Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly one in three physicians endorsing drugs and devices on the social media platform X did not disclose that they received payments from the manufacturers, according to a new study published in JAMA.

Lead author Aaron Mitchell, MD, MPH, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told this news organization that he and his colleagues undertook the study in part to see whether physicians were adhering to professional and industry guidelines regarding marketing communications.

The team reviewed posts by physicians on X during 2022, looking for key words that might indicate that the posts were intended as endorsements of a product. The researchers then delved into the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database to see how many of those identified as having endorsed a product were paid by the manufacturers.

What Dr. Mitchell found concerned him, he said.

Overall, the researchers identified 28 physician endorsers who received a total of $1.4 million from sponsors in 2022. Among these, 26 physicians (93%) received payments from the product’s manufacturer, totaling $713,976, and 24 physicians (86%) accepted payments related to the endorsed drug or device, totaling $492,098.

While most did disclose that the posts were sponsored — by adding the word “sponsored” or using #sponsored — nine physicians did not.

Although 28 physician endorsers represent a “small fraction” of the overall number of physicians who use X, each endorsement was ultimately posted dozens, if not hundreds of times, said Dr. Mitchell. In fact, he said he saw the same particular endorsement post every time he opened his X app for months.

Overall, Dr. Mitchell noted that it’s less about the fact that the endorsements are occurring on social media and more that there are these paid endorsements taking place at all.

Among the physician specialties promoting a product, urologists and oncologists dominated. Almost one third were urologists, and 57% were oncologists — six medical oncologists, six radiation oncologists, and four gynecologic oncologists. Of the remaining three physicians, two were internists and one was a pulmonary and critical care medicine specialist.

The authors tracked posts from physicians and industry accounts. Many of the posts on industry accounts were physician testimonials, usually videos. Almost half — 8 of 17 — of those testimonials did not disclose that the doctor was being paid by the manufacturer. In another case, a physician did not disclose that they were paid to endorse a white paper.

Fifteen promotional posts were for a Boston Scientific product, followed by six for GlaxoSmithKline, two for Eisai, two for Exelixis, and one each for AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Pfizer.

In general, Dr. Mitchell said, industry guidelines suggest that manufacturer-paid speakers or consultants should have well-regarded expertise in the area they are being asked to weigh in on, but most physician endorsers in the study were not key opinion leaders or experts.

The authors examined the paid endorsers’ H-index — a measure of academic productivity provided by Scopus. Overall, 19 of the 28 physicians had an H-index below 20, which is considered less accomplished, and 14 had no published research related to the endorsed product.

Ten received payments from manufacturers for research purposes, and only one received research payments related to the endorsed product ($224,577).

“Physicians’ participation in industry marketing raises questions regarding professionalism and their responsibilities as patient advocates,” the JAMA authors wrote.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Mitchell reported no relevant financial relationships. Coauthors Samer Al Hadidi, MD, reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Sanofi, and Janssen during the conduct of the study, and Timothy S. Anderson, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging, the American Heart Association, and the American College of Cardiology, and receiving consulting fees from the American Medical Student Association. Dr. Anderson is also an associate editor of JAMA Internal Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — Carlos, a 21-year-old, lay in a hospital bed, barely clinging to life. Following a stem cell transplant for leukemia, Carlos had developed a life-threatening case of graft-vs-host disease.

But Carlos’ mother had faith.

“I have hope things will get better,” she said, via interpreter, to Richard Leiter, MD, a palliative care doctor in training at that time.

“I hope they will,” Dr. Leiter told her.

“I should have stopped there,” said Dr. Leiter, recounting an early-career lesson on hope during the ASCO Voices session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. “But in my eagerness to show my attending and myself that I could handle this conversation, I kept going, mistakenly.”

“But none of us think they will,” Dr. Leiter continued.

Carlos’ mother looked Dr. Leiter in the eye. “You want him to die,” she said.

“I knew, even then, that she was right,” recalled Dr. Leiter, now a palliative care physician at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Hospital and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Although there was nothing he could do to save Carlos, Dr. Leiter also couldn’t sit with the extreme suffering. “The pain was too great,” Dr. Leiter said. “I needed her to adopt our narrative that we had done everything we could to help him live, and now, we would do everything we could to help his death be a comfortable one.”

But looking back, Dr. Leiter realized, “How could we have asked her to accept what was fundamentally unacceptable, to comprehend the incomprehensible?”
 

The Importance of Hope

Hope is not only a feature of human cognition but also a measurable and malleable construct that can affect life outcomes, Alan B. Astrow, MD, said during an ASCO symposium on “The Art and Science of Hope.”

“How we think about hope directly influences patient care,” said Dr. Astrow, chief of hematology and medical oncology at NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City.

Hope, whatever it turns out to be neurobiologically, is “very much a gift” that underlies human existence, he said.

Physicians have the capacity to restore or shatter a patient’s hopes, and those who come to understand the importance of hope will wish to extend the gift to others, Dr. Astrow said.

Asking patients about their hopes is the “golden question,” Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, said at the symposium. “When you think about the future, what do you hope for?”

Often, the answers reveal not only “things beyond a cure that matter tremendously to the patient but things that we can help with,” said Dr. Pantilat, professor and chief of the Division of Palliative Medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

Dr. Pantilat recalled a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer who wished to see her daughter’s wedding in 10 months. He knew that was unlikely, but the discussion led to another solution.

Her daughter moved the wedding to the ICU.

Hope can persist and uplift even in the darkest of times, and “as clinicians, we need to be in the true hope business,” he said.

While some patients may wish for a cure, others may want more time with family or comfort in the face of suffering. People can “hope for all the things that can still be, despite the fact that there’s a lot of things that can’t,” he said.

However, fear that a patient will hope for a cure, and that the difficult discussions to follow might destroy hope or lead to false hope, sometimes means physicians won’t begin the conversation.

“We want to be honest with our patients — compassionate and kind, but honest — when we talk about their hopes,” Dr. Pantilat explained. Sometimes that means he needs to tell patients, “I wish that could happen. I wish I had a treatment that could make your cancer go away, but unfortunately, I don’t. So let’s think about what else we can do to help you.”

Having these difficult discussions matters. The evidence, although limited, indicates that feeling hopeful can improve patients’ well-being and may even boost their cancer outcomes.

One recent study found, for instance, that patients who reported feeling more hopeful also had lower levels of depression and anxiety. Early research also suggests that greater levels of hope may have a hand in reducing inflammation in patients with ovarian cancer and could even improve survival in some patients with advanced cancer.

For Dr. Leiter, while these lessons came early in his career as a palliative care physician, they persist and influence his practice today.

“I know that I could not have prevented Carlos’ death. None of us could have, and none of us could have protected his mother from the unimaginable grief that will stay with her for the rest of her life,” he said. “But I could have made things just a little bit less difficult for her.

“I could have acted as her guide rather than her cross-examiner,” he continued, explaining that he now sees hope as “a generous collaborator” that can coexist with rising creatinine levels, failing livers, and fears about intubation.

“As clinicians, we can always find space to hope with our patients and their families,” he said. “So now, years later when I sit with a terrified and grieving family and they tell me they hope their loved one gets better, I remember Carlos’ mother’s eyes piercing mine ... and I know how to respond: ‘I hope so, too.’ And I do.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO — One of the more recent developments in sunscreen technology is the addition of iron oxide to mineral sunscreens.

Iron oxide is “an excellent pigment” that absorbs and blocks visible light, which is particularly important in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin types III-VI, Zoe D. Draelos, MD, consulting professor of dermatology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said at the Pigmentation Disorders Exchange symposium.

Susan C. Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who spoke at the conference, also recommended tinted sunscreen with iron oxide for patients with skin of color. “It still needs to be broad spectrum,” she said, “and at least an SPF [Sun Protection Factor] 30.”

When blended with mineral sunscreens, iron oxide can reduce transmission of visible light by 90% and can protect patients from hyperpigmentation. Iron oxide comes in different colors blended together for various degrees of tinting.

Dr. Taylor noted that iron oxide is listed under the inactive ingredients. “The literature indicates a 3% concentration to aim for, but we don’t know the concentration in most of the products,” she added.

During her presentation, Dr. Draelos noted that inorganic sunscreens, such as zinc oxide and titanium oxides, are highly effective but make the skin white and pasty. To address this issue, many companies are now grinding these materials into such small particles that they are transparent.

“That’s great, except the smaller the particle is, the less UV [ultraviolet] radiation it reflects and that lowers the [SPF],” she said.

In addition to providing photoprotection, sunscreens in general provide protection from nanoparticles in tobacco and combustion, such as traffic exhaust, which can harm skin over time. “Moisturizers and sunscreens are the best way to protect against pollution and tobacco nanoparticle damage, which can contribute to inflammation,” she noted. They create a film over the skin and trap the nanoparticles.
 

Start the Patient Visit With a Photoprotection Talk

At the meeting, Dr. Taylor recommended that for all patients with hypopigmentation and hyperpigmentation disorders, “treatment really begins with photoprotection.”

She acknowledged that photoprotection discussions, including the basics of seeking shade, wearing protective clothing, and avoiding midday sun, often come at the end of the patient visit but she urged dermatologists to make that the first topic instead.

Dr. Taylor said a question often asked of patients of color about prolonged sun exposure — whether their skin turns bright red after too much sun — may get a negative reply. The better question is whether the patient has experienced tender skin after too much sun — which can signify a sunburn, she said.

Dr. Draelos reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor reported financial relationships and grant support from multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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

CHICAGO — One of the more recent developments in sunscreen technology is the addition of iron oxide to mineral sunscreens.

Iron oxide is “an excellent pigment” that absorbs and blocks visible light, which is particularly important in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin types III-VI, Zoe D. Draelos, MD, consulting professor of dermatology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said at the Pigmentation Disorders Exchange symposium.

Susan C. Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who spoke at the conference, also recommended tinted sunscreen with iron oxide for patients with skin of color. “It still needs to be broad spectrum,” she said, “and at least an SPF [Sun Protection Factor] 30.”

When blended with mineral sunscreens, iron oxide can reduce transmission of visible light by 90% and can protect patients from hyperpigmentation. Iron oxide comes in different colors blended together for various degrees of tinting.

Dr. Taylor noted that iron oxide is listed under the inactive ingredients. “The literature indicates a 3% concentration to aim for, but we don’t know the concentration in most of the products,” she added.

During her presentation, Dr. Draelos noted that inorganic sunscreens, such as zinc oxide and titanium oxides, are highly effective but make the skin white and pasty. To address this issue, many companies are now grinding these materials into such small particles that they are transparent.

“That’s great, except the smaller the particle is, the less UV [ultraviolet] radiation it reflects and that lowers the [SPF],” she said.

In addition to providing photoprotection, sunscreens in general provide protection from nanoparticles in tobacco and combustion, such as traffic exhaust, which can harm skin over time. “Moisturizers and sunscreens are the best way to protect against pollution and tobacco nanoparticle damage, which can contribute to inflammation,” she noted. They create a film over the skin and trap the nanoparticles.
 

Start the Patient Visit With a Photoprotection Talk

At the meeting, Dr. Taylor recommended that for all patients with hypopigmentation and hyperpigmentation disorders, “treatment really begins with photoprotection.”

She acknowledged that photoprotection discussions, including the basics of seeking shade, wearing protective clothing, and avoiding midday sun, often come at the end of the patient visit but she urged dermatologists to make that the first topic instead.

Dr. Taylor said a question often asked of patients of color about prolonged sun exposure — whether their skin turns bright red after too much sun — may get a negative reply. The better question is whether the patient has experienced tender skin after too much sun — which can signify a sunburn, she said.

Dr. Draelos reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor reported financial relationships and grant support from multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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

CHICAGO — One of the more recent developments in sunscreen technology is the addition of iron oxide to mineral sunscreens.

Iron oxide is “an excellent pigment” that absorbs and blocks visible light, which is particularly important in individuals with Fitzpatrick skin types III-VI, Zoe D. Draelos, MD, consulting professor of dermatology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said at the Pigmentation Disorders Exchange symposium.

Susan C. Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who spoke at the conference, also recommended tinted sunscreen with iron oxide for patients with skin of color. “It still needs to be broad spectrum,” she said, “and at least an SPF [Sun Protection Factor] 30.”

When blended with mineral sunscreens, iron oxide can reduce transmission of visible light by 90% and can protect patients from hyperpigmentation. Iron oxide comes in different colors blended together for various degrees of tinting.

Dr. Taylor noted that iron oxide is listed under the inactive ingredients. “The literature indicates a 3% concentration to aim for, but we don’t know the concentration in most of the products,” she added.

During her presentation, Dr. Draelos noted that inorganic sunscreens, such as zinc oxide and titanium oxides, are highly effective but make the skin white and pasty. To address this issue, many companies are now grinding these materials into such small particles that they are transparent.

“That’s great, except the smaller the particle is, the less UV [ultraviolet] radiation it reflects and that lowers the [SPF],” she said.

In addition to providing photoprotection, sunscreens in general provide protection from nanoparticles in tobacco and combustion, such as traffic exhaust, which can harm skin over time. “Moisturizers and sunscreens are the best way to protect against pollution and tobacco nanoparticle damage, which can contribute to inflammation,” she noted. They create a film over the skin and trap the nanoparticles.
 

Start the Patient Visit With a Photoprotection Talk

At the meeting, Dr. Taylor recommended that for all patients with hypopigmentation and hyperpigmentation disorders, “treatment really begins with photoprotection.”

She acknowledged that photoprotection discussions, including the basics of seeking shade, wearing protective clothing, and avoiding midday sun, often come at the end of the patient visit but she urged dermatologists to make that the first topic instead.

Dr. Taylor said a question often asked of patients of color about prolonged sun exposure — whether their skin turns bright red after too much sun — may get a negative reply. The better question is whether the patient has experienced tender skin after too much sun — which can signify a sunburn, she said.

Dr. Draelos reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Taylor reported financial relationships and grant support from multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to repotrectinib (Augtyro, Bristol Myers Squibb) for all locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic solid tumors with an NTRK gene fusion that have progressed after initial treatment or that have no satisfactory alternative therapies.

The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer. 

NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.

The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.

In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.

In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.

Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to repotrectinib (Augtyro, Bristol Myers Squibb) for all locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic solid tumors with an NTRK gene fusion that have progressed after initial treatment or that have no satisfactory alternative therapies.

The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer. 

NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.

The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.

In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.

In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.

Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to repotrectinib (Augtyro, Bristol Myers Squibb) for all locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic solid tumors with an NTRK gene fusion that have progressed after initial treatment or that have no satisfactory alternative therapies.

The approval is a label expansion for the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), which received initial clearance in November 2023 for locally advanced or metastatic ROS1-positive non–small cell lung cancer. 

NTRK gene fusions are genetic abnormalities wherein part of the NTRK gene fuses with an unrelated gene. The abnormal gene can then produce an oncogenic protein. Although rare, these mutations are found in many cancer types.

The approval, for adult and pediatric patients aged 12 years or older, was based on the single-arm open-label TRIDENT-1 trial in 88 adults with locally advanced or metastatic NTRK gene fusion solid tumors.

In the 40 patients who were TKI-naive, the overall response rate was 58%, and the median duration of response was not estimable. In the 48 patients who had a TKI previously, the overall response rate was 50% and median duration of response was 9.9 months.

In 20% or more of participants, treatment caused dizziness, dysgeusia, peripheral neuropathy, constipation, dyspnea, fatigue, ataxia, cognitive impairment, muscular weakness, and nausea.

Labeling warns of central nervous system reactions, interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, hepatotoxicity, myalgia with creatine phosphokinase elevation, hyperuricemia, bone fractures, and embryo-fetal toxicity.

The recommended dose is 160 mg orally once daily for 14 days then increased to 160 mg twice daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sixty 40-mg capsules cost around $7,644, according to drugs.com. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Compared with White patients with Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), non-White Hispanic patients more commonly presented younger than 70 years of age and were more often female. In addition, the most affected site was the upper limb/shoulder, which differs from what has been reported in previous studies.

Those are key findings from a retrospective study of national cancer data that was presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“Merkel cell carcinoma is an infrequent and aggressive form of neuroendocrine skin cancer that mainly impacts individuals of White ethnicity, with a general occurrence rate of 0.7 instances per 100,000 person-years,” one of the study authors, Luis J. Borda, MD, chief dermatology resident at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, told this news organization. The incidence of MCC is increasing among all racial groups, especially in the Hispanic population, he added.

To determine how age, sex, and primary site of MCC differ in White vs non-White Hispanic patients, the researchers evaluated the 22 population-based cancer registries of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program from 2000 through 2020. They reported categorical variables as counts and percentages and used chi-square test with Yates’s correction to assess the association between categorical variables.

Of the 17,920 MCCs identified by the researchers, 40 (0.22%) were in non-White Hispanic patients. Compared with the White patients with MCC, significantly fewer non-White Hispanic patients were age 70 years or older (50% vs 72.1%, respectively; P < .001), and MCC was more common in female non-White Hispanic patients (23, or 57.5%), while White patients with MCC were predominantly male (11,309, or 63.2%; P < .05). “This suggests that MCC in non-White Hispanic patients may involve different risk factors related to age beyond just cumulative UV exposure and aging-related immunosenescence, which may additionally account for the higher prevalence of females in this cohort, as historically male outdoor occupation has resulted in increased lifetime cumulative UV exposure,” Dr. Borda said.

The head and neck were the most common sites of disease involvement in White patients (41.9% vs 27.5% in non-White Hispanic patients; P = .09), while the upper limb and shoulder were the most common sites of disease involvement in non-White Hispanic patients (37.5% vs 23.8% in White patients; P = .06). This finding “differs from previous studies showing head/neck being the most common site in Hispanics,” Dr. Borda said, adding that this could be a result of White patients not being included in the Hispanic cohort in this study. “Because non-White Hispanic patients have darker skin, they may have proportionally more cases on sun-protected skin, as is described by the present data, suggesting that they are less likely to have UV-driven MCC.”

The study “highlights distinct demographic and clinical characteristics of MCC among non-White Hispanic patients compared to their White counterparts, emphasizing the importance of considering race/ethnicity in understanding the epidemiology of this rare but increasingly prevalent cancer,” Dr. Borda said. He and his co-authors are planning to do further research on the increasing incidence of MCC in non-White Hispanic patients and on staging at diagnosis compared to White patients.

Dr. Borda acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the small sample size in the non-White Hispanic group, the retrospective nature of SEER data, selection bias, and the potential for underreporting. He and his co-authors reported having no financial disclosures.

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

Compared with White patients with Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), non-White Hispanic patients more commonly presented younger than 70 years of age and were more often female. In addition, the most affected site was the upper limb/shoulder, which differs from what has been reported in previous studies.

Those are key findings from a retrospective study of national cancer data that was presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“Merkel cell carcinoma is an infrequent and aggressive form of neuroendocrine skin cancer that mainly impacts individuals of White ethnicity, with a general occurrence rate of 0.7 instances per 100,000 person-years,” one of the study authors, Luis J. Borda, MD, chief dermatology resident at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, told this news organization. The incidence of MCC is increasing among all racial groups, especially in the Hispanic population, he added.

To determine how age, sex, and primary site of MCC differ in White vs non-White Hispanic patients, the researchers evaluated the 22 population-based cancer registries of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program from 2000 through 2020. They reported categorical variables as counts and percentages and used chi-square test with Yates’s correction to assess the association between categorical variables.

Of the 17,920 MCCs identified by the researchers, 40 (0.22%) were in non-White Hispanic patients. Compared with the White patients with MCC, significantly fewer non-White Hispanic patients were age 70 years or older (50% vs 72.1%, respectively; P < .001), and MCC was more common in female non-White Hispanic patients (23, or 57.5%), while White patients with MCC were predominantly male (11,309, or 63.2%; P < .05). “This suggests that MCC in non-White Hispanic patients may involve different risk factors related to age beyond just cumulative UV exposure and aging-related immunosenescence, which may additionally account for the higher prevalence of females in this cohort, as historically male outdoor occupation has resulted in increased lifetime cumulative UV exposure,” Dr. Borda said.

The head and neck were the most common sites of disease involvement in White patients (41.9% vs 27.5% in non-White Hispanic patients; P = .09), while the upper limb and shoulder were the most common sites of disease involvement in non-White Hispanic patients (37.5% vs 23.8% in White patients; P = .06). This finding “differs from previous studies showing head/neck being the most common site in Hispanics,” Dr. Borda said, adding that this could be a result of White patients not being included in the Hispanic cohort in this study. “Because non-White Hispanic patients have darker skin, they may have proportionally more cases on sun-protected skin, as is described by the present data, suggesting that they are less likely to have UV-driven MCC.”

The study “highlights distinct demographic and clinical characteristics of MCC among non-White Hispanic patients compared to their White counterparts, emphasizing the importance of considering race/ethnicity in understanding the epidemiology of this rare but increasingly prevalent cancer,” Dr. Borda said. He and his co-authors are planning to do further research on the increasing incidence of MCC in non-White Hispanic patients and on staging at diagnosis compared to White patients.

Dr. Borda acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the small sample size in the non-White Hispanic group, the retrospective nature of SEER data, selection bias, and the potential for underreporting. He and his co-authors reported having no financial disclosures.

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

Compared with White patients with Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), non-White Hispanic patients more commonly presented younger than 70 years of age and were more often female. In addition, the most affected site was the upper limb/shoulder, which differs from what has been reported in previous studies.

Those are key findings from a retrospective study of national cancer data that was presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology.

“Merkel cell carcinoma is an infrequent and aggressive form of neuroendocrine skin cancer that mainly impacts individuals of White ethnicity, with a general occurrence rate of 0.7 instances per 100,000 person-years,” one of the study authors, Luis J. Borda, MD, chief dermatology resident at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia, told this news organization. The incidence of MCC is increasing among all racial groups, especially in the Hispanic population, he added.

To determine how age, sex, and primary site of MCC differ in White vs non-White Hispanic patients, the researchers evaluated the 22 population-based cancer registries of the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program from 2000 through 2020. They reported categorical variables as counts and percentages and used chi-square test with Yates’s correction to assess the association between categorical variables.

Of the 17,920 MCCs identified by the researchers, 40 (0.22%) were in non-White Hispanic patients. Compared with the White patients with MCC, significantly fewer non-White Hispanic patients were age 70 years or older (50% vs 72.1%, respectively; P < .001), and MCC was more common in female non-White Hispanic patients (23, or 57.5%), while White patients with MCC were predominantly male (11,309, or 63.2%; P < .05). “This suggests that MCC in non-White Hispanic patients may involve different risk factors related to age beyond just cumulative UV exposure and aging-related immunosenescence, which may additionally account for the higher prevalence of females in this cohort, as historically male outdoor occupation has resulted in increased lifetime cumulative UV exposure,” Dr. Borda said.

The head and neck were the most common sites of disease involvement in White patients (41.9% vs 27.5% in non-White Hispanic patients; P = .09), while the upper limb and shoulder were the most common sites of disease involvement in non-White Hispanic patients (37.5% vs 23.8% in White patients; P = .06). This finding “differs from previous studies showing head/neck being the most common site in Hispanics,” Dr. Borda said, adding that this could be a result of White patients not being included in the Hispanic cohort in this study. “Because non-White Hispanic patients have darker skin, they may have proportionally more cases on sun-protected skin, as is described by the present data, suggesting that they are less likely to have UV-driven MCC.”

The study “highlights distinct demographic and clinical characteristics of MCC among non-White Hispanic patients compared to their White counterparts, emphasizing the importance of considering race/ethnicity in understanding the epidemiology of this rare but increasingly prevalent cancer,” Dr. Borda said. He and his co-authors are planning to do further research on the increasing incidence of MCC in non-White Hispanic patients and on staging at diagnosis compared to White patients.

Dr. Borda acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the small sample size in the non-White Hispanic group, the retrospective nature of SEER data, selection bias, and the potential for underreporting. He and his co-authors reported having no financial disclosures.

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

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, 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.

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, 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.

The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.

Motivations for the Study

ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.

No Overall Increase

In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, this study did not show an increased risk for cancer (of all types combined) in children conceived through ART. Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.

Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.

This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, 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.

About 45,000 people will descend on Chicago for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, starting May 31.

From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.

More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.

This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.

The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.

This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.” 

Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.

Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2. 

Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.

A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.

ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.

In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.

As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.

As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

About 45,000 people will descend on Chicago for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, starting May 31.

From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.

More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.

This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.

The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.

This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.” 

Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.

Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2. 

Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.

A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.

ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.

In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.

As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.

As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

About 45,000 people will descend on Chicago for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting, starting May 31.

From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.

More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.

This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.

The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.

This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.” 

Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.

Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2. 

Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.

ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.

A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.

ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.

Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.

In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.

As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.

As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

PHOENIX — Mohs surgery appears to be superior to wide local excision (WLE) in patients with high-stage cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), according to findings from a retrospective study. The benefit was seen across all outcome measures, including rates of recurrence, metastasis, and mortality.

These data support Mohs surgery as being the preferred surgical treatment option for high-stage cSCC, commented lead author David M. Wang, MD, Mohs Micrographic Surgery and Dermatologic Oncology Fellow, at Harvard’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH)/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “We found that across all outcomes, high-stage cSCC treated with WLE had a roughly twofold greater risk for recurrence, metastasis, or disease-specific death compared to Mohs,” he said at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS), where he presented the results.

External validation using data from a multicenter cSCC research collaboration from 12 contributing sites from across the United States, as well as international sites, was also conducted. “We performed the external validation by comparing results of the BWH-only cohort, which was the primary study, with the full multicenter data and with the full multicenter data minus the BWH cohort, and the findings were nearly identical in all three analyses,” Dr. Wang said.

Although patients diagnosed with cSCC usually have good outcomes, high-stage disease is associated with a higher risk for recurrence, metastasis, and death. Both Mohs surgery and WLE are used to treat cSCC, but a comparison of outcomes has not been well established in the setting of high-stage cSCC. Comparing the two surgical strategies can be problematic, as both patient and/or tumor characteristics can make it difficult to determine which outcomes can be attributed solely to the treatment type.

Mohs Superior Across the Board

In the retrospective cohort study, Dr. Wang and colleagues aimed to compare the results of Mohs surgery and WLE in patients with high-stage cSCC (BWH Staging System T2b or T3) and used statistical methods to balance baseline patient and tumor characteristics.

“To control for confounding by indication — differences in baseline patient or tumor characteristics — that are associated with both the treatment received and outcomes, we used propensity score weighting so that the baseline characteristics were balanced in the two treatment groups,” Dr. Wang told this news organization. “This statistical method aims to simulate randomization in a randomized controlled trial such that any differences in outcomes after propensity score weighting is attributed solely to the treatment received.”

The study used electronic medical records from a single tertiary care academic institution, and 216 patients with high-stage cSCC who had undergone surgery from January 2000 to December 2019 were included in the analysis. The median follow-up time was 33.1 months.

They found that overall, the risk for all adverse outcomes was lower among patients who had undergone Mohs surgery than among those treated with WLE, with the following results: Rates of local recurrence (5-year CI, 10.8% vs 22.1%, respectively; P = .003), nodal metastasis (11.9% vs 19.3%; P = .04), distant metastasis (4.7% vs 9.0%; P = .09), any recurrence (17.0% vs 34.2%; P < .001), and disease-specific death (8.5% vs 20.3%; P = .001).

“The data supports Mohs surgery as the preferred surgical treatment option for high-stage cSCC in accordance with NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines for very high-risk cSCC,” Dr. Wang said. He pointed out that the terminology “very high risk” in NCCN equates to “high stage” in other staging systems (BWH T2b or higher, AJCC T3 or higher).

There is still “a substantial proportion” of patients with high-stage cSCC who are eligible for Mohs but are treated with WLE, he added. “Our hope is that these findings provide additional data to support Mohs as the standard of care for primary surgical treatment of high-stage cSCC.”
 

Supports Benefits of Mohs

Weighing in on the research, Thomas E. Rohrer, MD, a dermatologic surgeon in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, noted that this was an excellent study that demonstrates benefits of Mohs surgery over straight excision on essentially all outcomes investigated and measured.

“The data clearly shows that Mohs should be used whenever possible,” he said. “There are some patients and facilities that do not have access or timely access to Mohs, so they would likely proceed with standard wide local excision. Otherwise, if there is the capability to perform Mohs, it would be preferred,” he added.

“There is no benefit to a standard excision over Mohs,” Dr. Rohrer emphasized. “If a surgeon is not sure if they have attained clear margins, they could and often do take a little more tissue to be certain.”

Also asked to comment on the data, Chad L. Prather, MD, a dermatologist in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, said, “We know that Mohs has been used for cancers that are not highly staged and we know it’s better than WLE, but this study shows that it is beneficial for higher stage cancers.”

However, he cautioned that unlike early-stage cancers, where Mohs is usually a definitive treatment, with higher stage disease it is a starting point. “As a takeaway, Mohs is superior, but it needs to be followed through,” he said. “These patients need to be closely followed as they are at a high risk for recurrence and metastasis and may need to be worked up for lymph node involvement and need additional therapy going forward.”

Dr. Prather also pointed out that there are circumstances when WLE may be a more suitable treatment. “Mohs is not very good if there is bony involvement,” he said. “This most often happens when the lesion is on the scalp and has invaded the skull. WLE may still be the preferred choice.”

Additionally, Mohs is not the best choice if the tumor is broken into multiple segments. “In these cases, WLE may be preferred,” Dr. Prather added. “But overall, Mohs is one of the best tools we have, and it stands to reason that it works well for high-risk tumors, as this study shows.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Wang reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rohrer and Dr. Prather had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Mohs surgery appears to be superior to wide local excision (WLE) in patients with high-stage cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), according to findings from a retrospective study. The benefit was seen across all outcome measures, including rates of recurrence, metastasis, and mortality.

These data support Mohs surgery as being the preferred surgical treatment option for high-stage cSCC, commented lead author David M. Wang, MD, Mohs Micrographic Surgery and Dermatologic Oncology Fellow, at Harvard’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH)/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “We found that across all outcomes, high-stage cSCC treated with WLE had a roughly twofold greater risk for recurrence, metastasis, or disease-specific death compared to Mohs,” he said at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS), where he presented the results.

External validation using data from a multicenter cSCC research collaboration from 12 contributing sites from across the United States, as well as international sites, was also conducted. “We performed the external validation by comparing results of the BWH-only cohort, which was the primary study, with the full multicenter data and with the full multicenter data minus the BWH cohort, and the findings were nearly identical in all three analyses,” Dr. Wang said.

Although patients diagnosed with cSCC usually have good outcomes, high-stage disease is associated with a higher risk for recurrence, metastasis, and death. Both Mohs surgery and WLE are used to treat cSCC, but a comparison of outcomes has not been well established in the setting of high-stage cSCC. Comparing the two surgical strategies can be problematic, as both patient and/or tumor characteristics can make it difficult to determine which outcomes can be attributed solely to the treatment type.

Mohs Superior Across the Board

In the retrospective cohort study, Dr. Wang and colleagues aimed to compare the results of Mohs surgery and WLE in patients with high-stage cSCC (BWH Staging System T2b or T3) and used statistical methods to balance baseline patient and tumor characteristics.

“To control for confounding by indication — differences in baseline patient or tumor characteristics — that are associated with both the treatment received and outcomes, we used propensity score weighting so that the baseline characteristics were balanced in the two treatment groups,” Dr. Wang told this news organization. “This statistical method aims to simulate randomization in a randomized controlled trial such that any differences in outcomes after propensity score weighting is attributed solely to the treatment received.”

The study used electronic medical records from a single tertiary care academic institution, and 216 patients with high-stage cSCC who had undergone surgery from January 2000 to December 2019 were included in the analysis. The median follow-up time was 33.1 months.

They found that overall, the risk for all adverse outcomes was lower among patients who had undergone Mohs surgery than among those treated with WLE, with the following results: Rates of local recurrence (5-year CI, 10.8% vs 22.1%, respectively; P = .003), nodal metastasis (11.9% vs 19.3%; P = .04), distant metastasis (4.7% vs 9.0%; P = .09), any recurrence (17.0% vs 34.2%; P < .001), and disease-specific death (8.5% vs 20.3%; P = .001).

“The data supports Mohs surgery as the preferred surgical treatment option for high-stage cSCC in accordance with NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines for very high-risk cSCC,” Dr. Wang said. He pointed out that the terminology “very high risk” in NCCN equates to “high stage” in other staging systems (BWH T2b or higher, AJCC T3 or higher).

There is still “a substantial proportion” of patients with high-stage cSCC who are eligible for Mohs but are treated with WLE, he added. “Our hope is that these findings provide additional data to support Mohs as the standard of care for primary surgical treatment of high-stage cSCC.”
 

Supports Benefits of Mohs

Weighing in on the research, Thomas E. Rohrer, MD, a dermatologic surgeon in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, noted that this was an excellent study that demonstrates benefits of Mohs surgery over straight excision on essentially all outcomes investigated and measured.

“The data clearly shows that Mohs should be used whenever possible,” he said. “There are some patients and facilities that do not have access or timely access to Mohs, so they would likely proceed with standard wide local excision. Otherwise, if there is the capability to perform Mohs, it would be preferred,” he added.

“There is no benefit to a standard excision over Mohs,” Dr. Rohrer emphasized. “If a surgeon is not sure if they have attained clear margins, they could and often do take a little more tissue to be certain.”

Also asked to comment on the data, Chad L. Prather, MD, a dermatologist in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, said, “We know that Mohs has been used for cancers that are not highly staged and we know it’s better than WLE, but this study shows that it is beneficial for higher stage cancers.”

However, he cautioned that unlike early-stage cancers, where Mohs is usually a definitive treatment, with higher stage disease it is a starting point. “As a takeaway, Mohs is superior, but it needs to be followed through,” he said. “These patients need to be closely followed as they are at a high risk for recurrence and metastasis and may need to be worked up for lymph node involvement and need additional therapy going forward.”

Dr. Prather also pointed out that there are circumstances when WLE may be a more suitable treatment. “Mohs is not very good if there is bony involvement,” he said. “This most often happens when the lesion is on the scalp and has invaded the skull. WLE may still be the preferred choice.”

Additionally, Mohs is not the best choice if the tumor is broken into multiple segments. “In these cases, WLE may be preferred,” Dr. Prather added. “But overall, Mohs is one of the best tools we have, and it stands to reason that it works well for high-risk tumors, as this study shows.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Wang reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rohrer and Dr. Prather had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHOENIX — Mohs surgery appears to be superior to wide local excision (WLE) in patients with high-stage cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), according to findings from a retrospective study. The benefit was seen across all outcome measures, including rates of recurrence, metastasis, and mortality.

These data support Mohs surgery as being the preferred surgical treatment option for high-stage cSCC, commented lead author David M. Wang, MD, Mohs Micrographic Surgery and Dermatologic Oncology Fellow, at Harvard’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH)/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “We found that across all outcomes, high-stage cSCC treated with WLE had a roughly twofold greater risk for recurrence, metastasis, or disease-specific death compared to Mohs,” he said at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS), where he presented the results.

External validation using data from a multicenter cSCC research collaboration from 12 contributing sites from across the United States, as well as international sites, was also conducted. “We performed the external validation by comparing results of the BWH-only cohort, which was the primary study, with the full multicenter data and with the full multicenter data minus the BWH cohort, and the findings were nearly identical in all three analyses,” Dr. Wang said.

Although patients diagnosed with cSCC usually have good outcomes, high-stage disease is associated with a higher risk for recurrence, metastasis, and death. Both Mohs surgery and WLE are used to treat cSCC, but a comparison of outcomes has not been well established in the setting of high-stage cSCC. Comparing the two surgical strategies can be problematic, as both patient and/or tumor characteristics can make it difficult to determine which outcomes can be attributed solely to the treatment type.

Mohs Superior Across the Board

In the retrospective cohort study, Dr. Wang and colleagues aimed to compare the results of Mohs surgery and WLE in patients with high-stage cSCC (BWH Staging System T2b or T3) and used statistical methods to balance baseline patient and tumor characteristics.

“To control for confounding by indication — differences in baseline patient or tumor characteristics — that are associated with both the treatment received and outcomes, we used propensity score weighting so that the baseline characteristics were balanced in the two treatment groups,” Dr. Wang told this news organization. “This statistical method aims to simulate randomization in a randomized controlled trial such that any differences in outcomes after propensity score weighting is attributed solely to the treatment received.”

The study used electronic medical records from a single tertiary care academic institution, and 216 patients with high-stage cSCC who had undergone surgery from January 2000 to December 2019 were included in the analysis. The median follow-up time was 33.1 months.

They found that overall, the risk for all adverse outcomes was lower among patients who had undergone Mohs surgery than among those treated with WLE, with the following results: Rates of local recurrence (5-year CI, 10.8% vs 22.1%, respectively; P = .003), nodal metastasis (11.9% vs 19.3%; P = .04), distant metastasis (4.7% vs 9.0%; P = .09), any recurrence (17.0% vs 34.2%; P < .001), and disease-specific death (8.5% vs 20.3%; P = .001).

“The data supports Mohs surgery as the preferred surgical treatment option for high-stage cSCC in accordance with NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines for very high-risk cSCC,” Dr. Wang said. He pointed out that the terminology “very high risk” in NCCN equates to “high stage” in other staging systems (BWH T2b or higher, AJCC T3 or higher).

There is still “a substantial proportion” of patients with high-stage cSCC who are eligible for Mohs but are treated with WLE, he added. “Our hope is that these findings provide additional data to support Mohs as the standard of care for primary surgical treatment of high-stage cSCC.”
 

Supports Benefits of Mohs

Weighing in on the research, Thomas E. Rohrer, MD, a dermatologic surgeon in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, noted that this was an excellent study that demonstrates benefits of Mohs surgery over straight excision on essentially all outcomes investigated and measured.

“The data clearly shows that Mohs should be used whenever possible,” he said. “There are some patients and facilities that do not have access or timely access to Mohs, so they would likely proceed with standard wide local excision. Otherwise, if there is the capability to perform Mohs, it would be preferred,” he added.

“There is no benefit to a standard excision over Mohs,” Dr. Rohrer emphasized. “If a surgeon is not sure if they have attained clear margins, they could and often do take a little more tissue to be certain.”

Also asked to comment on the data, Chad L. Prather, MD, a dermatologist in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, said, “We know that Mohs has been used for cancers that are not highly staged and we know it’s better than WLE, but this study shows that it is beneficial for higher stage cancers.”

However, he cautioned that unlike early-stage cancers, where Mohs is usually a definitive treatment, with higher stage disease it is a starting point. “As a takeaway, Mohs is superior, but it needs to be followed through,” he said. “These patients need to be closely followed as they are at a high risk for recurrence and metastasis and may need to be worked up for lymph node involvement and need additional therapy going forward.”

Dr. Prather also pointed out that there are circumstances when WLE may be a more suitable treatment. “Mohs is not very good if there is bony involvement,” he said. “This most often happens when the lesion is on the scalp and has invaded the skull. WLE may still be the preferred choice.”

Additionally, Mohs is not the best choice if the tumor is broken into multiple segments. “In these cases, WLE may be preferred,” Dr. Prather added. “But overall, Mohs is one of the best tools we have, and it stands to reason that it works well for high-risk tumors, as this study shows.”

The study was independently supported. Dr. Wang reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rohrer and Dr. Prather had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new clinical practice guideline by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) steers use of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for the palliation of symptomatic bone metastases, including recommendations concerning pain management and quality of life.

The guideline was needed to update previous recommendations and incorporate new high-quality evidence for the management of symptomatic bone metastases, Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in Practical Radiation Oncology.

The focus was on the efficacy of EBRT in reducing pain, improving skeletal function, and enhancing quality of life, they wrote in the clinical practice guideline.

In developing their recommendations, the ASTRO task force reviewed evidence from 53 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 nonrandomized studies, and considered clinical experience.
 

Indications for Palliative Radiation

EBRT is strongly recommended for reducing pain from osseous metastasis and improving ambulatory status, sphincter function, and reducing pain in patients with spinal metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases and an anticipated life expectancy of at least 4 weeks, EBRT is conditionally recommended to improve quality of life.

Implementation of other Treatments Alongside Palliative Radiation

Instead of RT alone, surgery with postoperative RT is conditionally recommended for patients with compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

Postoperative RT is strongly recommended for patients who have undergone surgery for non-spine bone metastases or spine metastases without involving spinal cord or cauda equina compression.

For patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina, combining RT with dexamethasone is strongly recommended over RT alone.

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Initial Palliative Radiation

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases undergoing conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

For patients with spinal bone metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina who are not candidates for initial surgical decompression and are treated with conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 1600 cGy in 2 fractions, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

When selecting dose-fractionation, consider patient and disease factors such as prognosis and radiosensitivity, the authors wrote.

Highly conformal planning and delivery techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, are conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina who are receiving dose-escalated palliative RT.

The strongly recommended stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) doses for patients with symptomatic bone metastases are 1200 to 1600 cGy in 1 fraction for non-spine metastases and 2400 cGy in 2 fractions for spine metastases. Other established SBRT dose and fractionation regimens with similar biologically effective doses may be considered based on patient tumor characteristics, normal tissue factors, and physician experience.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases who have an ECOG PS of 0-2, are not undergoing surgical intervention, and have no neurological symptoms, SBRT is conditionally recommended over conventional palliative RT. Other factors to consider include life expectancy, tumor radiosensitivity, and metastatic disease burden, the guideline says.
 

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Palliative Reirradiation

For patients with spinal bone metastases requiring reirradiation to the same site, the strongly recommended conventional palliative RT regimens are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 2000 cGy in 8 fractions. When determining the RT dose-fractionation, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance, the guideline says.

Treatment with SBRT is conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site. When determining if SBRT is appropriate, consider patient factors such as urgency of treatment, prognosis, and radio-resistance. In addition, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance when determining the RT dose-fractionation, the authors say.

The strongly recommended options for patients with symptomatic non-spine bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site are single-fraction RT (800 cGy in 1 fraction) or multifraction conventional palliative RT (2000 cGy in 5 fractions or 2400 cGy in 6 fractions).
 

Impact of Techniques and Dose-fractionation on Quality of Life and Toxicity

For patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiation, it is strongly recommended to use a shared decision-making approach to determine the dose, fractionation, and supportive measures to optimize quality of life.

“Based on published data, the ASTRO task force’s recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases,” the guideline panelists said.

Limitations

While the guideline provides comprehensive recommendations, the panelists underscored the importance of individualized treatment approaches. Future research is needed to address gaps in evidence, particularly regarding advanced RT techniques and reirradiation strategies.

Guideline development was funded by ASTRO, with the systematic evidence review funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Elekta, Teladoc, and others.

A new clinical practice guideline by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) steers use of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for the palliation of symptomatic bone metastases, including recommendations concerning pain management and quality of life.

The guideline was needed to update previous recommendations and incorporate new high-quality evidence for the management of symptomatic bone metastases, Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in Practical Radiation Oncology.

The focus was on the efficacy of EBRT in reducing pain, improving skeletal function, and enhancing quality of life, they wrote in the clinical practice guideline.

In developing their recommendations, the ASTRO task force reviewed evidence from 53 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 nonrandomized studies, and considered clinical experience.
 

Indications for Palliative Radiation

EBRT is strongly recommended for reducing pain from osseous metastasis and improving ambulatory status, sphincter function, and reducing pain in patients with spinal metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases and an anticipated life expectancy of at least 4 weeks, EBRT is conditionally recommended to improve quality of life.

Implementation of other Treatments Alongside Palliative Radiation

Instead of RT alone, surgery with postoperative RT is conditionally recommended for patients with compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

Postoperative RT is strongly recommended for patients who have undergone surgery for non-spine bone metastases or spine metastases without involving spinal cord or cauda equina compression.

For patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina, combining RT with dexamethasone is strongly recommended over RT alone.

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Initial Palliative Radiation

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases undergoing conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

For patients with spinal bone metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina who are not candidates for initial surgical decompression and are treated with conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 1600 cGy in 2 fractions, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

When selecting dose-fractionation, consider patient and disease factors such as prognosis and radiosensitivity, the authors wrote.

Highly conformal planning and delivery techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, are conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina who are receiving dose-escalated palliative RT.

The strongly recommended stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) doses for patients with symptomatic bone metastases are 1200 to 1600 cGy in 1 fraction for non-spine metastases and 2400 cGy in 2 fractions for spine metastases. Other established SBRT dose and fractionation regimens with similar biologically effective doses may be considered based on patient tumor characteristics, normal tissue factors, and physician experience.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases who have an ECOG PS of 0-2, are not undergoing surgical intervention, and have no neurological symptoms, SBRT is conditionally recommended over conventional palliative RT. Other factors to consider include life expectancy, tumor radiosensitivity, and metastatic disease burden, the guideline says.
 

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Palliative Reirradiation

For patients with spinal bone metastases requiring reirradiation to the same site, the strongly recommended conventional palliative RT regimens are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 2000 cGy in 8 fractions. When determining the RT dose-fractionation, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance, the guideline says.

Treatment with SBRT is conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site. When determining if SBRT is appropriate, consider patient factors such as urgency of treatment, prognosis, and radio-resistance. In addition, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance when determining the RT dose-fractionation, the authors say.

The strongly recommended options for patients with symptomatic non-spine bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site are single-fraction RT (800 cGy in 1 fraction) or multifraction conventional palliative RT (2000 cGy in 5 fractions or 2400 cGy in 6 fractions).
 

Impact of Techniques and Dose-fractionation on Quality of Life and Toxicity

For patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiation, it is strongly recommended to use a shared decision-making approach to determine the dose, fractionation, and supportive measures to optimize quality of life.

“Based on published data, the ASTRO task force’s recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases,” the guideline panelists said.

Limitations

While the guideline provides comprehensive recommendations, the panelists underscored the importance of individualized treatment approaches. Future research is needed to address gaps in evidence, particularly regarding advanced RT techniques and reirradiation strategies.

Guideline development was funded by ASTRO, with the systematic evidence review funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Elekta, Teladoc, and others.

A new clinical practice guideline by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) steers use of external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for the palliation of symptomatic bone metastases, including recommendations concerning pain management and quality of life.

The guideline was needed to update previous recommendations and incorporate new high-quality evidence for the management of symptomatic bone metastases, Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in Practical Radiation Oncology.

The focus was on the efficacy of EBRT in reducing pain, improving skeletal function, and enhancing quality of life, they wrote in the clinical practice guideline.

In developing their recommendations, the ASTRO task force reviewed evidence from 53 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 nonrandomized studies, and considered clinical experience.
 

Indications for Palliative Radiation

EBRT is strongly recommended for reducing pain from osseous metastasis and improving ambulatory status, sphincter function, and reducing pain in patients with spinal metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases and an anticipated life expectancy of at least 4 weeks, EBRT is conditionally recommended to improve quality of life.

Implementation of other Treatments Alongside Palliative Radiation

Instead of RT alone, surgery with postoperative RT is conditionally recommended for patients with compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.

Postoperative RT is strongly recommended for patients who have undergone surgery for non-spine bone metastases or spine metastases without involving spinal cord or cauda equina compression.

For patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina, combining RT with dexamethasone is strongly recommended over RT alone.

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Initial Palliative Radiation

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases undergoing conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

For patients with spinal bone metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina who are not candidates for initial surgical decompression and are treated with conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 1600 cGy in 2 fractions, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.

When selecting dose-fractionation, consider patient and disease factors such as prognosis and radiosensitivity, the authors wrote.

Highly conformal planning and delivery techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, are conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina who are receiving dose-escalated palliative RT.

The strongly recommended stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) doses for patients with symptomatic bone metastases are 1200 to 1600 cGy in 1 fraction for non-spine metastases and 2400 cGy in 2 fractions for spine metastases. Other established SBRT dose and fractionation regimens with similar biologically effective doses may be considered based on patient tumor characteristics, normal tissue factors, and physician experience.

For patients with symptomatic bone metastases who have an ECOG PS of 0-2, are not undergoing surgical intervention, and have no neurological symptoms, SBRT is conditionally recommended over conventional palliative RT. Other factors to consider include life expectancy, tumor radiosensitivity, and metastatic disease burden, the guideline says.
 

Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Palliative Reirradiation

For patients with spinal bone metastases requiring reirradiation to the same site, the strongly recommended conventional palliative RT regimens are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 2000 cGy in 8 fractions. When determining the RT dose-fractionation, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance, the guideline says.

Treatment with SBRT is conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site. When determining if SBRT is appropriate, consider patient factors such as urgency of treatment, prognosis, and radio-resistance. In addition, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance when determining the RT dose-fractionation, the authors say.

The strongly recommended options for patients with symptomatic non-spine bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site are single-fraction RT (800 cGy in 1 fraction) or multifraction conventional palliative RT (2000 cGy in 5 fractions or 2400 cGy in 6 fractions).
 

Impact of Techniques and Dose-fractionation on Quality of Life and Toxicity

For patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiation, it is strongly recommended to use a shared decision-making approach to determine the dose, fractionation, and supportive measures to optimize quality of life.

“Based on published data, the ASTRO task force’s recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases,” the guideline panelists said.

Limitations

While the guideline provides comprehensive recommendations, the panelists underscored the importance of individualized treatment approaches. Future research is needed to address gaps in evidence, particularly regarding advanced RT techniques and reirradiation strategies.

Guideline development was funded by ASTRO, with the systematic evidence review funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Elekta, Teladoc, and others.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.

The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers. 

Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.

Tracing a direct line between excess fat and cancer is much less clear-cut than it is with tobacco. While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.

Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?

There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?

When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.

A Consistent but Complicated Relationship

Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.

Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.

“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.

In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.

That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.

At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. 

It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.

Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells. 

But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.

That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.

How Big Is the Effect?

While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably. 

Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.

With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.

A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).

Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.

Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.

CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.

Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.

When Do Extra Pounds Matter?

When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?

Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.

A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years. 

The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.

Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers. 

An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.

There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.

But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.

“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”

Does Weight Loss Help?

With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.

Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.

Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers. 

A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.

But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.

Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”

“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”

Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations. 

People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week. 

“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.