Oncology

TOPLINE:

Patients with advanced ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery who received paclitaxel-based hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) during surgery appeared to have comparable overall survival and disease-free survival rates to those who received cisplatin-based HIPEC.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although the use of HIPEC remains controversial, cisplatin-based HIPEC during cytoreductive surgery may benefit patients with advanced ovarian cancer; however, there is less evidence for paclitaxel-based HIPEC, typically used in patients who are frail or intolerant to platinum agents.
• To compare the two regimens, researchers analyzed data from the National Registry of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis, which included 846 patients (mean age, 59 years) who underwent interval cytoreductive surgery with either cisplatin-based HIPEC (n = 325) or paclitaxel-based HIPEC (n = 521). After propensity score matching, there were 199 patients per group (total = 398).
• HIPEC was administered post-surgery with cisplatin (75-100 mg/m² for 90 minutes) or paclitaxel (120 mg/m² for 60 minutes), both at 42-43 °C.

TAKEAWAY:

• Using cisplatin as the reference group, the median overall survival was not significantly different between the two options (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .16); however, the median overall survival was 82 months in the paclitaxel group vs 58 months in the cisplatin group.
• Disease-free survival was also not significantly different between the 2 groups, with a median of 20 months in the cisplatin group and 21 months in the paclitaxel groups (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72-1.25; P = .70).
• Overall survival was comparable during the first 20 months of follow-up and disease-free survival was equivalent during the first 15 months of follow-up, based on a predefined equivalence margin of 0.1.
• Paclitaxel-based HIPEC was not associated with increased morbidity (odds ratio, 1.32; P = .06).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that cisplatin and paclitaxel are two safe and effective drugs to be used for HIPEC in [interval cytoreductive surgery] for advanced ovarian cancer. As cisplatin is the preferred drug according to strong evidence, paclitaxel could be a valuable alternative for patients with any contraindication to cisplatin, with similar oncological and perioperative outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Salud González Sánchez, MD, Reina Sofía University Hospital in Córdoba, Spain, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of this study limited causal inference. The BRCA mutation status was not captured in the national registry. Additionally, the matching procedure resulted in a moderate sample size, which could have led to residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not declare any funding information and reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with advanced ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery who received paclitaxel-based hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) during surgery appeared to have comparable overall survival and disease-free survival rates to those who received cisplatin-based HIPEC.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although the use of HIPEC remains controversial, cisplatin-based HIPEC during cytoreductive surgery may benefit patients with advanced ovarian cancer; however, there is less evidence for paclitaxel-based HIPEC, typically used in patients who are frail or intolerant to platinum agents.
• To compare the two regimens, researchers analyzed data from the National Registry of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis, which included 846 patients (mean age, 59 years) who underwent interval cytoreductive surgery with either cisplatin-based HIPEC (n = 325) or paclitaxel-based HIPEC (n = 521). After propensity score matching, there were 199 patients per group (total = 398).
• HIPEC was administered post-surgery with cisplatin (75-100 mg/m² for 90 minutes) or paclitaxel (120 mg/m² for 60 minutes), both at 42-43 °C.

TAKEAWAY:

• Using cisplatin as the reference group, the median overall survival was not significantly different between the two options (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .16); however, the median overall survival was 82 months in the paclitaxel group vs 58 months in the cisplatin group.
• Disease-free survival was also not significantly different between the 2 groups, with a median of 20 months in the cisplatin group and 21 months in the paclitaxel groups (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72-1.25; P = .70).
• Overall survival was comparable during the first 20 months of follow-up and disease-free survival was equivalent during the first 15 months of follow-up, based on a predefined equivalence margin of 0.1.
• Paclitaxel-based HIPEC was not associated with increased morbidity (odds ratio, 1.32; P = .06).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that cisplatin and paclitaxel are two safe and effective drugs to be used for HIPEC in [interval cytoreductive surgery] for advanced ovarian cancer. As cisplatin is the preferred drug according to strong evidence, paclitaxel could be a valuable alternative for patients with any contraindication to cisplatin, with similar oncological and perioperative outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Salud González Sánchez, MD, Reina Sofía University Hospital in Córdoba, Spain, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of this study limited causal inference. The BRCA mutation status was not captured in the national registry. Additionally, the matching procedure resulted in a moderate sample size, which could have led to residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not declare any funding information and reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with advanced ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery who received paclitaxel-based hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) during surgery appeared to have comparable overall survival and disease-free survival rates to those who received cisplatin-based HIPEC.

METHODOLOGY:

• Although the use of HIPEC remains controversial, cisplatin-based HIPEC during cytoreductive surgery may benefit patients with advanced ovarian cancer; however, there is less evidence for paclitaxel-based HIPEC, typically used in patients who are frail or intolerant to platinum agents.
• To compare the two regimens, researchers analyzed data from the National Registry of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis, which included 846 patients (mean age, 59 years) who underwent interval cytoreductive surgery with either cisplatin-based HIPEC (n = 325) or paclitaxel-based HIPEC (n = 521). After propensity score matching, there were 199 patients per group (total = 398).
• HIPEC was administered post-surgery with cisplatin (75-100 mg/m² for 90 minutes) or paclitaxel (120 mg/m² for 60 minutes), both at 42-43 °C.

TAKEAWAY:

• Using cisplatin as the reference group, the median overall survival was not significantly different between the two options (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .16); however, the median overall survival was 82 months in the paclitaxel group vs 58 months in the cisplatin group.
• Disease-free survival was also not significantly different between the 2 groups, with a median of 20 months in the cisplatin group and 21 months in the paclitaxel groups (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72-1.25; P = .70).
• Overall survival was comparable during the first 20 months of follow-up and disease-free survival was equivalent during the first 15 months of follow-up, based on a predefined equivalence margin of 0.1.
• Paclitaxel-based HIPEC was not associated with increased morbidity (odds ratio, 1.32; P = .06).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that cisplatin and paclitaxel are two safe and effective drugs to be used for HIPEC in [interval cytoreductive surgery] for advanced ovarian cancer. As cisplatin is the preferred drug according to strong evidence, paclitaxel could be a valuable alternative for patients with any contraindication to cisplatin, with similar oncological and perioperative outcomes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Salud González Sánchez, MD, Reina Sofía University Hospital in Córdoba, Spain, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The retrospective design of this study limited causal inference. The BRCA mutation status was not captured in the national registry. Additionally, the matching procedure resulted in a moderate sample size, which could have led to residual confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not declare any funding information and reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

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

While several cancers associated with immunosuppression are much more common in White men who have sex with men living with HIV (MSMWH) than in the male general population, they are even more frequently seen in Black and Hispanic MSMWH. 

This suggests that racial and ethnic disparities in access to antiretroviral therapy and viral suppression are playing a role, said the authors of an analysis published last month in AIDS.

“Disparities in cancer risk may serve as an important proxy for disparities in HIV care,” they wrote.

The researchers at the National Cancer Institute leveraged data from the HIV/AIDS Cancer Match Study, which covers 13 US states and the District of Columbia. For this analysis, they examined cancer incidence in over 350,000 MSMWH followed for 3.2 million person years, between 2001 and 2019.

They focused on Kaposi sarcoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, anal cancer, and liver cancer — all malignancies that are associated with viral infections and immunosuppression. They restricted their analysis to MSM because behavioral factors (such as anal sex) contribute to increased exposure to viral infections in this population.

The study’s intersectional lens is valuable, Gita Suneja, MD, said in an interview. “It is looking at racial and ethnic disparities within an already minoritized group, which is men who have sex with men living with HIV,” said the professor of radiation oncology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, who was not involved in the study.

“It’s really profound to me to sit back and think about how these disparities intersect, and how somebody can be so marginalized: it’s not just race or ethnicity, it’s not just having a stigmatized medical condition, it’s the confluence of all of these factors that leads to exclusion from care and poor outcomes.”

Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), using men of the same ethnicity and age in the general population as the comparator, were reported for MSMWH of different racial/ethnic groups. For non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the SIR was 3.11 for White MSMWH, rising to 4.84 for Black MSMWH and 5.46 for Hispanic MSMWH. 

For Hodgkin lymphoma, the SIRs were 6.35, 7.69, and 11.5, respectively. For Kaposi sarcoma, they were many orders of magnitude higher, at 417 for White MSMWH, 772 for Black MSMWH, and 887 for Hispanic MSMWH.

In contrast, for anal cancer and liver cancer, the highest SIRs were among White MSMWH.

Given the role of immunosuppression, the researchers wanted to see whether cancer incidence differed according to prior AIDS diagnosis. However, they found that within each racial/ethnic group, there were no statistically significant differences in SIR according to AIDS status.

“There were disparities across the board for [racially minoritized] groups, regardless of immunosuppression status, which leads us to believe that it isn’t just about the diagnosis of AIDS, but about many other factors that we’re not capturing in the paper,” first author Benton Meldrum, MPH, told this news organization.

One study limitation is that AIDS diagnosis is an imprecise proxy for immunosuppression. It does not capture the duration and severity of immunosuppression, nor the extent of immune restoration. Many people with a previous AIDS diagnosis are now virally suppressed.

Database studies have inherent limitations in terms of the range of parameters recorded. In an ideal world, Meldrum said, they would have had access to information on CD4 count and viral suppression over time, as well as socioeconomic factors such as income and insurance status.

Differences in timely HIV diagnosis, viral suppression, and continued engagement in care are thought to drive the differences in cancer incidence. “HIV control today helps mitigate the risk of cancer development down the road,” Suneja said.

While not addressed by this study, there may be additional differences in cancer survival. Differences in cancer care, including prompt diagnosis and access to effective treatment, could play a role.

In terms of practical interventions to address these disparities, Suneja highlights the value of programs which help patients navigate a complex healthcare system. This may include care coordination navigation, peer navigation, and delivering services in community settings.

Such interventions don’t only benefit marginalized groups but help improve healthcare access and outcomes for everyone, she said. Even people with insurance and high health literacy often struggle to remain engaged.

“When we design healthcare systems to best serve those that have been left furthest behind, we all do better,” Suneja said.



The study was funded by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute. Suneja and Meldrum reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

While several cancers associated with immunosuppression are much more common in White men who have sex with men living with HIV (MSMWH) than in the male general population, they are even more frequently seen in Black and Hispanic MSMWH. 

This suggests that racial and ethnic disparities in access to antiretroviral therapy and viral suppression are playing a role, said the authors of an analysis published last month in AIDS.

“Disparities in cancer risk may serve as an important proxy for disparities in HIV care,” they wrote.

The researchers at the National Cancer Institute leveraged data from the HIV/AIDS Cancer Match Study, which covers 13 US states and the District of Columbia. For this analysis, they examined cancer incidence in over 350,000 MSMWH followed for 3.2 million person years, between 2001 and 2019.

They focused on Kaposi sarcoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, anal cancer, and liver cancer — all malignancies that are associated with viral infections and immunosuppression. They restricted their analysis to MSM because behavioral factors (such as anal sex) contribute to increased exposure to viral infections in this population.

The study’s intersectional lens is valuable, Gita Suneja, MD, said in an interview. “It is looking at racial and ethnic disparities within an already minoritized group, which is men who have sex with men living with HIV,” said the professor of radiation oncology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, who was not involved in the study.

“It’s really profound to me to sit back and think about how these disparities intersect, and how somebody can be so marginalized: it’s not just race or ethnicity, it’s not just having a stigmatized medical condition, it’s the confluence of all of these factors that leads to exclusion from care and poor outcomes.”

Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), using men of the same ethnicity and age in the general population as the comparator, were reported for MSMWH of different racial/ethnic groups. For non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the SIR was 3.11 for White MSMWH, rising to 4.84 for Black MSMWH and 5.46 for Hispanic MSMWH. 

For Hodgkin lymphoma, the SIRs were 6.35, 7.69, and 11.5, respectively. For Kaposi sarcoma, they were many orders of magnitude higher, at 417 for White MSMWH, 772 for Black MSMWH, and 887 for Hispanic MSMWH.

In contrast, for anal cancer and liver cancer, the highest SIRs were among White MSMWH.

Given the role of immunosuppression, the researchers wanted to see whether cancer incidence differed according to prior AIDS diagnosis. However, they found that within each racial/ethnic group, there were no statistically significant differences in SIR according to AIDS status.

“There were disparities across the board for [racially minoritized] groups, regardless of immunosuppression status, which leads us to believe that it isn’t just about the diagnosis of AIDS, but about many other factors that we’re not capturing in the paper,” first author Benton Meldrum, MPH, told this news organization.

One study limitation is that AIDS diagnosis is an imprecise proxy for immunosuppression. It does not capture the duration and severity of immunosuppression, nor the extent of immune restoration. Many people with a previous AIDS diagnosis are now virally suppressed.

Database studies have inherent limitations in terms of the range of parameters recorded. In an ideal world, Meldrum said, they would have had access to information on CD4 count and viral suppression over time, as well as socioeconomic factors such as income and insurance status.

Differences in timely HIV diagnosis, viral suppression, and continued engagement in care are thought to drive the differences in cancer incidence. “HIV control today helps mitigate the risk of cancer development down the road,” Suneja said.

While not addressed by this study, there may be additional differences in cancer survival. Differences in cancer care, including prompt diagnosis and access to effective treatment, could play a role.

In terms of practical interventions to address these disparities, Suneja highlights the value of programs which help patients navigate a complex healthcare system. This may include care coordination navigation, peer navigation, and delivering services in community settings.

Such interventions don’t only benefit marginalized groups but help improve healthcare access and outcomes for everyone, she said. Even people with insurance and high health literacy often struggle to remain engaged.

“When we design healthcare systems to best serve those that have been left furthest behind, we all do better,” Suneja said.



The study was funded by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute. Suneja and Meldrum reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

While several cancers associated with immunosuppression are much more common in White men who have sex with men living with HIV (MSMWH) than in the male general population, they are even more frequently seen in Black and Hispanic MSMWH. 

This suggests that racial and ethnic disparities in access to antiretroviral therapy and viral suppression are playing a role, said the authors of an analysis published last month in AIDS.

“Disparities in cancer risk may serve as an important proxy for disparities in HIV care,” they wrote.

The researchers at the National Cancer Institute leveraged data from the HIV/AIDS Cancer Match Study, which covers 13 US states and the District of Columbia. For this analysis, they examined cancer incidence in over 350,000 MSMWH followed for 3.2 million person years, between 2001 and 2019.

They focused on Kaposi sarcoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, anal cancer, and liver cancer — all malignancies that are associated with viral infections and immunosuppression. They restricted their analysis to MSM because behavioral factors (such as anal sex) contribute to increased exposure to viral infections in this population.

The study’s intersectional lens is valuable, Gita Suneja, MD, said in an interview. “It is looking at racial and ethnic disparities within an already minoritized group, which is men who have sex with men living with HIV,” said the professor of radiation oncology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, who was not involved in the study.

“It’s really profound to me to sit back and think about how these disparities intersect, and how somebody can be so marginalized: it’s not just race or ethnicity, it’s not just having a stigmatized medical condition, it’s the confluence of all of these factors that leads to exclusion from care and poor outcomes.”

Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), using men of the same ethnicity and age in the general population as the comparator, were reported for MSMWH of different racial/ethnic groups. For non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the SIR was 3.11 for White MSMWH, rising to 4.84 for Black MSMWH and 5.46 for Hispanic MSMWH. 

For Hodgkin lymphoma, the SIRs were 6.35, 7.69, and 11.5, respectively. For Kaposi sarcoma, they were many orders of magnitude higher, at 417 for White MSMWH, 772 for Black MSMWH, and 887 for Hispanic MSMWH.

In contrast, for anal cancer and liver cancer, the highest SIRs were among White MSMWH.

Given the role of immunosuppression, the researchers wanted to see whether cancer incidence differed according to prior AIDS diagnosis. However, they found that within each racial/ethnic group, there were no statistically significant differences in SIR according to AIDS status.

“There were disparities across the board for [racially minoritized] groups, regardless of immunosuppression status, which leads us to believe that it isn’t just about the diagnosis of AIDS, but about many other factors that we’re not capturing in the paper,” first author Benton Meldrum, MPH, told this news organization.

One study limitation is that AIDS diagnosis is an imprecise proxy for immunosuppression. It does not capture the duration and severity of immunosuppression, nor the extent of immune restoration. Many people with a previous AIDS diagnosis are now virally suppressed.

Database studies have inherent limitations in terms of the range of parameters recorded. In an ideal world, Meldrum said, they would have had access to information on CD4 count and viral suppression over time, as well as socioeconomic factors such as income and insurance status.

Differences in timely HIV diagnosis, viral suppression, and continued engagement in care are thought to drive the differences in cancer incidence. “HIV control today helps mitigate the risk of cancer development down the road,” Suneja said.

While not addressed by this study, there may be additional differences in cancer survival. Differences in cancer care, including prompt diagnosis and access to effective treatment, could play a role.

In terms of practical interventions to address these disparities, Suneja highlights the value of programs which help patients navigate a complex healthcare system. This may include care coordination navigation, peer navigation, and delivering services in community settings.

Such interventions don’t only benefit marginalized groups but help improve healthcare access and outcomes for everyone, she said. Even people with insurance and high health literacy often struggle to remain engaged.

“When we design healthcare systems to best serve those that have been left furthest behind, we all do better,” Suneja said.



The study was funded by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute. Suneja and Meldrum reported having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adding the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor niraparib to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone delayed disease progression and postponed the onset of symptoms in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer with homologous recombination repair (HRR) genetic alterations, according to findings from the AMPLITUDE trial.

An interim analysis also demonstrated an early trend toward improved overall survival in patients who received niraparib.

These findings support adding niraparib to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone “as a new treatment option” in patients with HRR alterations, said Study Chief Gerhardt Attard, MD, PhD, chair of medical oncology, University College London Cancer Institute, London, England, speaking at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

The findings also highlight that “it’s going to be incredibly important that patients who get diagnosed with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer are tested to see if they have these mutations, so they can be offered the right therapy at the right time,” Outside Expert Bradley McGregor, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said during a press briefing.

Ultimately, “you don’t know if you don’t test,” McGregor added.

About one quarter of patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer have alterations in HRR genes, about half of which are BRCA mutations. These patients typically experience faster disease progression and worse outcomes. An androgen receptor pathway inhibitor, such as abiraterone, alongside androgen deprivation therapy with or without docetaxel, is standard therapy for these patients, but “there is still a need for treatments that are tailored to patients whose tumors harbor HRR alterations,” Attard said in a press release.

Adding niraparib to this standard regimen could help improve survival in these patients.

In 2023, the FDA approved niraparib and abiraterone acetate to treat BRCA-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, after findings from the MAGNITUDE study demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS).

The phase 3 AMPLITUDE trial set out to evaluate whether this combination would yield similar survival benefits in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer with HRR mutations.

In the study, 696 patients (median age, 68 years) with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer and one or more HRR gene alterations were randomly allocated (1:1) to niraparib with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or placebo with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone.

Exclusion criteria included any prior PARP inhibitor therapy or androgen receptor pathway inhibitor other than abiraterone. Eligible patients could have received at most 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy, ≤ 6 cycles of docetaxel, ≤ 45 days of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone and palliative radiation.

Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups. Just over half the patients in each group had BRCA1 or BRCA2 alterations. The majority had an electrocorticogram performance status of 0, but high-risk features with a predominance for synchronous metastatic disease and metastatic high volume. About 16% had received prior docetaxel, in keeping with real world data, Attard noted.

At a median follow-up of 30.8 months, niraparib plus standard therapy led to a significant 37% reduction in the risk for radiographic progression or death. The median radiographic PFS (rPFS) was not reached in the niraparib group vs 29.5 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P = .0001).

Patients with BRCA alterations, in particular, showed the greatest benefit, with niraparib reducing the risk for radiographic progression or death by 48% compared to placebo (median rPFS not reached vs 26 months; HR, 0.52; P < .0001).

On the key secondary endpoint of time to symptomatic progression, adding niraparib led to a “statistically and clinically” significant benefit — a 50% lower in the risk for symptomatic progression in the full population (HR, 0.50), and a 56% lower risk in BRCA-mutant group (HR, 0.44).

The first interim analysis also showed an early trend toward improved overall survival favoring the niraparib combination, with a reduction in the risk for death of 21% in the HRR-mutant population (HR, 0.79; P = .10) and 25% (HR, 0.75; P = .15) in the BRCA-mutant population.

Grade 3/4 adverse events were more common with the niraparib combination group compared to the placebo group (75% vs 59%), with anemia and hypertension being the most common. However, treatment discontinuations due to adverse remained low (15% with niraparib vs 10% with placebo).

Attard noted, however, that half the target number of patients required for the final analysis died. Still, “in my view, there’s a clear trend for favoring survival in the patients randomized to niraparib,” he told attendees.

 

‘Exciting News’ for Patients 

The AMPLITUDE results are “really exciting news for our patients,” McGregor said.

Considering the poor prognosis of patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, “it is reasonable to prioritize early access to PARP inhibitors for these men, at least for the ones with BRCA mutations,” added ASCO discussant Joaquin Mateo, MD, PhD, with Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain.

However, Mateo explained, “I think that for patients with mutations in the other genes, I will be more prudent, and I’ll be on the lookout for the overall survival data to mature.”

The other key conclusion, Mateo said, is that genomic profiling “should be moved earlier into the patient course, and I am confident that embedding genomic profiling into the diagnostic evaluations of metastatic prostate cancer is also going to result in better quality of testing, more efficacious testing, and also a more equitable framework of access to testing for patients.”



This study was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Attard and Mateo disclosed relationships with Janssen and other pharmaceutical companies. McGregor disclosed relationships with Arcus Biosciences, Astellas, AVEO, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and other companies.

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

Adding the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor niraparib to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone delayed disease progression and postponed the onset of symptoms in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer with homologous recombination repair (HRR) genetic alterations, according to findings from the AMPLITUDE trial.

An interim analysis also demonstrated an early trend toward improved overall survival in patients who received niraparib.

These findings support adding niraparib to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone “as a new treatment option” in patients with HRR alterations, said Study Chief Gerhardt Attard, MD, PhD, chair of medical oncology, University College London Cancer Institute, London, England, speaking at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

The findings also highlight that “it’s going to be incredibly important that patients who get diagnosed with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer are tested to see if they have these mutations, so they can be offered the right therapy at the right time,” Outside Expert Bradley McGregor, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said during a press briefing.

Ultimately, “you don’t know if you don’t test,” McGregor added.

About one quarter of patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer have alterations in HRR genes, about half of which are BRCA mutations. These patients typically experience faster disease progression and worse outcomes. An androgen receptor pathway inhibitor, such as abiraterone, alongside androgen deprivation therapy with or without docetaxel, is standard therapy for these patients, but “there is still a need for treatments that are tailored to patients whose tumors harbor HRR alterations,” Attard said in a press release.

Adding niraparib to this standard regimen could help improve survival in these patients.

In 2023, the FDA approved niraparib and abiraterone acetate to treat BRCA-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, after findings from the MAGNITUDE study demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS).

The phase 3 AMPLITUDE trial set out to evaluate whether this combination would yield similar survival benefits in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer with HRR mutations.

In the study, 696 patients (median age, 68 years) with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer and one or more HRR gene alterations were randomly allocated (1:1) to niraparib with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or placebo with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone.

Exclusion criteria included any prior PARP inhibitor therapy or androgen receptor pathway inhibitor other than abiraterone. Eligible patients could have received at most 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy, ≤ 6 cycles of docetaxel, ≤ 45 days of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone and palliative radiation.

Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups. Just over half the patients in each group had BRCA1 or BRCA2 alterations. The majority had an electrocorticogram performance status of 0, but high-risk features with a predominance for synchronous metastatic disease and metastatic high volume. About 16% had received prior docetaxel, in keeping with real world data, Attard noted.

At a median follow-up of 30.8 months, niraparib plus standard therapy led to a significant 37% reduction in the risk for radiographic progression or death. The median radiographic PFS (rPFS) was not reached in the niraparib group vs 29.5 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P = .0001).

Patients with BRCA alterations, in particular, showed the greatest benefit, with niraparib reducing the risk for radiographic progression or death by 48% compared to placebo (median rPFS not reached vs 26 months; HR, 0.52; P < .0001).

On the key secondary endpoint of time to symptomatic progression, adding niraparib led to a “statistically and clinically” significant benefit — a 50% lower in the risk for symptomatic progression in the full population (HR, 0.50), and a 56% lower risk in BRCA-mutant group (HR, 0.44).

The first interim analysis also showed an early trend toward improved overall survival favoring the niraparib combination, with a reduction in the risk for death of 21% in the HRR-mutant population (HR, 0.79; P = .10) and 25% (HR, 0.75; P = .15) in the BRCA-mutant population.

Grade 3/4 adverse events were more common with the niraparib combination group compared to the placebo group (75% vs 59%), with anemia and hypertension being the most common. However, treatment discontinuations due to adverse remained low (15% with niraparib vs 10% with placebo).

Attard noted, however, that half the target number of patients required for the final analysis died. Still, “in my view, there’s a clear trend for favoring survival in the patients randomized to niraparib,” he told attendees.

 

‘Exciting News’ for Patients 

The AMPLITUDE results are “really exciting news for our patients,” McGregor said.

Considering the poor prognosis of patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, “it is reasonable to prioritize early access to PARP inhibitors for these men, at least for the ones with BRCA mutations,” added ASCO discussant Joaquin Mateo, MD, PhD, with Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain.

However, Mateo explained, “I think that for patients with mutations in the other genes, I will be more prudent, and I’ll be on the lookout for the overall survival data to mature.”

The other key conclusion, Mateo said, is that genomic profiling “should be moved earlier into the patient course, and I am confident that embedding genomic profiling into the diagnostic evaluations of metastatic prostate cancer is also going to result in better quality of testing, more efficacious testing, and also a more equitable framework of access to testing for patients.”



This study was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Attard and Mateo disclosed relationships with Janssen and other pharmaceutical companies. McGregor disclosed relationships with Arcus Biosciences, Astellas, AVEO, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and other companies.

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

Adding the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor niraparib to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone delayed disease progression and postponed the onset of symptoms in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer with homologous recombination repair (HRR) genetic alterations, according to findings from the AMPLITUDE trial.

An interim analysis also demonstrated an early trend toward improved overall survival in patients who received niraparib.

These findings support adding niraparib to abiraterone acetate plus prednisone “as a new treatment option” in patients with HRR alterations, said Study Chief Gerhardt Attard, MD, PhD, chair of medical oncology, University College London Cancer Institute, London, England, speaking at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

The findings also highlight that “it’s going to be incredibly important that patients who get diagnosed with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer are tested to see if they have these mutations, so they can be offered the right therapy at the right time,” Outside Expert Bradley McGregor, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, said during a press briefing.

Ultimately, “you don’t know if you don’t test,” McGregor added.

About one quarter of patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer have alterations in HRR genes, about half of which are BRCA mutations. These patients typically experience faster disease progression and worse outcomes. An androgen receptor pathway inhibitor, such as abiraterone, alongside androgen deprivation therapy with or without docetaxel, is standard therapy for these patients, but “there is still a need for treatments that are tailored to patients whose tumors harbor HRR alterations,” Attard said in a press release.

Adding niraparib to this standard regimen could help improve survival in these patients.

In 2023, the FDA approved niraparib and abiraterone acetate to treat BRCA-mutated metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, after findings from the MAGNITUDE study demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS).

The phase 3 AMPLITUDE trial set out to evaluate whether this combination would yield similar survival benefits in metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer with HRR mutations.

In the study, 696 patients (median age, 68 years) with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer and one or more HRR gene alterations were randomly allocated (1:1) to niraparib with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or placebo with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone.

Exclusion criteria included any prior PARP inhibitor therapy or androgen receptor pathway inhibitor other than abiraterone. Eligible patients could have received at most 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy, ≤ 6 cycles of docetaxel, ≤ 45 days of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone and palliative radiation.

Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups. Just over half the patients in each group had BRCA1 or BRCA2 alterations. The majority had an electrocorticogram performance status of 0, but high-risk features with a predominance for synchronous metastatic disease and metastatic high volume. About 16% had received prior docetaxel, in keeping with real world data, Attard noted.

At a median follow-up of 30.8 months, niraparib plus standard therapy led to a significant 37% reduction in the risk for radiographic progression or death. The median radiographic PFS (rPFS) was not reached in the niraparib group vs 29.5 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P = .0001).

Patients with BRCA alterations, in particular, showed the greatest benefit, with niraparib reducing the risk for radiographic progression or death by 48% compared to placebo (median rPFS not reached vs 26 months; HR, 0.52; P < .0001).

On the key secondary endpoint of time to symptomatic progression, adding niraparib led to a “statistically and clinically” significant benefit — a 50% lower in the risk for symptomatic progression in the full population (HR, 0.50), and a 56% lower risk in BRCA-mutant group (HR, 0.44).

The first interim analysis also showed an early trend toward improved overall survival favoring the niraparib combination, with a reduction in the risk for death of 21% in the HRR-mutant population (HR, 0.79; P = .10) and 25% (HR, 0.75; P = .15) in the BRCA-mutant population.

Grade 3/4 adverse events were more common with the niraparib combination group compared to the placebo group (75% vs 59%), with anemia and hypertension being the most common. However, treatment discontinuations due to adverse remained low (15% with niraparib vs 10% with placebo).

Attard noted, however, that half the target number of patients required for the final analysis died. Still, “in my view, there’s a clear trend for favoring survival in the patients randomized to niraparib,” he told attendees.

 

‘Exciting News’ for Patients 

The AMPLITUDE results are “really exciting news for our patients,” McGregor said.

Considering the poor prognosis of patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer, “it is reasonable to prioritize early access to PARP inhibitors for these men, at least for the ones with BRCA mutations,” added ASCO discussant Joaquin Mateo, MD, PhD, with Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain.

However, Mateo explained, “I think that for patients with mutations in the other genes, I will be more prudent, and I’ll be on the lookout for the overall survival data to mature.”

The other key conclusion, Mateo said, is that genomic profiling “should be moved earlier into the patient course, and I am confident that embedding genomic profiling into the diagnostic evaluations of metastatic prostate cancer is also going to result in better quality of testing, more efficacious testing, and also a more equitable framework of access to testing for patients.”



This study was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Attard and Mateo disclosed relationships with Janssen and other pharmaceutical companies. McGregor disclosed relationships with Arcus Biosciences, Astellas, AVEO, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and other companies.

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

New data suggest that glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, used to treat diabetes and obesity, may also help guard against obesity-related cancers.

In a large observational study, new GLP-1 agonist users with obesity and diabetes had a significantly lower risk for 14 obesity-related cancers than similar individuals who received dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which are weight-neutral.

This study provides a “reassuring safety signal” showing that GLP-1 drugs are linked to a modest drop in obesity-related cancer risk, and not a higher risk for these cancers, said lead investigator Lucas Mavromatis, medical student at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, during a press conference at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

However, there were some nuances to the findings. The protective effect of GLP-1 agonists was only significant for colon and rectal cancers and for women, Mavromatis reported. And although GLP-1 users had an 8% lower risk of dying from any cause, the survival benefit was also only significant for women.

Still, the overall “message to patients is GLP-1 receptor treatments remain a strong option for patients with diabetes and obesity and may have an additional, small favorable benefit in cancer,” Mavromatis explained at the press briefing.

'Intriguing Hypothesis'

Obesity is linked to an increased risk of developing more than a dozen cancer types, including esophageal, colon, rectal, stomach, liver, gallbladder, pancreatic, kidney, postmenopausal breast, ovarian, endometrial and thyroid, as well as multiple myeloma and meningiomas.

About 12% of Americans have been prescribed a GLP-1 medication to treat diabetes and/or obesity. However, little is known about how these drugs affect cancer risk.

To investigate, Mavromatis and colleagues used the Optum healthcare database to identify 170,030 adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes from 43 health systems in the United States.

Between 2013 and 2023, half started a GLP-1 agonist and half started a DPP-4 inhibitor, with propensity score matching used to balance characteristics of the two cohorts.

Participants were a mean age of 56.8 years, with an average body mass index of 38.5; more than 70% were White individuals and more than 14% were Black individuals.

During a mean follow-up of 3.9 years, 2501 new obesity-related cancers were identified in the GLP-1 group and 2671 in the DPP-4 group — representing a 7% overall reduced risk for any obesity-related cancer in the GLP-1 group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93).

When analyzing each of the 14 obesity-related cancers separately, the protective link between GLP-1 use and cancer was primarily driven by colon and rectal cancers. GLP-1 users had a 16% lower risk for colon cancer (HR, 0.84) and a 28% lower risk for rectal cancer (HR, 0.72).

“No other cancers had statistically significant associations with GLP-1 use,” Mavromatis told briefing attendees. But “importantly, no cancers had statistically significant adverse associations with GLP-1 use,” he added.

Experts have expressed some concern about a possible link between GLP-1 use and pancreatic cancer given that pancreatitis is a known side effect of GLP-1 use. However, “this is not borne out by epidemiological data,” Mavromatis said.

“Additionally, we were not able to specifically assess medullary thyroid cancer, which is on the warning label for several GLP-1 medications, but we did see a reassuring lack of association between GLP-1 use and thyroid cancer as a whole,” he added.

During follow-up, there were 2783 deaths in the GLP-1 group and 2961 deaths in the DPP-4 group — translating to an 8% lower risk for death due to any cause among GLP-1 users (HR, 0.92; P = .001).

Mavromatis and colleagues observed sex differences as well. Women taking a GLP-1 had an 8% lower risk for obesity-related cancers (HR, 0.92; P = .01) and a 20% lower risk for death from any cause (HR, 0.80; P < .001) compared with women taking a DPP-4 inhibitor.

Among men, researchers found no statistically significant difference between GLP-1 and DPP-4 use for obesity-related cancer risk (HR, 0.95; P = .29) or all-cause mortality (HR, 1.04; P = .34).

Overall, Mavromatis said, it’s important to note that the absolute risk reduction seen in the study is “small and the number of patients that would need to be given one of these medications to prevent an obesity-related cancer, based on our data, would be very large.”

Mavromatis also noted that the length of follow-up was short, and the study assessed primarily older and weaker GLP-1 agonists compared with newer agents on the market. Therefore, longer-term studies with newer GLP-1s are needed to confirm the effects seen as well as safety.

In a statement, ASCO President Robin Zon, MD, said this trial raises the “intriguing hypothesis” that the increasingly popular GLP-1 medications might offer some benefit in reducing the risk of developing cancer.

Zon said she sees many patients with obesity, and given the clear link between cancer and obesity, defining the clinical role of GLP-1 medications in cancer prevention is “important.”

This study “leads us in the direction” of a potential protective effect of GLP-1s on cancer, but “there are a lot of questions that are generated by this particular study, especially as we move forward and we think about prevention of cancers,” Zon told the briefing.

This study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Mavromatis reported no relevant disclosures. Zon reported stock or ownership interests in Oncolytics Biotech, TG Therapeutics, Select Sector SPDR Health Care, AstraZeneca, CRISPR, McKesson, and Berkshire Hathaway.

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

New data suggest that glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, used to treat diabetes and obesity, may also help guard against obesity-related cancers.

In a large observational study, new GLP-1 agonist users with obesity and diabetes had a significantly lower risk for 14 obesity-related cancers than similar individuals who received dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which are weight-neutral.

This study provides a “reassuring safety signal” showing that GLP-1 drugs are linked to a modest drop in obesity-related cancer risk, and not a higher risk for these cancers, said lead investigator Lucas Mavromatis, medical student at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, during a press conference at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

However, there were some nuances to the findings. The protective effect of GLP-1 agonists was only significant for colon and rectal cancers and for women, Mavromatis reported. And although GLP-1 users had an 8% lower risk of dying from any cause, the survival benefit was also only significant for women.

Still, the overall “message to patients is GLP-1 receptor treatments remain a strong option for patients with diabetes and obesity and may have an additional, small favorable benefit in cancer,” Mavromatis explained at the press briefing.

'Intriguing Hypothesis'

Obesity is linked to an increased risk of developing more than a dozen cancer types, including esophageal, colon, rectal, stomach, liver, gallbladder, pancreatic, kidney, postmenopausal breast, ovarian, endometrial and thyroid, as well as multiple myeloma and meningiomas.

About 12% of Americans have been prescribed a GLP-1 medication to treat diabetes and/or obesity. However, little is known about how these drugs affect cancer risk.

To investigate, Mavromatis and colleagues used the Optum healthcare database to identify 170,030 adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes from 43 health systems in the United States.

Between 2013 and 2023, half started a GLP-1 agonist and half started a DPP-4 inhibitor, with propensity score matching used to balance characteristics of the two cohorts.

Participants were a mean age of 56.8 years, with an average body mass index of 38.5; more than 70% were White individuals and more than 14% were Black individuals.

During a mean follow-up of 3.9 years, 2501 new obesity-related cancers were identified in the GLP-1 group and 2671 in the DPP-4 group — representing a 7% overall reduced risk for any obesity-related cancer in the GLP-1 group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93).

When analyzing each of the 14 obesity-related cancers separately, the protective link between GLP-1 use and cancer was primarily driven by colon and rectal cancers. GLP-1 users had a 16% lower risk for colon cancer (HR, 0.84) and a 28% lower risk for rectal cancer (HR, 0.72).

“No other cancers had statistically significant associations with GLP-1 use,” Mavromatis told briefing attendees. But “importantly, no cancers had statistically significant adverse associations with GLP-1 use,” he added.

Experts have expressed some concern about a possible link between GLP-1 use and pancreatic cancer given that pancreatitis is a known side effect of GLP-1 use. However, “this is not borne out by epidemiological data,” Mavromatis said.

“Additionally, we were not able to specifically assess medullary thyroid cancer, which is on the warning label for several GLP-1 medications, but we did see a reassuring lack of association between GLP-1 use and thyroid cancer as a whole,” he added.

During follow-up, there were 2783 deaths in the GLP-1 group and 2961 deaths in the DPP-4 group — translating to an 8% lower risk for death due to any cause among GLP-1 users (HR, 0.92; P = .001).

Mavromatis and colleagues observed sex differences as well. Women taking a GLP-1 had an 8% lower risk for obesity-related cancers (HR, 0.92; P = .01) and a 20% lower risk for death from any cause (HR, 0.80; P < .001) compared with women taking a DPP-4 inhibitor.

Among men, researchers found no statistically significant difference between GLP-1 and DPP-4 use for obesity-related cancer risk (HR, 0.95; P = .29) or all-cause mortality (HR, 1.04; P = .34).

Overall, Mavromatis said, it’s important to note that the absolute risk reduction seen in the study is “small and the number of patients that would need to be given one of these medications to prevent an obesity-related cancer, based on our data, would be very large.”

Mavromatis also noted that the length of follow-up was short, and the study assessed primarily older and weaker GLP-1 agonists compared with newer agents on the market. Therefore, longer-term studies with newer GLP-1s are needed to confirm the effects seen as well as safety.

In a statement, ASCO President Robin Zon, MD, said this trial raises the “intriguing hypothesis” that the increasingly popular GLP-1 medications might offer some benefit in reducing the risk of developing cancer.

Zon said she sees many patients with obesity, and given the clear link between cancer and obesity, defining the clinical role of GLP-1 medications in cancer prevention is “important.”

This study “leads us in the direction” of a potential protective effect of GLP-1s on cancer, but “there are a lot of questions that are generated by this particular study, especially as we move forward and we think about prevention of cancers,” Zon told the briefing.

This study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Mavromatis reported no relevant disclosures. Zon reported stock or ownership interests in Oncolytics Biotech, TG Therapeutics, Select Sector SPDR Health Care, AstraZeneca, CRISPR, McKesson, and Berkshire Hathaway.

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

New data suggest that glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, used to treat diabetes and obesity, may also help guard against obesity-related cancers.

In a large observational study, new GLP-1 agonist users with obesity and diabetes had a significantly lower risk for 14 obesity-related cancers than similar individuals who received dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which are weight-neutral.

This study provides a “reassuring safety signal” showing that GLP-1 drugs are linked to a modest drop in obesity-related cancer risk, and not a higher risk for these cancers, said lead investigator Lucas Mavromatis, medical student at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City, during a press conference at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

However, there were some nuances to the findings. The protective effect of GLP-1 agonists was only significant for colon and rectal cancers and for women, Mavromatis reported. And although GLP-1 users had an 8% lower risk of dying from any cause, the survival benefit was also only significant for women.

Still, the overall “message to patients is GLP-1 receptor treatments remain a strong option for patients with diabetes and obesity and may have an additional, small favorable benefit in cancer,” Mavromatis explained at the press briefing.

'Intriguing Hypothesis'

Obesity is linked to an increased risk of developing more than a dozen cancer types, including esophageal, colon, rectal, stomach, liver, gallbladder, pancreatic, kidney, postmenopausal breast, ovarian, endometrial and thyroid, as well as multiple myeloma and meningiomas.

About 12% of Americans have been prescribed a GLP-1 medication to treat diabetes and/or obesity. However, little is known about how these drugs affect cancer risk.

To investigate, Mavromatis and colleagues used the Optum healthcare database to identify 170,030 adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes from 43 health systems in the United States.

Between 2013 and 2023, half started a GLP-1 agonist and half started a DPP-4 inhibitor, with propensity score matching used to balance characteristics of the two cohorts.

Participants were a mean age of 56.8 years, with an average body mass index of 38.5; more than 70% were White individuals and more than 14% were Black individuals.

During a mean follow-up of 3.9 years, 2501 new obesity-related cancers were identified in the GLP-1 group and 2671 in the DPP-4 group — representing a 7% overall reduced risk for any obesity-related cancer in the GLP-1 group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93).

When analyzing each of the 14 obesity-related cancers separately, the protective link between GLP-1 use and cancer was primarily driven by colon and rectal cancers. GLP-1 users had a 16% lower risk for colon cancer (HR, 0.84) and a 28% lower risk for rectal cancer (HR, 0.72).

“No other cancers had statistically significant associations with GLP-1 use,” Mavromatis told briefing attendees. But “importantly, no cancers had statistically significant adverse associations with GLP-1 use,” he added.

Experts have expressed some concern about a possible link between GLP-1 use and pancreatic cancer given that pancreatitis is a known side effect of GLP-1 use. However, “this is not borne out by epidemiological data,” Mavromatis said.

“Additionally, we were not able to specifically assess medullary thyroid cancer, which is on the warning label for several GLP-1 medications, but we did see a reassuring lack of association between GLP-1 use and thyroid cancer as a whole,” he added.

During follow-up, there were 2783 deaths in the GLP-1 group and 2961 deaths in the DPP-4 group — translating to an 8% lower risk for death due to any cause among GLP-1 users (HR, 0.92; P = .001).

Mavromatis and colleagues observed sex differences as well. Women taking a GLP-1 had an 8% lower risk for obesity-related cancers (HR, 0.92; P = .01) and a 20% lower risk for death from any cause (HR, 0.80; P < .001) compared with women taking a DPP-4 inhibitor.

Among men, researchers found no statistically significant difference between GLP-1 and DPP-4 use for obesity-related cancer risk (HR, 0.95; P = .29) or all-cause mortality (HR, 1.04; P = .34).

Overall, Mavromatis said, it’s important to note that the absolute risk reduction seen in the study is “small and the number of patients that would need to be given one of these medications to prevent an obesity-related cancer, based on our data, would be very large.”

Mavromatis also noted that the length of follow-up was short, and the study assessed primarily older and weaker GLP-1 agonists compared with newer agents on the market. Therefore, longer-term studies with newer GLP-1s are needed to confirm the effects seen as well as safety.

In a statement, ASCO President Robin Zon, MD, said this trial raises the “intriguing hypothesis” that the increasingly popular GLP-1 medications might offer some benefit in reducing the risk of developing cancer.

Zon said she sees many patients with obesity, and given the clear link between cancer and obesity, defining the clinical role of GLP-1 medications in cancer prevention is “important.”

This study “leads us in the direction” of a potential protective effect of GLP-1s on cancer, but “there are a lot of questions that are generated by this particular study, especially as we move forward and we think about prevention of cancers,” Zon told the briefing.

This study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health. Mavromatis reported no relevant disclosures. Zon reported stock or ownership interests in Oncolytics Biotech, TG Therapeutics, Select Sector SPDR Health Care, AstraZeneca, CRISPR, McKesson, and Berkshire Hathaway.

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

TOPLINE: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis of 5015 veterans with metastatic prostate cancer reveals distinct genomic patterns between non-Hispanic Black and White patients, with Black veterans showing higher odds of immunotherapy targets but lower odds of androgen receptor axis alterations. However, the rates of survival were similar despite the differences.

METHODOLOGY: 
Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing alteration frequencies between 1784 non-Hispanic Black (35.6%) and 3,231 non-Hispanic White (64.4%) veterans who underwent NGS testing from January 23, 2019, to November 2, 2023.

•      Analysis included DNA sequencing data from tissue or plasma biospecimens, including prostate biopsy specimens, radical prostatectomy specimens, and prostate cancer metastases, all sequenced with FoundationOne CDx or FoundationOne Liquid CDx platforms.
•      Investigators examined pathogenic alterations in individual genes, actionable targets, and canonical prostate cancer pathways, while adjusting for NGS analyte and clinicopathologic covariates.
•      Researchers evaluated associations between alteration frequency and race as well as survival through Cox proportional hazards modeling, stratified by race and adjusted for clinical factors.

TAKEAWAY:
Non-Hispanic Black race and ethnicity was associated with higher odds of genomic alterations in SPOP (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.6) and immunotherapy targets (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), including high microsatellite instability status (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.1-9.4).

•      Non-Hispanic Black veterans showed lower odds of genomic alterations in the AKT/PI3K pathway (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7), androgen receptor axis (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9), and tumor suppressor genes (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.8).
•      Tumor suppressor alterations were associated with shorter overall survival in both non-Hispanic Black (hazard ratio [HR], 1.54; 95% CI, 1.13-2.11) and non-Hispanic White (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.25-1.85) veterans.
•      CDK12 alterations significantly increased the hazard of death in non-Hispanic Black veterans (HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.13-3.67), while immunotherapy targets were associated with increased mortality in non-Hispanic White veterans (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.02-2.02).

IN PRACTICE: " we did not identify any genomic alterations or biomarkers that should not be tested in PCa based on patient self-identified race. Ultimately, this work emphasizes that precision oncology enables the individualization of treatment decisions without having to rely on imprecise characteristics such as self-identified race.," wrote the study authors.

SOURCE: Isla P. Garraway, MD, PhD; Kosj Yamoah, MD, PhD; and Kara N. Maxwell, MD, PhD were co-senior authors. The article was published online on May 12 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, a lack of matched germline data for patients, complicated the interpretation of plasma results. In addition, survivorship bias may have inadvertently excluded the most aggressive metastatic prostate cancer phenotypes, as patients who did not live long enough to undergo NGS testing were not included. Results seen in the veteran population served by the Veterans Health Administration may not be generalizable to the broader population.

DISCLOSURES: The study received support from Challenge Award PCF22CHALO2 from the Prostate Cancer Foundation and the Veterans Affairs National Precision Oncology Program. Luca F. Valle, MD, reported receiving grant support from the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation during the conduct of the study. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis of 5015 veterans with metastatic prostate cancer reveals distinct genomic patterns between non-Hispanic Black and White patients, with Black veterans showing higher odds of immunotherapy targets but lower odds of androgen receptor axis alterations. However, the rates of survival were similar despite the differences.

METHODOLOGY: 
Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing alteration frequencies between 1784 non-Hispanic Black (35.6%) and 3,231 non-Hispanic White (64.4%) veterans who underwent NGS testing from January 23, 2019, to November 2, 2023.

•      Analysis included DNA sequencing data from tissue or plasma biospecimens, including prostate biopsy specimens, radical prostatectomy specimens, and prostate cancer metastases, all sequenced with FoundationOne CDx or FoundationOne Liquid CDx platforms.
•      Investigators examined pathogenic alterations in individual genes, actionable targets, and canonical prostate cancer pathways, while adjusting for NGS analyte and clinicopathologic covariates.
•      Researchers evaluated associations between alteration frequency and race as well as survival through Cox proportional hazards modeling, stratified by race and adjusted for clinical factors.

TAKEAWAY:
Non-Hispanic Black race and ethnicity was associated with higher odds of genomic alterations in SPOP (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.6) and immunotherapy targets (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), including high microsatellite instability status (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.1-9.4).

•      Non-Hispanic Black veterans showed lower odds of genomic alterations in the AKT/PI3K pathway (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7), androgen receptor axis (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9), and tumor suppressor genes (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.8).
•      Tumor suppressor alterations were associated with shorter overall survival in both non-Hispanic Black (hazard ratio [HR], 1.54; 95% CI, 1.13-2.11) and non-Hispanic White (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.25-1.85) veterans.
•      CDK12 alterations significantly increased the hazard of death in non-Hispanic Black veterans (HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.13-3.67), while immunotherapy targets were associated with increased mortality in non-Hispanic White veterans (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.02-2.02).

IN PRACTICE: " we did not identify any genomic alterations or biomarkers that should not be tested in PCa based on patient self-identified race. Ultimately, this work emphasizes that precision oncology enables the individualization of treatment decisions without having to rely on imprecise characteristics such as self-identified race.," wrote the study authors.

SOURCE: Isla P. Garraway, MD, PhD; Kosj Yamoah, MD, PhD; and Kara N. Maxwell, MD, PhD were co-senior authors. The article was published online on May 12 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, a lack of matched germline data for patients, complicated the interpretation of plasma results. In addition, survivorship bias may have inadvertently excluded the most aggressive metastatic prostate cancer phenotypes, as patients who did not live long enough to undergo NGS testing were not included. Results seen in the veteran population served by the Veterans Health Administration may not be generalizable to the broader population.

DISCLOSURES: The study received support from Challenge Award PCF22CHALO2 from the Prostate Cancer Foundation and the Veterans Affairs National Precision Oncology Program. Luca F. Valle, MD, reported receiving grant support from the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation during the conduct of the study. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) analysis of 5015 veterans with metastatic prostate cancer reveals distinct genomic patterns between non-Hispanic Black and White patients, with Black veterans showing higher odds of immunotherapy targets but lower odds of androgen receptor axis alterations. However, the rates of survival were similar despite the differences.

METHODOLOGY: 
Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing alteration frequencies between 1784 non-Hispanic Black (35.6%) and 3,231 non-Hispanic White (64.4%) veterans who underwent NGS testing from January 23, 2019, to November 2, 2023.

•      Analysis included DNA sequencing data from tissue or plasma biospecimens, including prostate biopsy specimens, radical prostatectomy specimens, and prostate cancer metastases, all sequenced with FoundationOne CDx or FoundationOne Liquid CDx platforms.
•      Investigators examined pathogenic alterations in individual genes, actionable targets, and canonical prostate cancer pathways, while adjusting for NGS analyte and clinicopathologic covariates.
•      Researchers evaluated associations between alteration frequency and race as well as survival through Cox proportional hazards modeling, stratified by race and adjusted for clinical factors.

TAKEAWAY:
Non-Hispanic Black race and ethnicity was associated with higher odds of genomic alterations in SPOP (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.6) and immunotherapy targets (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), including high microsatellite instability status (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.1-9.4).

•      Non-Hispanic Black veterans showed lower odds of genomic alterations in the AKT/PI3K pathway (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7), androgen receptor axis (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9), and tumor suppressor genes (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.8).
•      Tumor suppressor alterations were associated with shorter overall survival in both non-Hispanic Black (hazard ratio [HR], 1.54; 95% CI, 1.13-2.11) and non-Hispanic White (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.25-1.85) veterans.
•      CDK12 alterations significantly increased the hazard of death in non-Hispanic Black veterans (HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.13-3.67), while immunotherapy targets were associated with increased mortality in non-Hispanic White veterans (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.02-2.02).

IN PRACTICE: " we did not identify any genomic alterations or biomarkers that should not be tested in PCa based on patient self-identified race. Ultimately, this work emphasizes that precision oncology enables the individualization of treatment decisions without having to rely on imprecise characteristics such as self-identified race.," wrote the study authors.

SOURCE: Isla P. Garraway, MD, PhD; Kosj Yamoah, MD, PhD; and Kara N. Maxwell, MD, PhD were co-senior authors. The article was published online on May 12 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, a lack of matched germline data for patients, complicated the interpretation of plasma results. In addition, survivorship bias may have inadvertently excluded the most aggressive metastatic prostate cancer phenotypes, as patients who did not live long enough to undergo NGS testing were not included. Results seen in the veteran population served by the Veterans Health Administration may not be generalizable to the broader population.

DISCLOSURES: The study received support from Challenge Award PCF22CHALO2 from the Prostate Cancer Foundation and the Veterans Affairs National Precision Oncology Program. Luca F. Valle, MD, reported receiving grant support from the Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation during the conduct of the study. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

As Hurricane Helene approached western North Carolina, Martin Palmeri, MD, MBA, didn’t anticipate the storm would disrupt practice operations for more than a day or so.

But the massive rainfall and flooding damage last September proved to be far more challenging. Despite best efforts by the 13-physician practice, basic treatments for most patients were interrupted for about a week.

Flooding washed out some of the major roads leading to the main Asheville clinic and affiliated rural sites, limiting travel and slowing delivery of medications, intravenous (IV) fluids, and other supplies, Palmeri said. Some patients and employees weren’t initially reachable due to the loss of the internet and cell phone service. The storm-related fallout even forced patients to relocate elsewhere for weeks or longer.

During the storm, backup generators kept power on at the Asheville clinic, protecting chemotherapy and other refrigerated drugs, but the storm damaged the municipal water supply.

“Water was the number one thing — how do you get water to the office?” Palmeri said. “You can’t give someone an 8-hour infusion if they don’t have means of going to the toilet or having something to drink.”

Hurricanes. Wildfires. Heat waves. As climate-driven extreme weather has become more common, researchers, oncologists, and patients are increasingly being forced to consider the consequences of these disruptions.

Along with preventing patients and providers from reaching treatment sites, experts said, extreme weather can undercut patients’ health and care in other ways. Patients with more limited lung capacity following lung cancer surgery, for instance, may struggle with breathing during wildfires. Extreme heat can prove risky for patients already dehydrated or weakened by treatment-related side effects. Power outages and severe flooding can affect vital infrastructure, disrupting operations at facilities that manufacture essential drugs. Power outages can also impede radiotherapy, which requires machines powered by electricity.

“Any of these [weather] events can disrupt this critical cancer care continuum among a population of people that already are very vulnerable,” said Joan Casey, PhD, an environmental epidemiologist and associate professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

 

Extreme Weather and Cancer Survival

For patients with cancer, survival often relies on highly regimented protocols, which may require surgery plus frequent visits for radiation, chemotherapy, or immunotherapy that can last months, said Eric Bernicker, MD, a Colorado oncologist and lead author of a 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology position statement about the impact of climate change on cancer care.

Interruptions to care, regardless of the cause, can lead to worse outcomes for patients, Bernicker said. “If you’re in the middle of your post-lumpectomy radiation and your radiation center shuts for 2 weeks,” he said, “that is not good.”

Research indicated that even short treatment disruptions can affect outcomes for patients with cancer and that delays caused by extreme weather — which may last for weeks — can affect survival for these patients.

One analysis, published in JAMA Oncology in 2023, found that patients exposed to wildfire within the first year after potentially curative lung cancer surgery had worse survival outcomes than those who weren’t exposed during their recovery.

In another study, patients with lung cancer who had their radiation interrupted when a hurricane struck had a 19% greater risk of dying overall compared with similar patients who were not affected. Another analysis found that patients with breast cancer who were partway through treatment when Hurricane Katrina hit the Louisiana coastline had a significantly greater risk of dying over a 10-year period compared with patients who lived elsewhere.

The potential threats to survival highlighted the impacts of extreme weather on carefully orchestrated systems of care that place patients facing already fragile situations in impossible binds, Casey said.

Douglas Flora, MD, a Kentucky oncologist and president-elect of the Association of Cancer Care Centers, Rockville, Maryland, agreed.

“We’ve seen this with an increasing frequency over the last several years,” Flora said. “It’s one thing if it’s routine follow-up or surveillance care, but many cancer patients’ survivals are directly related to not having interruptions in their care.”

 

Challenging Realities

Following Helene, the most pressing issue was the lack of water, Palmeri said.

The lack of reliable clean water created challenges for patients receiving radiation or chemotherapy infusions, which can cause vomiting and diarrhea that leave patients dehydrated. Toilets were also unusable.

Even when the city of Asheville said the water was likely safe enough to bathe in, local leaders still reported potential risks from bacteria and other contaminants in the water, Palmeri said. Those with a fragile immune system or breaks in the skin “could get serious and life-threatening infections,” he explained.

To make matters worse, damage to a North Carolina facility manufacturing IV fluids left the United States in shortage for months. IV fluids are key not only for providing hydration but also for easing nausea, fatigue, and other issues caused by cancer therapies.

With wildfires, as occurred in southern California early this year, patients undergoing cancer treatment might feel they have no option but to remain near home to continue getting care, Casey said. “It’s restricting their agency in the kinds of choices that they have to make during these severe weather events.”

Meanwhile, thick wildfire smoke can confine patients to their homes, said Lawrence Wagman, MD, a surgical oncologist and a regional medical director at the City of Hope network, who described its main facility in Duarte, California, coming within a dozen miles of the Eaton fire. “One of the biggest problems was so much smoke in the air,” he said. “And the air quality was so low that it was, in many ways, dangerous for patients to travel.”

“These fires were so aggressive, and they kept popping up,” Wagman said. Plus, the emotional strain of looming wildfires persisted for both patients and cancer clinicians for weeks on end, he added.

For those who evacuate, the logistics can be complex.

Not only are cancer treatment plans highly structured, but switching care to another facility is far from easy, Bernicker said. The new facility will likely need to submit a treatment plan and get insurance coverage before moving forward.

“I’m not saying that takes forever,” he said. “But what I’m saying is that it’s not like you just roll in and they hang the [infusion] bag.”

Neither is a shelter typically an option for patients during treatment, said Seth Berkowitz, a licensed clinical social worker and director of Strategic Healthcare Partnerships at The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. “They have to have a place to go that’s safe and germ-free.”

In western North Carolina, the strain on already ill patients and their caregivers could be overwhelming, Palmeri said. He recounted how the husband of one patient with advanced cancer died after the storm came through.

“He tried to go out there with a chainsaw to clear a way out so that they could get out of their house in case he needed to take her to the hospital,” Palmeri said. “And he had a heart attack there in the driveway.”

 

Rebuilding and Planning Ahead

Experts are only at the early stages of grasping the magnitude of extreme weather on cancer care and developing strategies to curtail care gaps and potential harm to patients, said Katie Lichter, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, who studies extreme weather and cancer treatment.

“How does it impact health care delivery services at every step, from prevention to screening to treatment and survivorship?” Lichter asked. “We’re just starting to understand and to even quantify that,” she said, which included identifying patients who are most vulnerable. She worries, in particular, about patients living in rural areas who already travel longer distances and often face more difficulties accessing care.

The gap between research and reality still looms large. A recent analysis, led by Lichter, looked at 176 California radiation oncology clinics and found that all of them were located within 25 miles of a wildfire that had occurred within the prior 5 years. Yet among the 51 clinics that responded to a 2022 survey,just 47% reported that their clinic had a wildfire emergency preparedness plan.

The American Cancer Society does provide some guidance on how patients can prepare for a weather-related crisis, including having extra supplies of medications or special equipment on hand.

Still, providers are often in reaction mode when extreme weather strikes.

Without adequate clean water after Helene, leaders at Palmeri’s practice moved swiftly, purchasing 40,000-50,000 bottles of water and bringing in porta potties from elsewhere. 

“I think we were able to get things up and going very quickly,” said Palmeri, who noted that full services resumed about 10 days after the storm. “For most patients, missing a week of treatment would not do a disservice to their well-being or outcome.”

Going forward, to provide a more comprehensive strategy, Lichter is working with colleagues to develop clinical tool kits to help oncology practices and patients prepare for severe weather events, such as outlining backup treatment contingency plans, ensuring early medication refills, and boosting communication with patient alert systems.

Clinicians are also implementing their own strategies. To limit communication gaps during power outages, Palmeri said that, since Helene, his practice has made sure that their clinic sites, physicians, and other key people now have cell phone service through satellite via Starlink.

“No one has phone books anymore,” he said, so cancer clinicians should keep crucial contact information on paper, such as details about businesses that distribute water and porta potties, given that online searches may not be feasible.

Clinicians should also advise patients to keep a hard copy of recent medical findings handy, including medications and lab results, in case they arrive at an emergency room far from home and physicians can’t access their electronic health record, Bernicker said.

When there is enough advance warning of an approaching weather event, clinicians can help patients keep at least a week’s worth of medication on hand for symptom-related issues, such as nausea or pain, as well as antibiotics so patients don’t have to seek out emergency care during the crisis, Bernicker said. However, Bernicker noted, some insurers may be reluctant to fill certain prescriptions in advance, like those for opioids.

Making headway on more robust preparedness strategies may be slowed. As of March, the National Institutes of Health will no longer fund research about the health effects of climate change.

Bernicker hoped that such cutbacks would be rolled back. What’s on the line, he stressed, is maintaining the highest quality of care for patients with cancer.

“We really are in a golden age of oncology therapeutics,” he said. “We have patients living longer than anyone would have predicted 20 or 25 years ago. But all those advances are contingent on people having access to their centers and not having that interrupted.”

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

As Hurricane Helene approached western North Carolina, Martin Palmeri, MD, MBA, didn’t anticipate the storm would disrupt practice operations for more than a day or so.

But the massive rainfall and flooding damage last September proved to be far more challenging. Despite best efforts by the 13-physician practice, basic treatments for most patients were interrupted for about a week.

Flooding washed out some of the major roads leading to the main Asheville clinic and affiliated rural sites, limiting travel and slowing delivery of medications, intravenous (IV) fluids, and other supplies, Palmeri said. Some patients and employees weren’t initially reachable due to the loss of the internet and cell phone service. The storm-related fallout even forced patients to relocate elsewhere for weeks or longer.

During the storm, backup generators kept power on at the Asheville clinic, protecting chemotherapy and other refrigerated drugs, but the storm damaged the municipal water supply.

“Water was the number one thing — how do you get water to the office?” Palmeri said. “You can’t give someone an 8-hour infusion if they don’t have means of going to the toilet or having something to drink.”

Hurricanes. Wildfires. Heat waves. As climate-driven extreme weather has become more common, researchers, oncologists, and patients are increasingly being forced to consider the consequences of these disruptions.

Along with preventing patients and providers from reaching treatment sites, experts said, extreme weather can undercut patients’ health and care in other ways. Patients with more limited lung capacity following lung cancer surgery, for instance, may struggle with breathing during wildfires. Extreme heat can prove risky for patients already dehydrated or weakened by treatment-related side effects. Power outages and severe flooding can affect vital infrastructure, disrupting operations at facilities that manufacture essential drugs. Power outages can also impede radiotherapy, which requires machines powered by electricity.

“Any of these [weather] events can disrupt this critical cancer care continuum among a population of people that already are very vulnerable,” said Joan Casey, PhD, an environmental epidemiologist and associate professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

 

Extreme Weather and Cancer Survival

For patients with cancer, survival often relies on highly regimented protocols, which may require surgery plus frequent visits for radiation, chemotherapy, or immunotherapy that can last months, said Eric Bernicker, MD, a Colorado oncologist and lead author of a 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology position statement about the impact of climate change on cancer care.

Interruptions to care, regardless of the cause, can lead to worse outcomes for patients, Bernicker said. “If you’re in the middle of your post-lumpectomy radiation and your radiation center shuts for 2 weeks,” he said, “that is not good.”

Research indicated that even short treatment disruptions can affect outcomes for patients with cancer and that delays caused by extreme weather — which may last for weeks — can affect survival for these patients.

One analysis, published in JAMA Oncology in 2023, found that patients exposed to wildfire within the first year after potentially curative lung cancer surgery had worse survival outcomes than those who weren’t exposed during their recovery.

In another study, patients with lung cancer who had their radiation interrupted when a hurricane struck had a 19% greater risk of dying overall compared with similar patients who were not affected. Another analysis found that patients with breast cancer who were partway through treatment when Hurricane Katrina hit the Louisiana coastline had a significantly greater risk of dying over a 10-year period compared with patients who lived elsewhere.

The potential threats to survival highlighted the impacts of extreme weather on carefully orchestrated systems of care that place patients facing already fragile situations in impossible binds, Casey said.

Douglas Flora, MD, a Kentucky oncologist and president-elect of the Association of Cancer Care Centers, Rockville, Maryland, agreed.

“We’ve seen this with an increasing frequency over the last several years,” Flora said. “It’s one thing if it’s routine follow-up or surveillance care, but many cancer patients’ survivals are directly related to not having interruptions in their care.”

 

Challenging Realities

Following Helene, the most pressing issue was the lack of water, Palmeri said.

The lack of reliable clean water created challenges for patients receiving radiation or chemotherapy infusions, which can cause vomiting and diarrhea that leave patients dehydrated. Toilets were also unusable.

Even when the city of Asheville said the water was likely safe enough to bathe in, local leaders still reported potential risks from bacteria and other contaminants in the water, Palmeri said. Those with a fragile immune system or breaks in the skin “could get serious and life-threatening infections,” he explained.

To make matters worse, damage to a North Carolina facility manufacturing IV fluids left the United States in shortage for months. IV fluids are key not only for providing hydration but also for easing nausea, fatigue, and other issues caused by cancer therapies.

With wildfires, as occurred in southern California early this year, patients undergoing cancer treatment might feel they have no option but to remain near home to continue getting care, Casey said. “It’s restricting their agency in the kinds of choices that they have to make during these severe weather events.”

Meanwhile, thick wildfire smoke can confine patients to their homes, said Lawrence Wagman, MD, a surgical oncologist and a regional medical director at the City of Hope network, who described its main facility in Duarte, California, coming within a dozen miles of the Eaton fire. “One of the biggest problems was so much smoke in the air,” he said. “And the air quality was so low that it was, in many ways, dangerous for patients to travel.”

“These fires were so aggressive, and they kept popping up,” Wagman said. Plus, the emotional strain of looming wildfires persisted for both patients and cancer clinicians for weeks on end, he added.

For those who evacuate, the logistics can be complex.

Not only are cancer treatment plans highly structured, but switching care to another facility is far from easy, Bernicker said. The new facility will likely need to submit a treatment plan and get insurance coverage before moving forward.

“I’m not saying that takes forever,” he said. “But what I’m saying is that it’s not like you just roll in and they hang the [infusion] bag.”

Neither is a shelter typically an option for patients during treatment, said Seth Berkowitz, a licensed clinical social worker and director of Strategic Healthcare Partnerships at The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. “They have to have a place to go that’s safe and germ-free.”

In western North Carolina, the strain on already ill patients and their caregivers could be overwhelming, Palmeri said. He recounted how the husband of one patient with advanced cancer died after the storm came through.

“He tried to go out there with a chainsaw to clear a way out so that they could get out of their house in case he needed to take her to the hospital,” Palmeri said. “And he had a heart attack there in the driveway.”

 

Rebuilding and Planning Ahead

Experts are only at the early stages of grasping the magnitude of extreme weather on cancer care and developing strategies to curtail care gaps and potential harm to patients, said Katie Lichter, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, who studies extreme weather and cancer treatment.

“How does it impact health care delivery services at every step, from prevention to screening to treatment and survivorship?” Lichter asked. “We’re just starting to understand and to even quantify that,” she said, which included identifying patients who are most vulnerable. She worries, in particular, about patients living in rural areas who already travel longer distances and often face more difficulties accessing care.

The gap between research and reality still looms large. A recent analysis, led by Lichter, looked at 176 California radiation oncology clinics and found that all of them were located within 25 miles of a wildfire that had occurred within the prior 5 years. Yet among the 51 clinics that responded to a 2022 survey,just 47% reported that their clinic had a wildfire emergency preparedness plan.

The American Cancer Society does provide some guidance on how patients can prepare for a weather-related crisis, including having extra supplies of medications or special equipment on hand.

Still, providers are often in reaction mode when extreme weather strikes.

Without adequate clean water after Helene, leaders at Palmeri’s practice moved swiftly, purchasing 40,000-50,000 bottles of water and bringing in porta potties from elsewhere. 

“I think we were able to get things up and going very quickly,” said Palmeri, who noted that full services resumed about 10 days after the storm. “For most patients, missing a week of treatment would not do a disservice to their well-being or outcome.”

Going forward, to provide a more comprehensive strategy, Lichter is working with colleagues to develop clinical tool kits to help oncology practices and patients prepare for severe weather events, such as outlining backup treatment contingency plans, ensuring early medication refills, and boosting communication with patient alert systems.

Clinicians are also implementing their own strategies. To limit communication gaps during power outages, Palmeri said that, since Helene, his practice has made sure that their clinic sites, physicians, and other key people now have cell phone service through satellite via Starlink.

“No one has phone books anymore,” he said, so cancer clinicians should keep crucial contact information on paper, such as details about businesses that distribute water and porta potties, given that online searches may not be feasible.

Clinicians should also advise patients to keep a hard copy of recent medical findings handy, including medications and lab results, in case they arrive at an emergency room far from home and physicians can’t access their electronic health record, Bernicker said.

When there is enough advance warning of an approaching weather event, clinicians can help patients keep at least a week’s worth of medication on hand for symptom-related issues, such as nausea or pain, as well as antibiotics so patients don’t have to seek out emergency care during the crisis, Bernicker said. However, Bernicker noted, some insurers may be reluctant to fill certain prescriptions in advance, like those for opioids.

Making headway on more robust preparedness strategies may be slowed. As of March, the National Institutes of Health will no longer fund research about the health effects of climate change.

Bernicker hoped that such cutbacks would be rolled back. What’s on the line, he stressed, is maintaining the highest quality of care for patients with cancer.

“We really are in a golden age of oncology therapeutics,” he said. “We have patients living longer than anyone would have predicted 20 or 25 years ago. But all those advances are contingent on people having access to their centers and not having that interrupted.”

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

As Hurricane Helene approached western North Carolina, Martin Palmeri, MD, MBA, didn’t anticipate the storm would disrupt practice operations for more than a day or so.

But the massive rainfall and flooding damage last September proved to be far more challenging. Despite best efforts by the 13-physician practice, basic treatments for most patients were interrupted for about a week.

Flooding washed out some of the major roads leading to the main Asheville clinic and affiliated rural sites, limiting travel and slowing delivery of medications, intravenous (IV) fluids, and other supplies, Palmeri said. Some patients and employees weren’t initially reachable due to the loss of the internet and cell phone service. The storm-related fallout even forced patients to relocate elsewhere for weeks or longer.

During the storm, backup generators kept power on at the Asheville clinic, protecting chemotherapy and other refrigerated drugs, but the storm damaged the municipal water supply.

“Water was the number one thing — how do you get water to the office?” Palmeri said. “You can’t give someone an 8-hour infusion if they don’t have means of going to the toilet or having something to drink.”

Hurricanes. Wildfires. Heat waves. As climate-driven extreme weather has become more common, researchers, oncologists, and patients are increasingly being forced to consider the consequences of these disruptions.

Along with preventing patients and providers from reaching treatment sites, experts said, extreme weather can undercut patients’ health and care in other ways. Patients with more limited lung capacity following lung cancer surgery, for instance, may struggle with breathing during wildfires. Extreme heat can prove risky for patients already dehydrated or weakened by treatment-related side effects. Power outages and severe flooding can affect vital infrastructure, disrupting operations at facilities that manufacture essential drugs. Power outages can also impede radiotherapy, which requires machines powered by electricity.

“Any of these [weather] events can disrupt this critical cancer care continuum among a population of people that already are very vulnerable,” said Joan Casey, PhD, an environmental epidemiologist and associate professor at the University of Washington in Seattle.

 

Extreme Weather and Cancer Survival

For patients with cancer, survival often relies on highly regimented protocols, which may require surgery plus frequent visits for radiation, chemotherapy, or immunotherapy that can last months, said Eric Bernicker, MD, a Colorado oncologist and lead author of a 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology position statement about the impact of climate change on cancer care.

Interruptions to care, regardless of the cause, can lead to worse outcomes for patients, Bernicker said. “If you’re in the middle of your post-lumpectomy radiation and your radiation center shuts for 2 weeks,” he said, “that is not good.”

Research indicated that even short treatment disruptions can affect outcomes for patients with cancer and that delays caused by extreme weather — which may last for weeks — can affect survival for these patients.

One analysis, published in JAMA Oncology in 2023, found that patients exposed to wildfire within the first year after potentially curative lung cancer surgery had worse survival outcomes than those who weren’t exposed during their recovery.

In another study, patients with lung cancer who had their radiation interrupted when a hurricane struck had a 19% greater risk of dying overall compared with similar patients who were not affected. Another analysis found that patients with breast cancer who were partway through treatment when Hurricane Katrina hit the Louisiana coastline had a significantly greater risk of dying over a 10-year period compared with patients who lived elsewhere.

The potential threats to survival highlighted the impacts of extreme weather on carefully orchestrated systems of care that place patients facing already fragile situations in impossible binds, Casey said.

Douglas Flora, MD, a Kentucky oncologist and president-elect of the Association of Cancer Care Centers, Rockville, Maryland, agreed.

“We’ve seen this with an increasing frequency over the last several years,” Flora said. “It’s one thing if it’s routine follow-up or surveillance care, but many cancer patients’ survivals are directly related to not having interruptions in their care.”

 

Challenging Realities

Following Helene, the most pressing issue was the lack of water, Palmeri said.

The lack of reliable clean water created challenges for patients receiving radiation or chemotherapy infusions, which can cause vomiting and diarrhea that leave patients dehydrated. Toilets were also unusable.

Even when the city of Asheville said the water was likely safe enough to bathe in, local leaders still reported potential risks from bacteria and other contaminants in the water, Palmeri said. Those with a fragile immune system or breaks in the skin “could get serious and life-threatening infections,” he explained.

To make matters worse, damage to a North Carolina facility manufacturing IV fluids left the United States in shortage for months. IV fluids are key not only for providing hydration but also for easing nausea, fatigue, and other issues caused by cancer therapies.

With wildfires, as occurred in southern California early this year, patients undergoing cancer treatment might feel they have no option but to remain near home to continue getting care, Casey said. “It’s restricting their agency in the kinds of choices that they have to make during these severe weather events.”

Meanwhile, thick wildfire smoke can confine patients to their homes, said Lawrence Wagman, MD, a surgical oncologist and a regional medical director at the City of Hope network, who described its main facility in Duarte, California, coming within a dozen miles of the Eaton fire. “One of the biggest problems was so much smoke in the air,” he said. “And the air quality was so low that it was, in many ways, dangerous for patients to travel.”

“These fires were so aggressive, and they kept popping up,” Wagman said. Plus, the emotional strain of looming wildfires persisted for both patients and cancer clinicians for weeks on end, he added.

For those who evacuate, the logistics can be complex.

Not only are cancer treatment plans highly structured, but switching care to another facility is far from easy, Bernicker said. The new facility will likely need to submit a treatment plan and get insurance coverage before moving forward.

“I’m not saying that takes forever,” he said. “But what I’m saying is that it’s not like you just roll in and they hang the [infusion] bag.”

Neither is a shelter typically an option for patients during treatment, said Seth Berkowitz, a licensed clinical social worker and director of Strategic Healthcare Partnerships at The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. “They have to have a place to go that’s safe and germ-free.”

In western North Carolina, the strain on already ill patients and their caregivers could be overwhelming, Palmeri said. He recounted how the husband of one patient with advanced cancer died after the storm came through.

“He tried to go out there with a chainsaw to clear a way out so that they could get out of their house in case he needed to take her to the hospital,” Palmeri said. “And he had a heart attack there in the driveway.”

 

Rebuilding and Planning Ahead

Experts are only at the early stages of grasping the magnitude of extreme weather on cancer care and developing strategies to curtail care gaps and potential harm to patients, said Katie Lichter, MD, a radiation oncologist at the University of California San Francisco, who studies extreme weather and cancer treatment.

“How does it impact health care delivery services at every step, from prevention to screening to treatment and survivorship?” Lichter asked. “We’re just starting to understand and to even quantify that,” she said, which included identifying patients who are most vulnerable. She worries, in particular, about patients living in rural areas who already travel longer distances and often face more difficulties accessing care.

The gap between research and reality still looms large. A recent analysis, led by Lichter, looked at 176 California radiation oncology clinics and found that all of them were located within 25 miles of a wildfire that had occurred within the prior 5 years. Yet among the 51 clinics that responded to a 2022 survey,just 47% reported that their clinic had a wildfire emergency preparedness plan.

The American Cancer Society does provide some guidance on how patients can prepare for a weather-related crisis, including having extra supplies of medications or special equipment on hand.

Still, providers are often in reaction mode when extreme weather strikes.

Without adequate clean water after Helene, leaders at Palmeri’s practice moved swiftly, purchasing 40,000-50,000 bottles of water and bringing in porta potties from elsewhere. 

“I think we were able to get things up and going very quickly,” said Palmeri, who noted that full services resumed about 10 days after the storm. “For most patients, missing a week of treatment would not do a disservice to their well-being or outcome.”

Going forward, to provide a more comprehensive strategy, Lichter is working with colleagues to develop clinical tool kits to help oncology practices and patients prepare for severe weather events, such as outlining backup treatment contingency plans, ensuring early medication refills, and boosting communication with patient alert systems.

Clinicians are also implementing their own strategies. To limit communication gaps during power outages, Palmeri said that, since Helene, his practice has made sure that their clinic sites, physicians, and other key people now have cell phone service through satellite via Starlink.

“No one has phone books anymore,” he said, so cancer clinicians should keep crucial contact information on paper, such as details about businesses that distribute water and porta potties, given that online searches may not be feasible.

Clinicians should also advise patients to keep a hard copy of recent medical findings handy, including medications and lab results, in case they arrive at an emergency room far from home and physicians can’t access their electronic health record, Bernicker said.

When there is enough advance warning of an approaching weather event, clinicians can help patients keep at least a week’s worth of medication on hand for symptom-related issues, such as nausea or pain, as well as antibiotics so patients don’t have to seek out emergency care during the crisis, Bernicker said. However, Bernicker noted, some insurers may be reluctant to fill certain prescriptions in advance, like those for opioids.

Making headway on more robust preparedness strategies may be slowed. As of March, the National Institutes of Health will no longer fund research about the health effects of climate change.

Bernicker hoped that such cutbacks would be rolled back. What’s on the line, he stressed, is maintaining the highest quality of care for patients with cancer.

“We really are in a golden age of oncology therapeutics,” he said. “We have patients living longer than anyone would have predicted 20 or 25 years ago. But all those advances are contingent on people having access to their centers and not having that interrupted.”

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