite the “heavily context-dependent” nature of these reported risks, the body of evidence to date now offers a convincing biological rationale linking CH with cancer development and outcomes, they added.
 

How Do the CHIP- and mCA-associated Risks Differ Between Solid Tumors and Blood Cancers?

“[These solid tumor risks are] not causal in the way CHIP mutations are causal for blood cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “Here we are talking about solid tumor risk, and it’s kind of scattered. It’s not just breast cancer ... there’s also increased colon cancer mortality. So I feel these mutations are doing something different ... they are sort of an added factor.”

Specific mechanisms remain unclear, Dr. Desai said, although she speculated about possible impacts on the inflammatory state or alterations to the tumor microenvironment.

“These are blood cells, right?” Dr. Desai asked. “They’re everywhere, and they’re changing something inherently in these tumors.”
 

Future research and therapeutic development

Siddhartha Jaiswal, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University in California, whose lab focuses on clonal hematopoiesis, said the causality question is central to future research.

“The key question is, are these mutations acting because they alter the function of blood cells in some way to promote cancer risk, or is it reflective of some sort of shared etiology that’s not causal?” Dr. Jaiswal said in an interview.

Available data support both possibilities.

On one side, “reasonable evidence” supports the noncausal view, Dr. Jaiswal noted, because telomere length is one of the most common genetic risk factors for clonal hematopoiesis and also for solid tumors, suggesting a shared genetic factor. On the other hand, CHIP and mCA could be directly protumorigenic via conferred disturbances of immune cell function.

When asked if both causal and noncausal factors could be at play, Dr. Jaiswal said, “yeah, absolutely.”

The presence of a causal association could be promising from a therapeutic standpoint.

“If it turns out that this association is driven by a direct causal effect of the mutations, perhaps related to immune cell function or dysfunction, then targeting that dysfunction could be a therapeutic path to improve outcomes in people, and there’s a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Jaiswal said. He went on to explain how a trial exploring this approach via interleukin-8 inhibition in lung cancer fell short.

Yet earlier intervention may still hold promise, according to experts.

“[This study] provokes the hypothesis that CH‐targeted interventions could potentially reduce cancer risk in the future,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said in their editorial.

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Celgene, and others. Dr. Jaiswal reported stock equity in a company that has an interest in clonal hematopoiesis.

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

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and mosaic chromosomal alterations (mCAs) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, and CHIP is associated with increased mortality in patients with colon cancer, according to the authors of new research.

These findings, drawn from almost 11,000 patients in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, add further evidence that CHIP and mCA drive solid tumor risk, alongside known associations with hematologic malignancies, reported lead author Pinkal Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine and clinical director of molecular aging at Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and colleagues.
 

How This Study Differs From Others of Breast Cancer Risk Factors

“The independent effect of CHIP and mCA on risk and mortality from solid tumors has not been elucidated due to lack of detailed data on mortality outcomes and risk factors,” the investigators wrote in Cancer, although some previous studies have suggested a link.

In particular, the investigators highlighted a 2022 UK Biobank study, which reported an association between CHIP and lung cancer and a borderline association with breast cancer that did not quite reach statistical significance.

But the UK Biobank study was confined to a UK population, Dr. Desai noted in an interview, and the data were less detailed than those in the present investigation.

“In terms of risk, the part that was lacking in previous studies was a comprehensive assessment of risk factors that increase risk for all these cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “For example, for breast cancer, we had very detailed data on [participants’] Gail risk score, which is known to impact breast cancer risk. We also had mammogram data and colonoscopy data.”

In an accompanying editorial, Koichi Takahashi, MD, PhD , and Nehali Shah, BS, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, pointed out the same UK Biobank findings, then noted that CHIP has also been linked with worse overall survival in unselected cancer patients. Still, they wrote, “the impact of CH on cancer risk and mortality remains controversial due to conflicting data and context‐dependent effects,” necessitating studies like this one by Dr. Desai and colleagues.
 

How Was the Relationship Between CHIP, MCA, and Solid Tumor Risk Assessed?

To explore possible associations between CHIP, mCA, and solid tumors, the investigators analyzed whole genome sequencing data from 10,866 women in the WHI, a multi-study program that began in 1992 and involved 161,808 women in both observational and clinical trial cohorts.

In 2002, the first big data release from the WHI suggested that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increased breast cancer risk, leading to widespread reduction in HRT use.

More recent reports continue to shape our understanding of these risks, suggesting differences across cancer types. For breast cancer, the WHI data suggested that HRT-associated risk was largely driven by formulations involving progesterone and estrogen, whereas estrogen-only formulations, now more common, are generally considered to present an acceptable risk profile for suitable patients.

The new study accounted for this potential HRT-associated risk, including by adjusting for patients who received HRT, type of HRT received, and duration of HRT received. According to Desai, this approach is commonly used when analyzing data from the WHI, nullifying concerns about the potentially deleterious effects of the hormones used in the study.

“Our question was not ‘does HRT cause cancer?’ ” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “But HRT can be linked to breast cancer risk and has a potential to be a confounder, and hence the above methodology.

“So I can say that the confounding/effect modification that HRT would have contributed to in the relationship between exposure (CH and mCA) and outcome (cancer) is well adjusted for as described above. This is standard in WHI analyses,” she continued.

“Every Women’s Health Initiative analysis that comes out — not just for our study — uses a standard method ... where you account for hormonal therapy,” Dr. Desai added, again noting that many other potential risk factors were considered, enabling a “detailed, robust” analysis.

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah agreed. “A notable strength of this study is its adjustment for many confounding factors,” they wrote. “The cohort’s well‐annotated data on other known cancer risk factors allowed for a robust assessment of CH’s independent risk.”
 

How Do Findings Compare With Those of the UK Biobank Study?

CHIP was associated with a 30% increased risk for breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.64; P = .02), strengthening the borderline association reported by the UK Biobank study.

In contrast with the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with lung cancer risk, although this may have been caused by fewer cases of lung cancer and a lack of male patients, Dr. Desai suggested.

“The discrepancy between the studies lies in the risk of lung cancer, although the point estimate in the current study suggested a positive association,” wrote Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah.

As in the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Mortality analysis, however, which was not conducted in the UK Biobank study, offered a new insight: Patients with existing colorectal cancer and CHIP had a significantly higher mortality risk than those without CHIP. Before stage adjustment, risk for mortality among those with colorectal cancer and CHIP was fourfold higher than those without CHIP (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.41-6.62; P < .001). After stage adjustment, CHIP was still associated with a twofold higher mortality risk (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.32-4.72; P = .004).

The investigators’ first mCA analyses, which employed a cell fraction cutoff greater than 3%, were unfruitful. But raising the cell fraction threshold to 5% in an exploratory analysis showed that autosomal mCA was associated with a 39% increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83; P = .01). No such associations were found between mCA and colorectal or lung cancer, regardless of cell fraction threshold.

The original 3% cell fraction threshold was selected on the basis of previous studies reporting a link between mCA and hematologic malignancies at this cutoff, Dr. Desai said.

She and her colleagues said a higher 5% cutoff might be needed, as they suspected that the link between mCA and solid tumors may not be causal, requiring a higher mutation rate.
 

Why Do Results Differ Between These Types of Studies?

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah suggested that one possible limitation of the new study, and an obstacle to comparing results with the UK Biobank study and others like it, goes beyond population heterogeneity; incongruent findings could also be explained by differences in whole genome sequencing (WGS) technique.

“Although WGS allows sensitive detection of mCA through broad genomic coverage, it is less effective at detecting CHIP with low variant allele frequency (VAF) due to its relatively shallow depth (30x),” they wrote. “Consequently, the prevalence of mCA (18.8%) was much higher than that of CHIP (8.3%) in this cohort, contrasting with other studies using deeper sequencing.” As a result, the present study may have underestimated CHIP prevalence because of shallow sequencing depth.

“This inconsistency is a common challenge in CH population studies due to the lack of standardized methodologies and the frequent reliance on preexisting data not originally intended for CH detection,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said.

Even so, despite the “heavily context-dependent” nature of these reported risks, the body of evidence to date now offers a convincing biological rationale linking CH with cancer development and outcomes, they added.
 

How Do the CHIP- and mCA-associated Risks Differ Between Solid Tumors and Blood Cancers?

“[These solid tumor risks are] not causal in the way CHIP mutations are causal for blood cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “Here we are talking about solid tumor risk, and it’s kind of scattered. It’s not just breast cancer ... there’s also increased colon cancer mortality. So I feel these mutations are doing something different ... they are sort of an added factor.”

Specific mechanisms remain unclear, Dr. Desai said, although she speculated about possible impacts on the inflammatory state or alterations to the tumor microenvironment.

“These are blood cells, right?” Dr. Desai asked. “They’re everywhere, and they’re changing something inherently in these tumors.”
 

Future research and therapeutic development

Siddhartha Jaiswal, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University in California, whose lab focuses on clonal hematopoiesis, said the causality question is central to future research.

“The key question is, are these mutations acting because they alter the function of blood cells in some way to promote cancer risk, or is it reflective of some sort of shared etiology that’s not causal?” Dr. Jaiswal said in an interview.

Available data support both possibilities.

On one side, “reasonable evidence” supports the noncausal view, Dr. Jaiswal noted, because telomere length is one of the most common genetic risk factors for clonal hematopoiesis and also for solid tumors, suggesting a shared genetic factor. On the other hand, CHIP and mCA could be directly protumorigenic via conferred disturbances of immune cell function.

When asked if both causal and noncausal factors could be at play, Dr. Jaiswal said, “yeah, absolutely.”

The presence of a causal association could be promising from a therapeutic standpoint.

“If it turns out that this association is driven by a direct causal effect of the mutations, perhaps related to immune cell function or dysfunction, then targeting that dysfunction could be a therapeutic path to improve outcomes in people, and there’s a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Jaiswal said. He went on to explain how a trial exploring this approach via interleukin-8 inhibition in lung cancer fell short.

Yet earlier intervention may still hold promise, according to experts.

“[This study] provokes the hypothesis that CH‐targeted interventions could potentially reduce cancer risk in the future,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said in their editorial.

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Celgene, and others. Dr. Jaiswal reported stock equity in a company that has an interest in clonal hematopoiesis.

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

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) and mosaic chromosomal alterations (mCAs) are associated with an increased risk for breast cancer, and CHIP is associated with increased mortality in patients with colon cancer, according to the authors of new research.

These findings, drawn from almost 11,000 patients in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, add further evidence that CHIP and mCA drive solid tumor risk, alongside known associations with hematologic malignancies, reported lead author Pinkal Desai, MD, associate professor of medicine and clinical director of molecular aging at Englander Institute for Precision Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and colleagues.
 

How This Study Differs From Others of Breast Cancer Risk Factors

“The independent effect of CHIP and mCA on risk and mortality from solid tumors has not been elucidated due to lack of detailed data on mortality outcomes and risk factors,” the investigators wrote in Cancer, although some previous studies have suggested a link.

In particular, the investigators highlighted a 2022 UK Biobank study, which reported an association between CHIP and lung cancer and a borderline association with breast cancer that did not quite reach statistical significance.

But the UK Biobank study was confined to a UK population, Dr. Desai noted in an interview, and the data were less detailed than those in the present investigation.

“In terms of risk, the part that was lacking in previous studies was a comprehensive assessment of risk factors that increase risk for all these cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “For example, for breast cancer, we had very detailed data on [participants’] Gail risk score, which is known to impact breast cancer risk. We also had mammogram data and colonoscopy data.”

In an accompanying editorial, Koichi Takahashi, MD, PhD , and Nehali Shah, BS, of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, pointed out the same UK Biobank findings, then noted that CHIP has also been linked with worse overall survival in unselected cancer patients. Still, they wrote, “the impact of CH on cancer risk and mortality remains controversial due to conflicting data and context‐dependent effects,” necessitating studies like this one by Dr. Desai and colleagues.
 

How Was the Relationship Between CHIP, MCA, and Solid Tumor Risk Assessed?

To explore possible associations between CHIP, mCA, and solid tumors, the investigators analyzed whole genome sequencing data from 10,866 women in the WHI, a multi-study program that began in 1992 and involved 161,808 women in both observational and clinical trial cohorts.

In 2002, the first big data release from the WHI suggested that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increased breast cancer risk, leading to widespread reduction in HRT use.

More recent reports continue to shape our understanding of these risks, suggesting differences across cancer types. For breast cancer, the WHI data suggested that HRT-associated risk was largely driven by formulations involving progesterone and estrogen, whereas estrogen-only formulations, now more common, are generally considered to present an acceptable risk profile for suitable patients.

The new study accounted for this potential HRT-associated risk, including by adjusting for patients who received HRT, type of HRT received, and duration of HRT received. According to Desai, this approach is commonly used when analyzing data from the WHI, nullifying concerns about the potentially deleterious effects of the hormones used in the study.

“Our question was not ‘does HRT cause cancer?’ ” Dr. Desai said in an interview. “But HRT can be linked to breast cancer risk and has a potential to be a confounder, and hence the above methodology.

“So I can say that the confounding/effect modification that HRT would have contributed to in the relationship between exposure (CH and mCA) and outcome (cancer) is well adjusted for as described above. This is standard in WHI analyses,” she continued.

“Every Women’s Health Initiative analysis that comes out — not just for our study — uses a standard method ... where you account for hormonal therapy,” Dr. Desai added, again noting that many other potential risk factors were considered, enabling a “detailed, robust” analysis.

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah agreed. “A notable strength of this study is its adjustment for many confounding factors,” they wrote. “The cohort’s well‐annotated data on other known cancer risk factors allowed for a robust assessment of CH’s independent risk.”
 

How Do Findings Compare With Those of the UK Biobank Study?

CHIP was associated with a 30% increased risk for breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.03-1.64; P = .02), strengthening the borderline association reported by the UK Biobank study.

In contrast with the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with lung cancer risk, although this may have been caused by fewer cases of lung cancer and a lack of male patients, Dr. Desai suggested.

“The discrepancy between the studies lies in the risk of lung cancer, although the point estimate in the current study suggested a positive association,” wrote Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah.

As in the UK Biobank study, CHIP was not associated with increased risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Mortality analysis, however, which was not conducted in the UK Biobank study, offered a new insight: Patients with existing colorectal cancer and CHIP had a significantly higher mortality risk than those without CHIP. Before stage adjustment, risk for mortality among those with colorectal cancer and CHIP was fourfold higher than those without CHIP (HR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.41-6.62; P < .001). After stage adjustment, CHIP was still associated with a twofold higher mortality risk (HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.32-4.72; P = .004).

The investigators’ first mCA analyses, which employed a cell fraction cutoff greater than 3%, were unfruitful. But raising the cell fraction threshold to 5% in an exploratory analysis showed that autosomal mCA was associated with a 39% increased risk for breast cancer (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.06-1.83; P = .01). No such associations were found between mCA and colorectal or lung cancer, regardless of cell fraction threshold.

The original 3% cell fraction threshold was selected on the basis of previous studies reporting a link between mCA and hematologic malignancies at this cutoff, Dr. Desai said.

She and her colleagues said a higher 5% cutoff might be needed, as they suspected that the link between mCA and solid tumors may not be causal, requiring a higher mutation rate.
 

Why Do Results Differ Between These Types of Studies?

Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah suggested that one possible limitation of the new study, and an obstacle to comparing results with the UK Biobank study and others like it, goes beyond population heterogeneity; incongruent findings could also be explained by differences in whole genome sequencing (WGS) technique.

“Although WGS allows sensitive detection of mCA through broad genomic coverage, it is less effective at detecting CHIP with low variant allele frequency (VAF) due to its relatively shallow depth (30x),” they wrote. “Consequently, the prevalence of mCA (18.8%) was much higher than that of CHIP (8.3%) in this cohort, contrasting with other studies using deeper sequencing.” As a result, the present study may have underestimated CHIP prevalence because of shallow sequencing depth.

“This inconsistency is a common challenge in CH population studies due to the lack of standardized methodologies and the frequent reliance on preexisting data not originally intended for CH detection,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said.

Even so, despite the “heavily context-dependent” nature of these reported risks, the body of evidence to date now offers a convincing biological rationale linking CH with cancer development and outcomes, they added.
 

How Do the CHIP- and mCA-associated Risks Differ Between Solid Tumors and Blood Cancers?

“[These solid tumor risks are] not causal in the way CHIP mutations are causal for blood cancers,” Dr. Desai said. “Here we are talking about solid tumor risk, and it’s kind of scattered. It’s not just breast cancer ... there’s also increased colon cancer mortality. So I feel these mutations are doing something different ... they are sort of an added factor.”

Specific mechanisms remain unclear, Dr. Desai said, although she speculated about possible impacts on the inflammatory state or alterations to the tumor microenvironment.

“These are blood cells, right?” Dr. Desai asked. “They’re everywhere, and they’re changing something inherently in these tumors.”
 

Future research and therapeutic development

Siddhartha Jaiswal, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University in California, whose lab focuses on clonal hematopoiesis, said the causality question is central to future research.

“The key question is, are these mutations acting because they alter the function of blood cells in some way to promote cancer risk, or is it reflective of some sort of shared etiology that’s not causal?” Dr. Jaiswal said in an interview.

Available data support both possibilities.

On one side, “reasonable evidence” supports the noncausal view, Dr. Jaiswal noted, because telomere length is one of the most common genetic risk factors for clonal hematopoiesis and also for solid tumors, suggesting a shared genetic factor. On the other hand, CHIP and mCA could be directly protumorigenic via conferred disturbances of immune cell function.

When asked if both causal and noncausal factors could be at play, Dr. Jaiswal said, “yeah, absolutely.”

The presence of a causal association could be promising from a therapeutic standpoint.

“If it turns out that this association is driven by a direct causal effect of the mutations, perhaps related to immune cell function or dysfunction, then targeting that dysfunction could be a therapeutic path to improve outcomes in people, and there’s a lot of interest in this,” Dr. Jaiswal said. He went on to explain how a trial exploring this approach via interleukin-8 inhibition in lung cancer fell short.

Yet earlier intervention may still hold promise, according to experts.

“[This study] provokes the hypothesis that CH‐targeted interventions could potentially reduce cancer risk in the future,” Dr. Takahashi and Ms. Shah said in their editorial.

The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators disclosed relationships with Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Celgene, and others. Dr. Jaiswal reported stock equity in a company that has an interest in clonal hematopoiesis.

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